- Messages
- 79,278
- Reaction score
- 45,637
April 16, 2008 4:12 PM
Posted by ESPN.com's Pat Yasinskas
While working on a story about former Commanders receiver Michael Westbrook, I kept thinking about how much emphasis is put on potential.
Westbrook was all about potential when Washington made him the fourth overall pick in the 1995 draft. He was big, strong and fast, but he never came close to being the player everyone expected. It makes you wonder about the millions of dollars NFL teams spend on scouting each year. Every team tries to outdo the others in this area and, maybe, they're taking the concept of potential way too far.
Sure, you'll hit some home runs that way. But you'll also strike out a lot. The whole issue of potential reminds me of an admission former Tampa Bay general manager Rich McKay made about a year after the Bucs took fullback Mike Alstott in the second round of the 1996 draft.
McKay startled some media members when he said that the Bucs took Alstott even though the front office and coaches thought he had no potential. The thinking was that Alstott was as good as he was going to get and he was already a very good football player.
That was a pretty precise summary of Alstott, who retired this off-season. He had no potential, but he gave the Bucs a very solid decade of play. If teams put more emphasis on past production than potential, they'd hit more doubles to the gap.
NFL draft, Michael Westbrook, Mike Alstott, Rich McKay
Read comments or leave a commenttry{profile.cc.add("hashmarks-blog-0-6-121");}catch(e){}
Posted by ESPN.com's Pat Yasinskas
While working on a story about former Commanders receiver Michael Westbrook, I kept thinking about how much emphasis is put on potential.
Westbrook was all about potential when Washington made him the fourth overall pick in the 1995 draft. He was big, strong and fast, but he never came close to being the player everyone expected. It makes you wonder about the millions of dollars NFL teams spend on scouting each year. Every team tries to outdo the others in this area and, maybe, they're taking the concept of potential way too far.
Sure, you'll hit some home runs that way. But you'll also strike out a lot. The whole issue of potential reminds me of an admission former Tampa Bay general manager Rich McKay made about a year after the Bucs took fullback Mike Alstott in the second round of the 1996 draft.
McKay startled some media members when he said that the Bucs took Alstott even though the front office and coaches thought he had no potential. The thinking was that Alstott was as good as he was going to get and he was already a very good football player.
That was a pretty precise summary of Alstott, who retired this off-season. He had no potential, but he gave the Bucs a very solid decade of play. If teams put more emphasis on past production than potential, they'd hit more doubles to the gap.
NFL draft, Michael Westbrook, Mike Alstott, Rich McKay
Read comments or leave a commenttry{profile.cc.add("hashmarks-blog-0-6-121");}catch(e){}
...and I don't necessarily disagree. I do, however, think the two players I've pointed out are in that median.