Player Ratings

[Ring 6]

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)

 

[Ring 6]

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)

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.

 

[Ring 6]

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

 

[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.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

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.

 

[BlueThunder]

Not sure I understand how Moore is rated so low by some.......

He only started 4 games and was in on 14 tackles and had 2 sacks...project that thru 16 games and it works out to 56 and 8 sacks......I think there will be a synergystic effect with AH and Vince playing along the DL.....my guess would be the Pats D will have alot more sacks than last year and if Moore is their, his numbers could escalate substantially....can't really project because we don't know how long it will take to integate the new D alignments with the new faces, but I will be surprised if the second half of the season we don't see a well oiled D rolling into the playoffs.....( assumes the D isn't riddled with injuries).....

Just My Homeristic Opinion

 

[Ring 6]

Not sure I understand how Moore is rated so low by some.......

He only started 4 games and was in on 14 tackles and had 2 sacks...project that thru 16 games and it works out to 56 and 8 sacks......I think there will be a synergystic effect with AH and Vince playing along the DL.....my guess would be the Pats D will have alot more sacks than last year and if Moore is their, his numbers could escalate substantially....can't really project because we don't know how long it will take to integate the new D alignments with the new faces, but I will be surprised if the second half of the season we don't see a well oiled D rolling into the playoffs.....( assumes the D isn't riddled with injuries).....

Just My Homeristic Opinion

Its kind of hard to take a guy who played 4 games, give him credit for 4times what he produced and say he is better than guys who have been starting in the league. I'd rate him around a 5 or 10 at this point, which would mean there are 3-7 starting NFL DEs that he is a better player than.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

I think you missed the description. At WR we are counting the top 3, since the 3rd WR is essentially a starter. So thats out of 96. So if you think there are 10 better and 10 equal to Welker he would be around 85 or so. My opinion though is that he was the #1 receiver in the NFL for 3 years before catching 80some while not 100% so I put him pretty high.
I also cant see Moore being better than half the starting DEs in the league.

 

[HomerSchooled]

I think you missed the description. At WR we are counting the top 3, since the 3rd WR is essentially a starter. So thats out of 96. So if you think there are 10 better and 10 equal to Welker he would be around 85 or so. My opinion though is that he was the #1 receiver in the NFL for 3 years before catching 80some while not 100% so I put him pretty high.
I also cant see Moore being better than half the starting DEs in the league.

To say there's 96 full time starters at WR in the NFL is a little extreme, I think, especially when you're separating TEs. Let's split the difference and say there's 80. I'm probably being too harsh on Welker, but he was 29th in the league last year in receiving yards, and not in the top 100 for YPR. He was 21st in TDs, and even that was kind of anomalous. I think he'll improve, but not necessarily in his statistical totals. Given his age and injury history, I don't think he's a top 15 guy, and a non-Patriot fan could easily argue he's not top 20 or even 30. To me, it's kind of hard to give him an 'A' type grade, but I do think he's right on the precipice as sort of late 70s type dude.

Moore, I agree, is likely a below average DE/OLB, but I couldn't say with confidence there would be 32 guys out there playing his role that are better than him. I also cut the youth some slack. Maybe I'm being too academic about this. I actually did an exercise like this a while ago using letter grades, and that's kind of how I thought about it in my head here. Seemed cruel to think of every non-starter in the league as sporting a failing grade.

 

[jeffbiologist]

I think its funny how some people rate players with rose colored glasses. Moore cant possibly be higher than a 10, we have to remember the other guys get paid too. If 50 is average and our defense ranked well below average how can it have soooo many above average players?? Step forward and blame it on the COACHING?? LMAO! Shouldnt we add up the %s and divide by 11 and equal the TEAM ranking??
Welker isnt a top 10 reciever any more even without TO and Moss not around. And most importantly when ranking players here in New England we always have to remember the whole is better than the sum of its parts....our players wont ever play as well for other teams as they do for us.

