jeffbiologist

I thought it was well known that when he came in as a rookie he was out of shape(never said fat) and that is a common cause for hamstring injuries. And if you have to go back 15 years to come up with Ty Law.....See, I remember RB Floyd, WR Mcmurtry, and I see whats happened to other teams (Terell,Henson,Howard, Wheatley, etc). Is it me or are there more "percieved" busts than there are non-busts? There is Hutchinson, Brady, and a few others. For every Harris there is a Branch, for every Edwards there is a Biankabatuka(sp?). There are alot of prospects in this draft relative to their record I think you would agree, and players like Manningham seem to be more common.
I guess its also out of frustration looking at the 2nd day boards of teams like the Ravens. To me it seems like some teams bring in players for competition but we bring them in for fodder. I wonder aloud if we cant do it a better way, I am not a zombie in BB we trust. And I can see why Tuna finds it alot more challenging to be on a new team every few years, because of all the holes there are to fill. I worry about the fact that we now have holes again that we still remember how to build and not just manage.

spacecrime

He didn't look out of shape to me. I guess it was only well known to the people to whom is it well known that BB/SP have a terrible track record in hte draft and to whom it is well known that all players from Michigan are busts and too whom it is well known that hamstring injuries are caused by being out of shape.

Sheesh, what is it with all the haters coming out of the closet the past couple of days, anyway?

Who in their right mind can dispute that the Pats are the best team in hte league, with the best FO and coaching staff?

DarrylS

Guess 18-1 means nothing, BB is getting old and feeble.. SP wants his father in law to be successful in Miami.. and Bob Kraft does not care.

Without regard, whether or not you start does not mean an awful lot on this team, particularly on Defense... this teams uses a lot of rotations on the D-line, D-backfield and for the LB's.. although the roster might say they are a starter, that player might play less than 1/2 half of the downs dependent on the situation.

I hardly think that this is the criteria for judging whether or not a draft is successful depends on how many start.. the other considerations, is that we are loaded and deep so there are not a lot of openings on this team..

Patrick Willis started for San Fran last year, had a good year, but in reality he would have been someone who was rotated in for this team.. so who starts means crap..

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

JDSal45

Randall Gay.

J D Sal

jeffbiologist

Look, I am not a hater, but we all like playing GMs and we all know there are things that can be done better. This isnt a circle jerk. This is my point:
We draft first round picks to START(essentially GIVING them jobs)-7/8(88%) first round picks started day 1....
Now we have had 63 picks from 2-7 in the last 7 years. I also know we are a great team, and there is a limited number of spots....but only 5/63(8%) of these guys were given the same opportunity. Talent, sure, has alot to do with it. But just look at the ODDS, look back at the teams.....these are MY conclusions:
We draft for NEED in round 1, and that historically has never worked out for any other team. I wonder if it isnt just our superior COACHING rather than superior DRAFTING that is making these players look alot better than they are. Why do I have a feeling that BB could swap spots with Dungy, Del Rio, Timlin or even a lesser team and BEAT US? Am I alone?

Deus Irae

Neither Maroney nor Watson was a real 'need' pick, just to name the first two that come to mind.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

makoute

Didn't Mankins start?

__________________

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

NE39

Low-rounder rookies don't often become starters, expecially on a good team.

David Givens is another late-rounder that started and became a good player.

Deion Branch became a starter as a rookie.

Then there is the QB. Brady, I think?

One of the biggest problem the Pats have in recent years is they have been a real good team. Not many rookies are going to crack the starting lineup, especially right away.

JoeSixPat

It's really a shame that Belichick has had such a solid corps of veterans who have been so good that so few of them have given up their jobs to rookies in year one.

For a long time I thought that was a strength. It's clear that I was wrong - I see it was a weakness now - though in my defense, my perception might have been tainted by 3 Super Bowls and 4 Super Bowl appearances since 2001.

__________________

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

jeffbiologist

FYI--These statistics incorporate the bad team that BB inherited as well as the last 3 teams that didnt win the SB. The statistics are similar despite how good or bad we were. I am not being a critic, and we all know all about the successes....but on draft weekend its about percentages. For every Brady there are 5 Bishops. I am an old guy, I like old guys too.....but just because my eyes(and mind) are open I dont need to be called chicken little,lol. I mean dont you think that the 8% vs 88% is significant? I know more than half can easily be throw out justifiably...but I am suggesting that there is a "system" more or less. And if I am wrong(I ok with it) dont just call me names, have an intelligent arguement to prove it. Thanks for all of your time.