And how many snaps would that be then. Anyone can have an opinion based off watching a handful of snaps but that opinion is unlikely to be accurate or useful unless there's a large enoughs sample size to form a useful and informed opinion. Not to mention, judging a player's performance without also judging what the scheme was trying to do on that down and distance and what breakdowns happened on that play can also lead to inaccurately formed opinions. So far none of what you've said leads me to believe you've based your conclusions on any detailed or well reasoned analysis.
So far your arguments can be summed up to be - Anderson can't develop into a Vrabel-like player because I believe his skillset to be limited. Players with limited skillsets cannot become versatile players. Therefore Anderson cannot become a versatile player. He must therefore be a one dimensional Derrick Burgess type player. However your core proof for Anderson having a limited skillset lacks substantiation OTHER THAN he hasn't seen a lot of snaps as a starter. But then again neither did Vrabel for 4 years in Pittsburgh.
And for the record, Anderson has only played 5 years in the league, that's a whopping 1 season longer than Vrabel did before he became a Patriot. It's hard to believe that Anderson has become set in stone after a whopping 1 season more of playing in the league than Vrabel did.
And neither was Vrabel. He had a 4 year track record of being a very lightly used situational pass rusher in Pittsburgh. Notice that Pittsburgh doesn't use the same system as the Pats. Notice that neither do the Bears or the Texans. Pittsburgh didn't know what they had in Vrabel because they never played him in the system the Pats use. It's also premature to project Anderson's abilities based on his play in systems entirely foreign to ours.
Another red herring. And you wouldn't make a very good witness if you were testifying based only on your own opinion rather than the facts. If you'd actually present some convincing facts to SUPPORT your opinion, I could definitely be persuaded.
So far you haven't presented any convincing proof that his skillset will be strictly limited to only one area. Some proof that would be persuasive would include seeing some detailed scouting reports or perhaps first hand accounts from someone who has actually watched Anderson extensively over his career.
More red herrings. Can Pinnochio suddenly grow wings and fly? Who cares. Let's get back to the football discussion.
Obviously somebody thought Vrabel had NFL ability or he wouldn't have been drafted. I don't see what argument you're trying to make here. Whether people thought he was going to be a starter and turn out as good as he did, well even Pittsburgh didn't know that or they wouldn't have given up on him after 4 years.
Again your statement is inaccurate. Vrabel was lightly used in Pittsburgh for 4 seasons before the Patriots 'discovered' him, plucked him from free agency, and eventually turned him into the player we know and love. Mark Anderson's career has been a whopping 1 season longer than Vrabels. He has only seen significant starting time in 1 of those 5 seasons. Point is we don't know what we have in Anderson because we don't have a large enough sample size.
Mark Anderson NFL & AFL Football Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com
Maybe the bottom line is that you feel offended for some reason because Anderson's being compared to Mike Vrabel but the career parallels are actually quite similar. BB picks up a guy who didn't get much of a chance to show what he could do on his previous team(s), a guy with the right build, and athleticism to play the Pats 3-4, and hopes to mold him into a useful piece.
Maybe Anderson was a shot in the dark, but maybe the coaches see something in him that make it worth giving him a shot. The SAME can be said of Mike Vrabel before he proved himself with us.
Of course there's no way to tell if Mark Anderson can turn into the next Vrabel. But there are a lot of similarities here as far as how their career paths have gone up till now. And until presented with enough facts to make a solid judgment I'd rather not pigeonhole a guy before he's even taken a single snap in a Patriots uniform.
This whole discussion arises not from the fact that I have some deep seated belief that Anderson will turn into some all-pro but rather to reiterate the point, that players deserve a chance to PROVE themselves before we 'decide in our own minds' all that they are already capable of doing. This attitude is why players continue to slip through the cracks. The mental imaging of the one doing the 'talent evaluation' has no room to imagine the player being anything other than what their preconceived notions have already decided. This is why the Marques Colstons of the world slip to round 7, why the Michael Turners slip to round 5, and why the Tom Brady's slip to pick 199.