TB-98--Who here can say he CANT find a way to improve?
Welker-82
Branch-60
Ocho-78
GE-22
Gronk-60-Sophomore slump
Light-60-system makes him a bit better
Mankins-90
Koppen-35-slow and weak
Connolly-30
Vollmer-85
700/11=63.6 avg

Wilfork-92
Haynesworth-too hard to handicap at this point
Wright-40
Moore-10
Mayo-88
Spikes-68--when on the field
Cunningham-62-could have breakout year-my binky
Meri-75--mysteriously bad SS in NFL
Chung-45
McC-82-sophomore slump/more attempts with Bodden on field
Bodden-too hard to handicap coming back from injury
562-662/9-11=avg 51-60 depending on Haynesworth and Bodden
I think alot of the success of this season is going to fall on Haynesworth and Bodden as well as the development or replacement of Moore at OLB.

 

[HomerSchooled]

I think its funny how some people rate players with rose colored glasses. Moore cant possibly be higher than a 10, we have to remember the other guys get paid too. If 50 is average and our defense ranked well below average how can it have soooo many above average players?? Step forward and blame it on the COACHING?? LMAO! Shouldnt we add up the %s and divide by 11 and equal the TEAM ranking??
Welker isnt a top 10 reciever any more even without TO and Moss not around. And most importantly when ranking players here in New England we always have to remember the whole is better than the sum of its parts....our players wont ever play as well for other teams as they do for us.

TB-98--Who here can say he CANT find a way to improve?
Welker-82
Branch-60
Ocho-78
GE-22
Gronk-60-Sophomore slump
Light-60-system makes him a bit better
Mankins-90
Koppen-35-slow and weak
Connolly-30
Vollmer-85
700/11=63.6 avg

Wilfork-92
Haynesworth-too hard to handicap at this point
Wright-40
Moore-10
Mayo-88
Spikes-68--when on the field
Cunningham-62-could have breakout year-my binky
Meri-75--mysteriously bad SS in NFL
Chung-45
McC-82-sophomore slump/more attempts with Bodden on field
Bodden-too hard to handicap coming back from injury
562-662/9-11=avg 51-60 depending on Haynesworth and Bodden
I think alot of the success of this season is going to fall on Haynesworth and Bodden as well as the development or replacement of Moore at OLB.

I think you're wildly underrating Wright. He's easily above average. He's got unique ability as a pass rusher for a DT or 3-4 DE, and he's been trending upwards for years.

10 for Moore seems a tad harsh, but totally fair and understandable. Can't argue. Can only hope for better.

 

[BradyFTW!]

100 for Brady doesn't mean that he can't improve. According to the standards that Andy set forth, 100 means he's #1 in the league.

As I interpreted it, a 50 is a league-average starter. I ranked Branch as a 50: I like him, in that he doesn't hurt you by being in the starting lineup.

Anyone below a 50 is below average as a starter. Giving someone like Moore or Connolly a 25-30, for example, just indicates that I think they're lower-tier starters in the NFL. They can be perfectly serviceable players, and there are worse starters out there, but they're still probably out of their depth when asked to start and play most downs.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think its funny how some people rate players with rose colored glasses. Moore cant possibly be higher than a 10, we have to remember the other guys get paid too. If 50 is average and our defense ranked well below average how can it have soooo many above average players?? Step forward and blame it on the COACHING??

Well, you could attribute it to youth, and point to the fact that the defense improved dramatically as the season went on, then go on to point out how they added Haynesworth and Bodden at clear positions of need.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

I broke out WRs into their respective positions. Welker is still one of the very best slot receivers in the NFL. Was one of the best even last year, when he wasn't even close to 100%. Like wise, for the role that we'll ask him to play, I expect that Ochocinco will be in the top 25% of the league at executing it. Can I think of 20 WRs that I would rather have, purely on the basis of talent, and ignoring chemistry, system fit, and salary? Sure can. At what we'll specifically be asking him to do? Not so sure. The narrative seems to have taken shape that his physical skills have diminished significantly in the last year, and I'm not so sure where that's coming from. Palmer was absolutely awful last year; Ocho seemed fine to me. He's in great shape, and doesn't have a history of injuries. If he can stay healthy, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him give us 2 very good years, and 2 more pretty good years after that.