I hope this is reasonable to put into it's own thread. If not, please put it in the other threads... but I'm just very curious about the the "no-more-red-flag-players" policy can actually play. Maybe it just results in self-inflicted mind-games, but it's fun to speculate.
Basically, I'm curious what type of head games the consequences of the M. McDowell pick had on the front office.
Maybe they can think they could do something different with Carter that they failed to do with McDowell. Like a parent trying to fix their guilt or fix their past by doing something new.
Like how much does the "no-more-red-flag-players" policy play against that "I want to fix my past perceived mistakes by turning red flags into assets... (i.e. situation of turning negative press into positive/locker room promoting chip-on-your-shoulder mentality, etc.)
The chip-on-your-shoulder mentality has been fostered here before.
Is there sufficient data to determine that it likely will or won't work again?
Would McDowell-based red flag policy be perceived as a rational deterrent from picking Carter or an emotional one?
Basically, I'm curious what type of head games the consequences of the M. McDowell pick had on the front office.
Maybe they can think they could do something different with Carter that they failed to do with McDowell. Like a parent trying to fix their guilt or fix their past by doing something new.
Like how much does the "no-more-red-flag-players" policy play against that "I want to fix my past perceived mistakes by turning red flags into assets... (i.e. situation of turning negative press into positive/locker room promoting chip-on-your-shoulder mentality, etc.)
The chip-on-your-shoulder mentality has been fostered here before.
Is there sufficient data to determine that it likely will or won't work again?
Would McDowell-based red flag policy be perceived as a rational deterrent from picking Carter or an emotional one?