Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RF2044, post: 3847928, member: 40"] It doesn't matter what you're arguing for -- it's an unrealistic point of view. In a perfect fantasy world, every recruit we bring in upgrades the talent base, they aren't rushed onto the field / have time to learn the system, they patient wait behind more experienced players, and then when their time comes to hit the field their readiness is optimized to make them contributors. But that isn't the way things work in reality for a program like ours. Not every recruit / player pans out. And even if they ARE guys the staff would like to keep around, players have agency to decide for themselves whether to stay or go -- and now with the restriction of having to sit out a year lifted, the compulsion to head for greener pastures is consequence free for players. Some get homesick. Some decide that they want to transfer closer to home. Some decide to go down a level in search of more bountiful PT. And every once in awhile, someone who is a contributor [example - Hackett] decides to leave, too. And no amount of handwringing is going to change that there will be player departures every off-season -- some expected, some unexpected. And some of those guys may have been guys who would have emerged as contributors, while others might not. There isn't a poster on here who doesn't want improved depth. Most recognize that we aren't a factory, and that development is key. But holding places for dead weight is counterproductive. And lamenting those that leave is similarly worthless. The "risk" vis a vis roster management of guys leaving is that we can replace them. OF COURSE, who we replace them WITH determines whether we traded up or down. I honestly don't think our opinions are that far off. It's why I always shake my head when I see posters' plan of attack for filling a key position of need with -- "let's go get some JUCOs." [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?