Saints Inactives (3 Viewers)

[TribuneUK]

You think it's acceptable for the 40th pick in the draft to be a healthy scratch? As in, he's not even good enough to be considered a backup at this point.

That's absolutely unacceptable for a team that wants to compete through the draft. There's not a SINGLE player selected after him in the 2nd that is also a healthy scratch. He's the only one. The next healthy scratch is an Eagles OT in the 3rd and reports out of camp he's awful.

That's not to say he won't grow into a starter (hopefully) and there might be one or two examples of this happening but there's definitely reason to panic.

It's not unacceptable. Panic is in no way warranted. You're just overreacting and it's a hot take. You sound like a parent at a high school game.

Meachem was inactivated his first game, as has been pointed it. He was a first round pick. The team still 'competed through the draft' and went on to become a SB team that he was a significant part of. But by your logic he was unacceptable. Nonsense.

 

[WhoDat?DrewDat]

It's not unacceptable. Panic is in no way warranted. You're just overreacting and it's a hot take. You sound like a parent at a high school game.

Meachem was inactivated his first game, as has been pointed it. He was a first round pick. The team still 'competed through the draft' and went on to become a SB team that he was a significant part of. But by your logic he was unacceptable. Nonsense.

Meachem was inactive because he hurt his knee and had to have arthroscopic surgery, he was NOT a healthy scratch. Your own example doesn't fit.

 

[TribuneUK]

Meachem was inactive because he hurt his knee and had to have arthroscopic surgery, he was NOT a healthy scratch. Your own example doesn't fit.

Well that's a very fair point that I wasn't aware of. Thanks for clarifying. But regardless, it's an overreaction to say not being active in your first game as a rookie is unacceptable.

But ultimately these are just our (differing) opinions.

 

[Saintaholik]

Four wide receivers active is typical. Very seldom ever go more than that.

Yes obviously, but my point is this

We have 1 WR who really hasn't played in 3 years bc of injury, and another who missed all of camp. Not to mention being down Alvin as well due to suspension.

2 weird falls and we were going to be in a really difficult position.

I don't know if I would have taken that risk, due to the recent durability issues of that position group.

I understand why they did

They did it bc of ST, but still kind of a risk with the recent history of our WR room.

Don't know if I would have taken that same risk, but I guess that's why I'm not paid the big bucks

 

[saintmike23]

Foskey... yikes

High 2nd round draft pick being inactive and not due to injury is just unacceptable.

I wanted O’Cyrus Torrence there

He’s starting for the Bills tomorrow

 

[livefromDC]

Yes obviously, but my point is this

We have 1 WR who really hasn't played in 3 years bc of injury, and another who missed all of camp. Not to mention being down Alvin as well due to suspension.

2 weird falls and we were going to be in a really difficult position.

I don't know if I would have taken that risk, due to the recent durability issues of that position group.

I understand why they did

They did it bc of ST, but still kind of a risk with the recent history of our WR room.

Don't know if I would have taken that same risk, but I guess that's why I'm not paid the big bucks

That's true any game ever, yes? Saints went into the game with 4 healthy WRs. The risk of injury is always there, but you still have to manage the over all depth.

 

[Saintscuffy]

Meachem was inactive because he hurt his knee and had to have arthroscopic surgery, he was NOT a healthy scratch. Your own example doesn't fit.

also was out of shape

 

[madsaint1967]

He's the fifth DE. We aren't going to carry five in to the game. Little bit of overreaction in this thread.

Now he's the 4th DE with injury to Turner(again). We'll see what he's got next week.

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

I expect the 40th pick in the draft, if healthy, to contribute and not be an inactive when the season begins. Combine the poor camp reports, the poor preseason games against backup players, the inactive listing, and the fact he played at a major college and not a small school, and the lights are flashing bright yellow.

Something I have noticed over the years--high draft picks who are healthy and who truly disappoint in year one tend to be bad draft picks. Can you find exceptions--exclude quarterbacks? I am sure you can. But right now I believe the organization wishes they could make the 40th pick all over again--and that is not a good sign.

 

[IceHot]

First round picks are different, especially at a skill position. Doesn’t matter how good you are they’re going to make plays.

But after that if your rookies are beating out your vets you likely weren’t a good team to begin with.

No team has ever been a 2nd or 3rd round pick away from a Championship.

You see it every year and you’ll see it again this year, teams in the playoff hunt will make a trade for a player that they think can get them over the line because they know that pick next year is unlikely to make the team.

Not really...

Of the 57 SB Champions 21 had a 1st round draft pick as a primary non-ST starter. 25 of those teams had at least one non 1st round rookie as a primary non-ST starter. Only 33 of the 57 teams had one or more Rookie Impact Starters.

Rookie performance isnt that important in winning championships, but it does create the foundation for consistency that places you on the championship path.

*I ve been tracking this for several years now

**The 74 Steelers for example had Lambert as a primary starter but Stallworth and Swan contributed more as ST players and not as primary pass catching options (Swann was the first round pick Lambert the 2nd)