Mind Boggling Stat: current 53 man roster has only 7 players from the 16-0 2007 team

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

Fencer said:

So who was on that team that we'd want back, given who he is today, at, say, a $2 million salary/cap hit or above?

(I edited out "if money were no object" because we might want lots of guys back for depth at vet minimum, including both safeties who were just cut.)

Seymour, definitely.
Ty Warren? Maybe not.
Gaffney or Stallworth? I haven't kept up with them.
Asante? Sure, drawbacks notwithstanding.
Cassell? Sure, but as a backup.
Lonie Paxton -- for the money he got, yes, but not for $2 million. (Um, is he actually still good?)

So we've lost 2 important franchise tag guys and one of the best backup QBs in recent league history. But otherwise the turnover you mention has been almost all voluntary on the part of the team.

Click to expand...

I think thats the other side of the equation that frankly becomes too complicated for this setting.
How NEEDED was the turnover. Its one thing to turn over a good team because they walk, its another to turn over a good team, stay good and end up in the same stratosphere when that team aged and would have fallen apart if you didnt turn it over.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

Miguel said:

Giants have 13.

Bradshaw Ahmad RB
DeOssie Zac LS
Diehl David OL
Hixon Domenick WR
Jacobs Brandon RB
Manning Eli QB
McKenzie Kareem OL
Ross Aaron CB
Snee Chris OL
Tuck Justin DT
Tynes Lawrence K
Umenyiora Osi DE
Webster Corey CB

I do not know how this is a mind-boggling stat unless one does the research for all 32 teams. My guess is that 8 would not be that remarkable. Teams turn over their rosters a great deal.

Click to expand...

Forgot Mathais K though he was Ir'd.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

Really not that mind boggling. Your just cherry picking a stat and running with it on your own little tangent. Like others have pointed out, most other teams don't seem to be that different.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

Wow that is mind boggling! Thanks for sharing!

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

Miguel said:

Giants have 13.

Bradshaw Ahmad RB
DeOssie Zac LS
Diehl David OL
Hixon Domenick WR
Jacobs Brandon RB
Manning Eli QB
McKenzie Kareem OL
Ross Aaron CB
Snee Chris OL
Tuck Justin DT
Tynes Lawrence K
Umenyiora Osi DE
Webster Corey CB

I do not know how this is a mind-boggling stat unless one does the research for all 32 teams. My guess is that 8 would not be that remarkable. Teams turn over their rosters a great deal.

Click to expand...

One has replaced 75% of it's roster, the other 85%. That's not insignificant.

By the same token, I don't think Patchick's point should be dismissed either. There are a few teams that have replaced more players like the chiefs (I think she said there were only 5 left), as they have overhauled their team. A few teams are in that category.

What separates them is how they performed as they overhaul their teams. Sure the Chiefs have replaced 94% of their roster since 2007, but they also went 16-32 (which is a pretty dismal .333 winning percentage).

The Patriots OTOH, have gone 35-13 (.729 winning percentage) during that same span, while replacing 85% of the roster.......... I'd say that is pretty remarkable.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

We know how the Pats do business on draft day. For the most part, it's trade down and get extra picks. That is how a roster is turned over quickly. Taking the 8 away from the '07 team, that leaves 45 spots. How many of these spots are now taken from players in the '08, '09, '10' and '11 draft? Without looking, I'll bet it's at least 50%.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

AndyJohnson said:

Damn. I counted 8 the first time through then couldn't find the 8th so figured I miscounted. Again, doesnt really change the concept.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't, have contended for a while that this team is being rebuilt on the fly.. and our defense will look completely this year, while I have concerns, do not believe it will be worse in the long run. There may be some initial glitches, but with quality coaching things will in all probability work out.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

Patriot_in_NY said:

One has replaced 75% of it's roster, the other 85%. That's not insignificant.

By the same token, I don't think Patchick's point should be dismissed either. There are a few teams that have replaced more players like the chiefs (I think she said there were only 5 left), as they have overhauled their team. A few teams are in that category.

What separates them is how they performed as they overhaul their teams. Sure the Chiefs have replaced 94% of their roster since 2007, but they also went 16-32 (which is a pretty dismal .333 winning percentage).

The Patriots OTOH, have gone 35-13 (.729 winning percentage) during that same span, while replacing 85% of the roster.......... I'd say that is pretty remarkable.

Click to expand...

Rebuilding and continually winning are often viewed as mutually exclusive..

