Deus Irae

Some people here might be worth it. You're definitely not on that list. You're just a troll who's survived because you're more about posting nonsense than about open hostility.

__________________
When it comes to the Koolaid, take sips not chugs.

There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Absurdly Metro

I decided to have some fun with this question and compare each Patriots team using some kind of standard with which to measure talent. To do this I began by ranking the individual starters in each position group across all three phases of the game and then averaged a final score for the whole team.

Each player was scored using the following ranking system according to what I perceived his talent level to be at that time...

1. Fail: (Scrub caliber player-what's this guy doing in the NFL??!!)
2. Bad: (Way below average caliber- garbage time only please!)
3. Liability: (Below average caliber back-up- limited PT and needs protection)
4. JAG: (Average caliber NFL back-up or below average starter- journeyman)
5. Starter: (Average caliber NFL starter)
6. Good: ( Above average caliber NFL starter for a short time- < 5 years)
7. Great: (Above average caliber NFL starter fora long time- 5+ years)
8. All Pro: (Recognized as a dominant caliber NFL starter)
9. HOFer: (Headed for Canton or already there)
10. GOAT: (In the argument for Greatest of All Time)

Here are the results:





Obviuosly this is all subjective and my memory may be faulty with some players or biased toward others. Feel free to help me adjust it where you think I might be off.

__________________

TriplecHamp

Cool now Im a troll because I state the non objective truth...Friggin Homers piss me off

__________________
In New York we smoke Phillies! Sign Jason Bay. “I know how important it is. I've been working really hard, trying to get better every day. I'm trying to learn as much as possible.”
-Tim Tebow

Deus Irae

Some quick notes, since you asked:

The special teams doesn't work if you just carry over your evaluations of them as starters. Hobbs is one of the best in the NFL as a returner. He's not even close to being just a 5 at that position.

Meggett's rated too high.

The 5 year requirement is a bad way to evaluate. 2007 Wilfork is only a 6 based upon that, despite his being an elite 3-4 NT that season.

I don't want to nitpick everything right off the bat, so let me offer those up for your perusal.

__________________
When it comes to the Koolaid, take sips not chugs.

There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BradyFTW!

Damn, how long did that take? Cool idea, definitely. Looking at the 2007 team, there are a couple of points where I disagree a little:

Mankins as a 6 and Neal as a 5- We saw what happened in the SB when Mankins had a bad game and Neal got hurt. Personally, I'd rank them both at least a point higher.

Welker as a 7- had the most catches in the NFL, probably the best slot receiver in the league.You're probably going to argue that he was pretty much feeding off of Moss, which is fine--I disagree with it, but that's one that we're probably not going to settle on anytime soon. Also, putting Welker as a 7 goes against your 6/7 distinction

Asante Samuel, IMO, should have been an 8 in 2007. And, as Deus mentioned, Ellis is much better than a 5 as a KR.


Mostly, though, for the way that it's being applied, there seem to be 2 assumptions that I don't agree with:

1) That the averages work out: i.e., that having a 5 and a 9 is equivalent to having two 7s.

2) That positions are equally important: having a 10 at QB and a 5 at C is the same as having a 10 at C and a 5 at QB.

All in all, though, I think the fundamental premise of it is really cool, and definitely a really interesting way to attack this issue.

Absurdly Metro

Thanks for the comments. I thought twice about doing this because I was afraid nobody would notice and I'd have wasted my time. Turned out it was fun anyway so it wouldn;t have mattered. But thanks for the feedback. How can I make it better--more accurate?

I agree about the special teams btw. Good point. Agreed about Hobbs as well. Bethel probably deserves a little more love based purely on his talents in the kick return game too. He averaged 28 years in 2003 IIRC.

Believe it or not I had the same thought about the longevity measurement and almost didn't use it. How would you differentiate between good and great without making it absolutely subjective? That's what I was having trouble with.

Thanks man! Took me about three hours over a couple days. To your points...

Re: Mankins and Neal. I think the chart might be a little hard to read. I saved it in low res to keep the file sizes down. Mankins is actually ranked a 7 and Neal a 6 not a 6 and 5 as you replied.

Re: Welker. I tried not to use their after the fact stats in my ratings and base it purely on talent and ability alone. I agree that Welker's 2007 season rates an 8 or more in terms of his performance but my argument would be that he is indeed a 7 at that point in his career and simply played over his head. I didn;t realize I goofed on the years thing. Thanks for pointing that out. As mentioned above, I don't think that's a very good way to distinguish between good and great. Any ideas?

Re: Asante and Ellis. Agreed. Putting Asante at an 8 and Ellis at 7 for KR chnges the overall score for the 2007 team to 6.47 vaulting them momentarily into first place. However if we're going to adjust Ellis as a KR we probably should do the same thing for that one trick pony Bethel Johnson in 2003-2004. Raising Bethel to a 6 puts the 2004 squad back on top overall at 6.57. Just one tenth of a point difference.

Re: Averages and counting all positions as equal. I actually didn't think of either of those. I suppose we could weight certain positions (such as QB and LT on offense and CB, OLB, DL on defense) to count as a higher percentage of the whole. Not sure what to do about the averaging though. How would you do it?

Hey, thanks for the input guys.

__________________

Chevy

-The 85 starting O-line was Holloway-Hannah-Brock-Wooten-Moore
-Don Blackmon deserves a 7 ... His play that year was top-notch, but without the flair of Tippett. Stout against the run and excellent in coverage.


That said ... Wow! nice work ....

RayClay

Sorry old chap. Ronnie Lippett 9, Ray Clayborn 7 is an epic fail. Law 7 too? Either you thought Lippett was Haynes, or your name's Lippett.

I might go 9-10 for Haynes and 8-9 for Law and Clayborn. If 7 is great, you can't really give Lippet more than 6, he was a good solid player, not great.

Nothing against Ronnie, he had a fine career especially for an 8th rounder, even snagging a big int number one year, but the other three are some of the best cornerbacks of the era.

Thanks for the work though. Pretty hard to rate players.

AzPatsFan

Once again I am not concerned with History. I am like Brady and consider the Next team and th Next Super bowl, more important. Fortunately, the upcoming 2009 edition f the Patriots appears to be the strongest of the decade, and that includes the 2007 16-0 team. 2007 didn't have a Galloway opposite Moss, nor the stable of RBs, nor the depth at O-line. Nor the overall speed of the 2009 edition on Defense.

When they play the games we will find out if this prognosis, shared by Vegas, and others beside myself, like Deon, is correct.

Where would you rate the 2009 prospective edition among the top ten Patriots teams?

HEY BRO! WHAT UP?

That was my favorite defense to watch in the BB era. In fact, their pass defense was so good that year, I was shocked if they didn't get a pick when it was 3rd down. Tyrone Poole and Law were the best tandem in the NFL that year. Although he struggled in the super bowl, Tyrone Poole played out of his skull that year. Teams tried to throw deep on him all year long but failed. Although they gave up 21 points per game, they notched 41 sacks and picked off a league leading 29 passes. This is the kind of defense that wins you super bowls.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.