It's not 20/20 to most.Cheb wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:49 amIt's just giving Trask the benefit of a doubt. And given that less than 1% of posters here don't attend training camp practices to watch him love and form their own opinions, anyone who is slinging mud around here is either playing hindsight with positional needs and/or has unrealistic expectations.
The hindsight positional griping is bothersome to me. Could we have used a second round corner last year, obviously. Did we know that at the time during and around the draft, of course not; we were returning all three young starting corners from a Superbowl-winning defense. Why would we draft a second round corner to sit on the bench and play special teams? Because at the time, drafting a corner would have been a poor decision.
It's no different than those who refuse to get off Creed Humphrey's jock (who was taken before our pick in the second round in any case, and we drafted Hainsey to replace Jensen in the third to address the same need).
Anyone can play the 20/20 positional needs game. It doesn't make you smart or clever -- it makes you bitter and small-minded.
They said prior to the draft that we lacked and needed additional depth...particularly at CB and offensive line. Especially in the all-in scenario that we are in.
A player at one of those positions was seen as more beneficial to the run we were on and many are just stating that everything is backing that original opinion. Many said at the time that even if Trask could be a viable back-up and eventually a starter, a second round pick would have been more valuable, considering the state of the franchise, at one of those positions.
They weren't and aren't wrong. Those that wanted us to groom a QBoTF weren't wrong either...many of those were questionable about Trask himself, but both concepts are logical and aren't inherently emotional or reactionary.