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

DarrylS said:

Rebuilding and continually winning are often viewed as mutually exclusive..

Click to expand...

I ran the Eagles numbers for a team that rebuilds in a manner similar to the Pats and has been competitive over the same period (30-17-1)
They have ten players left who were with them in 2007, 9 on the 53 man roster and one on PUP (W. Justice)
Abiamiri, Victor
Avant, Jason
Celek, Brent
Cole, Trent
Herremans, Todd
Jackson, Jamaal
Jordan, Akeem
Justice, Winston (PUP)
Parker, Juqua
Patterson, Mike

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

DarrylS said:

Rebuilding and continually winning are often viewed as mutually exclusive..

Click to expand...

Patsfanin Philly said:

I ran the Eagles numbers for a team that rebuilds in a manner similar to the Pats and has been competitive over the same period (30-17-1)
They have ten players left who were with them in 2007, 9 on the 53 man roster and one on PUP (W. Justice)

Click to expand...

Maybe the real lesson here is that rebuilding is the only way to keep continually winning?

Anybody up for tallying the Colts' and Steelers' turnover?

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

The Colts have 14 players left from their 2007 squad: Addai, Bethea, Brackett, Bullitt, Clark, Diem, Freeney, Gonzalez, Manning, Mathis, Saturday, Snow, Vinatieri, and Wayne.

Even if 8-15 is the normal level throughout the league, it is still a remarkable statistic. It shows the gravity of the challenge faced by an NFL head coach; sustained success is intensely difficult with that amount of player turnover. That Belichick has kept this team competitive through the last 4 years, while many teams with similar turnover have not, is more than commendable.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

Miguel said:

Giants have 13.

Bradshaw Ahmad RB
DeOssie Zac LS
Diehl David OL
Hixon Domenick WR
Jacobs Brandon RB
Manning Eli QB
McKenzie Kareem OL
Ross Aaron CB
Snee Chris OL
Tuck Justin DT
Tynes Lawrence K
Umenyiora Osi DE
Webster Corey CB

I do not know how this is a mind-boggling stat unless one does the research for all 32 teams. My guess is that 8 would not be that remarkable. Teams turn over their rosters a great deal.

Click to expand...

I think what Andy said was remarkable was to have had that much turnover on a 16--0 team that was still being viewed as on a very short list of SB favorites.

Otherwise, you're right and I guess the only way to do this properly would be to look at the entire list of NFL players in 2007 and see how many remained in the league, then look at the turnover for each team and how many players each lost to retirement, free agency or injury, then look at relative improvement/deterioration of each team and correlate it to turnover.

Or, we could just say, Hey, it's pretty amazing that a 16--0 team had that much turnover and is still regarded as an SB favorite. I guess I'd go that route.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

AndyJohnson said:

The 2011 current 53 man roster has 7 players from the 16-0 2007 team
Brady
Light
Mankins
Koppen
Gostkowski
Welker
Wilfork


Many consider this team to be a SB favorite.

On a night when Belichicks drafting and personel decisions are being questioned by many, if this team were to win the SB after turning over 46 of the 53 players from the team that had the undefeated regular season 4 years ago would that represent the greatest job of building a team in NFL history? And would it be worth the sacrifice of 3 years of no playoff wins in between?

Defensively the only player remaining from that team is Vince Wilfork. Anyone questioning the performance of the defense the last 3 years while it was totally (but for one man) replaced needs to reconsider.
Its also interesting that 17 of the players that made the team on defense and 15 on offense were not in the NFL that season.

Click to expand...

This also goes to show how much impact a hard cap has on retention, and how brief NFL careers are, and why the CBA was so important for retired players. It's reasonable to think that none of these guys will be with the Pats four years hence, but if the Krafts and Bellichick are still running the show, we can anticipate an elite team. The 2011-12 team is arguably as talented and as nice a combination of youth and experience at most every position grouping except TE, DB and RB as the 2007 team. In many ways the kiddie corps at TE, DB and RB are better athletes than the 2007 team.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

Patsfanin Philly said:

I ran the Eagles numbers for a team that rebuilds in a manner similar to the Pats and has been competitive over the same period (30-17-1)
They have ten players left who were with them in 2007, 9 on the 53 man roster and one on PUP (W. Justice)
Abiamiri, Victor
Avant, Jason
Celek, Brent
Cole, Trent
Herremans, Todd
Jackson, Jamaal
Jordan, Akeem
Justice, Winston (PUP)
Parker, Juqua
Patterson, Mike

Click to expand...

