Pats rank #5 in retaining players on the roster from 2009

The Vikings at 94% are #1 - thats quite a great job by them to keep thier near Super Bowl team fully stocked going into 2010,the big question as it is every year is Favre for them.

For the Pats to be ranked #5 in the league is quite a good showing for NE while the Colts have a miserable 70% low ranking and a bit surprising knowing how Polian tends to keep his team and good players around for awhile.

Where every NFL team ranks in turnover - NFC West Blog - ESPN

This is a promising sign that Belichick has found the players he wants to build around.

PATRIOTSFANINPA said:

The Vikings at 94% are #1 - thats quite a great job by them to keep thier near Super Bowl team fully stocked going into 2010,the big question as it is every year is Favre for them.

For the Pats to be ranked #5 in the league is quite a good showing for NE while the Colts have a miserable 70% low ranking and a bit surprising knowing how Polian tends to keep his team and good players around for awhile.

Where every NFL team ranks in turnover - NFC West Blog - ESPN

Click to expand...

Great find. Thanks. Especially interesting how the Colts' number fits with the stat cited in the Globe this morning, that they keep six players with $30 million contracts by constantly getting younger (and cheaper) at other positions and putting a lot of pressure on their talent evaluation.

Rick Gosselin: Despite QB change, defense is the Cardinals' concern | NFL News | Sports News | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News

Rich Gosselin and Mike Sando must use a different methodology to determine starters.

Miguel said:

Rick Gosselin: Despite QB change, defense is the Cardinals' concern | NFL News | Sports News | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News

Rich Gosselin and Mike Sando must use a different methodology to determine starters.

Click to expand...

This is a MUCH better article. (Surprise, surprise!
Gosselin :youtheman

The other one is pretty useless since it extends to the full roster at the end of last season plus those on IR.

Of course, the marginal players at the bottom end are mostly still on the rosters. Since there isn't a cap and roster limits are still high, why cut them now? Yes, the Patriots have retained Pierre Woods, Eric Alexander, Matt Slater, Bret Lockett, and so on -- but whether they will be on the roster come the start of next season is far from settled. Who has held on to more of their JAGs at this stage doesn't really tell you anything.

On the other hand, teams don't part company with their starters except for pretty strong reasons.

stinkypete said:

This is a promising sign that Belichick has found the players he wants to build around.

Click to expand...

That's what I thought too when I first read the article. Now let's hope that we've solved a few of the problems left behind from the players who aren't here anymore.

When you are in the midst of re-building many veterans leave. The last of the older players on Defense left. This is now a VERY young Defense, but somewhat experienced. I believe it is also a very talented and deep Defense that will get better and better playing together for many years.

Next year the Offense continues the makeover.

Actually I am encouraged that so few have left. I take it as a sign the re-building is ending and about finished.

Miguel said:

Rick Gosselin: Despite QB change, defense is the Cardinals' concern | NFL News | Sports News | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News

Rich Gosselin and Mike Sando must use a different methodology to determine starters.

Click to expand...

Who would be our 4?
Thomas and Watson are 2.
Are they counting Green? I assume so. Who would be the 4th?

Springs? 10

woolster22 said:

Springs? 10

Click to expand...

Four starters from the Ravens game are no longer on the Patriots roster. Woolster22 named one.

Thomas, Chris Baker and Jarvis Green are the other starters.

My only problem with the Gosslin article is how the term "starter" is used. In today's situational game of football, depending on the opponent and game situation, often so called back ups will see more action than the so called "starters".

Thomas, Springs, and Green were often merely parts of rotations and in several cases would have seen no more snaps than guys like Prior, Wright, Butler, and TBC, etc. If Ben Watson, Green and Springs were our key "starter" losses, then I think we did OK, because neither of them were true "starters" in the sense that they played 85-90% of there respective snaps. My guess is that Watson was the only one that came close to that.

patfanken said:

My only problem with the Gosslin article is how the term "starter" is used. In today's situational game of football, depending on the opponent and game situation, often so called back ups will see more action than the so called "starters".

Thomas, Springs, and Green were often merely parts of rotations and in several cases would have seen no more snaps than guys like Prior, Wright, Butler, and TBC, etc. If Ben Watson, Green and Springs were our key "starter" losses, then I think we did OK, because neither of them were true "starters" in the sense that they played 85-90% of there respective snaps. My guess is that Watson was the only one that came close to that.

Click to expand...

In my mind, the only positions where the term "starter" is truly meaningful are the 5 OLs and the QB. Everything else is so malleable that I think WR, TE, DL, etc. should have the term "starter" defined in terms of snaps taken, not who's on the field on the first snap.

It is fine for you to invent your own criteria for "starters". By your definition, Wilfork and Warren are not starters. In fact, they had fewer reps than Green, Wright, Burgess or Thomas. By your 85% threshold, the only 2009 defensive starter was Meriweather. I think that it reasonable to discuss teams in terms of starters and backups. And yes, one could alos discuss the roster in terms of players who had a certain number of reps.

I think that it is indeed reasonable to consider anyone who participated in more than 50% of the reps a key loss that needs replacement. Of course, their production may have been poor, so that replacing their production may be relatively easy.

The bottom line on defense is that someone does indeed need to take the reps of Green and Thomas, who each participated in 50% of the defensive reps.

patfanken said:

My only problem with the Gosslin article is how the term "starter" is used. In today's situational game of football, depending on the opponent and game situation, often so called back ups will see more action than the so called "starters".

Thomas, Springs, and Green were often merely parts of rotations and in several cases would have seen no more snaps than guys like Prior, Wright, Butler, and TBC, etc. If Ben Watson, Green and Springs were our key "starter" losses, then I think we did OK, because neither of them were true "starters" in the sense that they played 85-90% of there respective snaps. My guess is that Watson was the only one that came close to that.

Click to expand...

Why is that a good thing? The 2009 team got utterly humiliated in the first round of the playoffs. At home.