AndyJohnson

I think it would interesting to get the opinions of many posters of the quality of the projected starters for the Pats. (We can do reserves later if the thread is a success)

To make it somewhat easy, let's use the same, easy to quantify scale.
Rankings are based upon comparison to all NFL starters at their position. For QB,RB,C,TE, it would be compared to the other 31 starters. For T,G,DE,CB,S it would be out of 64.
Since 3 WRs are so common WRs should be compared to the 96 top 3 WRs.
ILB/MLB and NT/DT would be compare to all players starting in either scheme.

The rating system is percentile (if we all remember from our school days)
Scale is 1 to 100. If you are the worst starter in the NFL you are a 1. If you are the best, a 100. A 50 means you are better than the same amount of starters you are worst than. 80 means you are better than 4 of 5 starters at your position and 1 of 5 are better than you.

I'm going to start with a handful of offensive players, so the debate doesnt get all over the page.

Brady should be easy. He is clearly 100. I think there is going to be no debate.
Lets start with him, plus the WR/TEs. If the thread is successful ultimately we can expand it to all the starters.

My ratings
Brady 100
Welker 90
Ochocinco 75
Branch 65
Gronk 70

I'm including 3 WRs and 1 TE as starters. Its hard to include Hernandez because he is more a '3rd down TE' than a starter.

Post your ratings and we can see what consensus we can arrive at.

strngplyr

I can't argue with Brady or Welker. Wouldn't change those.

Ochocinco - 80
Gronkowski - 80 (+?) (gronk has one of the best all-around tight end skill sets ive seen recently)
Branch - 70 (depends on his QB, maybe a 65 is right, but with his chemistry with brady i'd elevate him)

AndyJohnson

We are very close.
As for Gronk the difference between 70 and 80 would be 70 says there are about 9 better TEs, and 80 says there are about 6.
I think experience and doing it for more than 1 year probably accounts for that gap.

AndyJohnson

bump.....no one interested?

Shockt327

Wilfork - 98.4375%

McCourtey - 96.875%

BJGE - 50%

patriot lifer

How about some that could stir more lively debate?

BJGE (compared to other starters) - 50
Danny Woodhead (Compared to #2 Rb's) - 75
Tate (compared to #3 WR's exclusively) - 25

Defense:
Sanders - 60
Meriweather - 70

__________________
2013 Season:

Nate Solder (6'8" 320 lbs)
Seabass (6'8" 320 lbs)
Rob Gronkowski (6'6" 265 lbs)
Jake Ballard (6'6" 275 lbs)
Logan Mankins (6'4" 320 lbs) (100% recovered)
Dan Connolly (6'4" 320 lbs)
Marcus Cannon (6'5" 340 lbs) (Switch to Guard??)

RB: Ridley, Vereen, Washington, Bolden

BradyFTW!

Brady- 100
Welker- 90
Ochocinco- 80
Branch- 50
Gronkowski- 80
BJGE- 30
Light- 70
Mankins- 100
Koppen- 50
Connolly- 25
Vollmer- 90

Wilfork- 95 (100 in a 3-4, probably little less in a 4-3)
Haynesworth- 85
Cunningham- 50
Moore- 30
Mayo- 90
Guyton- 45
Spikes- 40
Ninkovich- 30
Fletcher- 30 (hard to really say who the starters are if we move to a 4-3?)
McCourty- 90
Bodden- 80
Meriweather- 75
Chung- 80
Sanders- 65

I'm sure I'm wrong on a bunch of em, just guesstimating.

ctpatsfan77

I'll have more later, but I have to say, GRONK is at least a 90, and by season's end could well be a 100.

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

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

AndyJohnson

That really is the point though. Get everyone to give their impressions and see where the consensus and biggest disagreements are.

HomerSchooled

Oooooh. This should be fun.

I think our receivers are pretty overrated on these boards. If 50 means average for a starter, than Branch should be thought of as 50-60. Almost every team in the NFL has at least one receiver better than him, and many have two. He obviously benefits a lot from a rapport for Brady. If 50 were average for a player rather than a starter, then yeah, maybe 70 would be about right.

As for Welker, maybe he was a 90 when he was playing his best ball in 2009, but now? Going into 2011, I think there's at least 10 receivers I'd be significantly more confident in, and then 10 more that are about equal. Solely off his play last year, he'd be about a 60. I think he'll be better, so for me, that puts him around 70-80. Good, but nowhere near top tier.

Ocho... at his best, he would have been a 90 maybe. I'm hoping he can be a 70 type receiver for us. There's very little to go off. I guess he performed better than could be expected last year given his situation.

I think I'll split up my thoughts thusly:
100: Brady
90s: Wilfork, McCourty (for real), Vollmer (for RT), Mankins
80s: Haynesworth, Mayo, Gronk
70s: Welker, Chung, Merriweather, Bodden, Wright, Ochocinco, Hernandez, Light
60s: Spikes, Cunningham, Branch, Koppen, Connolly
50s: Moore

I kind of look at it like this: 90s is All-Pro, top 5 type player. 80s is someone who should make some pro bowls. 70s is a good player, someone who will make a couple pro bowls with some luck or if the team overperforms. 60s is someone you don't have have qualms with being on the field. 50s is someone you'd rather replace. Anything below is an obvious weakness, someone who's going to hurt you if they're a starter.