dice wrote:you are basically describing guys who play like taylor or worse for a brief period of time, get cut, and don't get repeated chances because of their draft position
Demonstrably not true. Taylor plaid serious snaps for 3 years and started a bunch of games. That is not the same as a guy who can't make a roster. Nor is it the same as a guy who makes a roster but doesn't play regularly or only on special teams, nor is it the same of a guy who is on the roster and just occasionally plays in a bench role.
Fundamentally, I think I just view Taylor as having more potential positive impact to you. He had the pedigree that people thought he could be a high impact player. He clearly had moments of high impact in specific situations, that seems like a guy who maybe in the right circumstance used in the right way could be a good rebound candidate.
You seem really hung up on the PFF grades, and while I do think PFF grades are about as good as you can find about a player readily available, I don't put that much faith in them to be the be all end all like you have.
Ignoring PFF grades, the Bears may have seen something on tape in the way he plays where they feel he's a good fit for what they want to do and solves a need they have. Through one game, he's made a monster impact on our team and so that analysis may be quite correct.
except that i didn't say anything nearly that broad. it is a specific situation where a trading team that is well familiar with the player they're trading preferred prospects with virtually no resume (or even a draft history in one case). they had seen more than enough of taylor
Literally every team is familiar with the player they are trading. Again, it's just a broad sweeping statement then that any guy given up a low value asset for sucks because the team trading him took an irrelevant asset. Maybe Seattle didn't like Taylor in their scheme, maybe a change of scenery helps, maybe he had a personality conflict with the coach, who knows.
There are many reasons that one team may choose to take a risk on a guy another team didn't like and pay varying rates for it. The trade market is just based on two teams with different needs or evaluations.
he certainly has had a very positive impact for 1 game for this team. my very minor concern is the potential negative impact it has on one or more future teams that are better positioned to do something special
Maybe, but if the coaching staff thinks he is better than our other choices, then even if he plays poorly, he's probably still better than what we'd have had otherwise (or the staff is dumb and just playing the wrong guys). The fact that we played him and acquired him though would seem to point to the obvious conclusion that we think he's better than alternative choices.
