It says you're not willing to play the best talent no matter what. It says to a team that you favor certain things over simply getting the very best players on the field and winning games. As if you have an agenda to stick to.

It's going to be great news if Tanner can come out and be the best guy. But if he isn't, you can't make a good argument as a coach to your team or to future recruits to play the guy who isn't #1.

And same with the flip side. You can't play a kid because he's got the high ceiling, but he's not close to ready yet. It doesn't matter what he will be in the future. You have to win now. You have to play the best now.

Neither option makes any sense. There's a clear, simple answer here. The only place it might get muddy is when you're looking at a particular skill set with players who may be viewed as close overall, and how it might match up with your plan. Then again, good coaches are personnel coaches. They can adjust things to fit their personnel, rather than trying to force their personnel to fit a certain thing. You have to weigh it all and see what comes out on top. The decision making, the ball security, the leadership, the arm, etc all added up. Who has the most of what, and which ones matter the most? What gives you the best chance to win?