Again - 30-16-1 (.625 winning %) while replacing 81% of the roster. Not as good number, but still a very respectable record. They are a quality franchise.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

The average career length of an NFL player is 3.5 years.

ESPN broke down the per team roster turnover between the end of 2009 and beginning of 2010, and calculated the average turnover for that year to be 20% (the Pats were low on the percentage roster change at 13.6%).

Given those statistics, it would appear the average NFL team would not be looking at many players remaining from a roster posted 4 seasons earlier.

The Pats originally appeared to be defined by a core of veterans representing on the field leadership who provided year-to-year continuity and a foundation on which to add rookies and veterans into the system. Now, it seems like Belichick works with a greatly reduced veteran core but remarkably still can field a competitive team by adding players that can quickly work within his system. The Redskins prove the latter approach is not a recipe for success in the NFL if players are not carefully selected, yet the Pats seem to have made it work.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

This leads to the question: who from the 2011 squad will still be with the pats in 2015?

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

The majority of that turnover was after the 2008 season, when the roster turnover was 26 or so.
This year it's only about 14 or 15 players.

That was the off-season Matt Cassell, Jabar Gaffney, Ryan O'Callgahn, Wesley Britt, Billy Yates, Russ Hochstein, Richard Seymour, Junior Seau, Mike Vrabel, Ted Bruschi, Larry Izzo, Ellis Hobbs, Rodney Harrison, and Lonie Paxton, among others, departed.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

Can we really call it "rebuilding" when Brady has remained? Maybe we could say we've rebuilt the defense. But what have we rebuilt it into? The #32 3rd-down defense in the NFL. The 8-players stat might be more amazing if and when our defense gets good.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

AndyJohnson said:

The 2011 current 53 man roster has 7 players from the 16-0 2007 team
Brady
Light
Mankins
Koppen
Gostkowski
Welker
Wilfork


Many consider this team to be a SB favorite.

On a night when Belichicks drafting and personel decisions are being questioned by many, if this team were to win the SB after turning over 46 of the 53 players from the team that had the undefeated regular season 4 years ago would that represent the greatest job of building a team in NFL history? And would it be worth the sacrifice of 3 years of no playoff wins in between?

Defensively the only player remaining from that team is Vince Wilfork. Anyone questioning the performance of the defense the last 3 years while it was totally (but for one man) replaced needs to reconsider.
Its also interesting that 17 of the players that made the team on defense and 15 on offense were not in the NFL that season.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much of an indictment it is - though I agree it's an interesting stat.

2007 was 4 years ago. The shelf life of an NFL player isn't all that long in the first place - and it would never shock me to think that someone who was Pro Bowl caliber 4 years ago would no longer be in the NFL today, let alone in the NFL and with another team.

Another interesting the stat is that we no longer have ANY players from the 2007 draft.

While that might make the 2007 draft an Epic Fail by many accounts, I look at it like this:

Other coaches would rather keep a player they drafted to save face rather than cut them all and give spots to players who earned a spot on the roster.

The fact that Belichick recognizes that the draft and free agency are largely a crap shoot, and doesn't let ego get in the way of cutting a player, is part of what makes him arguably the best coach in the NFL today.

The bottom line is that every season Belichick keeps the guys he thinks gives the team the best chance to win - and if that means that hardly anyone from the 2007 squad remains, so be it.

Re: Mind Boggling Stat

Patriot_in_NY said:

One has replaced 75% of it's roster, the other 85%. That's not insignificant.

By the same token, I don't think Patchick's point should be dismissed either. There are a few teams that have replaced more players like the chiefs (I think she said there were only 5 left), as they have overhauled their team. A few teams are in that category.

What separates them is how they performed as they overhaul their teams. Sure the Chiefs have replaced 94% of their roster since 2007, but they also went 16-32 (which is a pretty dismal .333 winning percentage).

The Patriots OTOH, have gone 35-13 (.729 winning percentage) during that same span, while replacing 85% of the roster.......... I'd say that is pretty remarkable.

Click to expand...

Could make it even more complicated by taking coaching staff tturnover into account to. Also could consider that before 2010 the Patriots generally fielded mostly veterans brought in while allowing rookies to grow, I wonder what other teams do it to the extent NE did to protect their rookies and help ensure they succeed.