Zeke_Mowatt

Hey now, that sounds way too much like reasonable analysis and ordinary fanhood. Back away from the kool-aid Joe, you must have succumbed to the "success" all these guys are talking about!

__________________
-Zeke-

My Favorite Article Ever...

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

MosiT

I think its very interesting, even if much of the data is incorrect, or partially incorrect and you should not be browbeaten for posting it. This is an open forum for Pats fans to post their opinions, their ideas and anything else that has validity or is informative.

Good attempt at a good topic, however it is probably one that is very difficult to be entirely accurate in.

And remember, the word \\\"starting\\\" in the NFL can be very deceptive. A player can be in for the first play of the game, be called a starter, and never step on the field again.

jeffbiologist

With 53+ players and 16+ games its safe to say some generalizations have to happen to make an arguement less than 50 pages long. Instead of the 8% of lower rd rookies to start the season, how about this one:
On average every 2 years there are 3 rookies that become starters for more than half a season. 2/3 of these are the first round picks...That more than half a season is put in there to kind of eliminate rookies that start due to injury. Of course trading high picks for established veterans will skew statistics, but how much? One starter out of every 44(22x2) is a rookie thats not a 1st rounder. Compare that to other successful teams is all I am saying.

Zeke_Mowatt

Name me one team that wouldn't trade their draft picks for our success? Compare to who? Who would you rather be for the past 7 years?

First and foremost, you are talking "rookie starters" which usually indicates a team that is bad or a team that loses lots of players to FA or cuts or trades...we are not that kind of team - we may lose 2-4 players to FA, and pick up 2-4 players in FA and draft 5-8 players in addition. Our rookies take a year or two to develop barring injury so your premise is inherently flawed and not the least bit viable. Arguing that based on rookie 'starting' we are not a successful draft team is short sighted to be polite and foolish to be more realistic. Sorry, but this is, again, a flawed argument based on your initial premise, and not the 'logic' you use to defend it.

__________________
-Zeke-

My Favorite Article Ever...

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

Deus Irae

Well, let's take a gander, shall we?

Offense:

QB: Brady.... no shot for a rookie there.
OL: Light..... All-Pro, Pro Bowl
C: Koppen.... low round rookie, Pro Bowl
LG: Mankins.... Pro Bowl
RG:Neal... undrafted F.A.
RT: Kaszur.... low round rookie
TE: Graham/Watson, both first round picks
WR: Branch, Givens, two low round picks, 1 Super Bowl MVP
RB: Maroney after Redmond

Defense:

Wilfork, after Washington: 'nuff said
Seymour: 'nuff said
Warren: 'nuff said
Green (just to add the 4th lineman): low round pick
Bruschi: Pro Bowler
Vrabel: Pro Bowler
Thomas: Pro Bowler
Colvin: Free agent who got injured, being replaced now
Samuel: low round pick, pro bowl
Hobbs: low round pick
Sanders: low round pick
Harrison: 2 time pro bowler

That's 11 of the 22 positions (I didn't count Green) that have been well manned by players drafted by New England below round 1, or found as UFAs, during the BB era:

Brady
Light
Koppen
Neal
Kaszur
Branch
Givens
Bruschi
Samuel
Hobbs
Sanders

and that's not even counting double players at the same spot (i.e. Ashworth at right tackle).

__________________
"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

Patslifer

No, you are a clearly talking out of your *****. Explain to us what the real reason behind all the hate for Belichick is?

Remember last year when everyone was howling how dumb it was to give up a second rounder for Welker? Who is laughing now, the idiots who ripped Beli, or the guy responsible for the best slot reciever in the NFL.

Belichick forgot more about football in the last 30 seconds than you will ever know. At least give the draft picks a chance to start before you pan them all

RayClay

That's good. Starting rookies is for losers.

__________________

RayClay

I thought he meant from day one. I knew Seynour.

Is the OP saying starting rookies is good? LOL!! Wow!!

Hobbs only started because it was an emergency. BB resisted starting him until Starks had an arm hanging on one side and was hopping on one leg.

You know who starts rookies? Bottom feeders.

One, because they suck and they have to, two because the new shiny rookies will sell a few tickets before the suckitude overtakes their season.

I would love to have zero rookies starting until year two.

That would mean our team was awesome and our youngsters polished, hungry and straining their leashes!

__________________