Is it just me or does anyone else find it ironic that when giving evaluations of players that have seen little to no game action (Jerry Hughes, Jacques meclendon, Jamie Thomas et. al.) people often make statements that parallel the line of thought that "if you haven't seen him there's a reason" meaning that they believe that because they haven't played they aren't good enough to do so.
Thats not the ironic part, the irony is that these are the same people that will turn around and criticize the coaching staff for one of a dozen things, but not, not playing these players.
These are the same people that are declaring a 22 year old a "flop" after one NFL season.
So you say the coaching staff sucks? And the coaching staff decides who plays? And (insert player here) didn't get to play much, so clearly he sucks?
That just doesn't work for me. Now could it be that Jerry Hughes, Jacques, and Jamie just aren't the players that BP thought they would be? Yep. Completely possible. But to read what people write here its completely illogical.
Personally I think that this coaching staff has greatly mismanaged games and situations, I have no reason to think that they wont mess up personal decisions also. That said I don't think Jacques is the second coming of Bruce Matthews, he could be, but I'm not sold. And I'm not sure if Jerry Hughes will ever be as good as Robert Mathis or Dwight but I believe he is far from a failure at 22 years old.