- Joined
- May 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,715
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting read. How quickly some of us forget.
http://www.patsfans.com/12th/2003/story/display_story.php?story_id=5898
http://www.patsfans.com/12th/2003/story/display_story.php?story_id=5898
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I miss the logic here. I find 03 to be better than 05.PatsFanInVa said:05 - DAY 1: Mankins, Hobbs, Kaczur
RETRO-GRADE: A.
03 - DAY 1: Warren, Wilson, Samuel, Koppen
Retro-grade: B+
spacecrime said:I miss the logic here. I find 03 to be better than 05.
PatsFanInVa said:I knew sooner or later tinkering with the particulars would be the focus (which is definitely appropriate.) The main point was, even counting day 2, the Pats are coming away with a 75% "workable" rate, 25% they just can't do anything with. Also a very high rate of starters and "stars," insofar as you can say "star" on a Belichick team.
One caveat - As you get closer to present, the grade gets skewed upward, because you don't know people are busts yet. E.G., since we don't know that you can call Marquis Hill a "bust," he's in the TBD category, whereas anybody drafted in 02 has been gauged by now. That inflates '05 more than other years. And '03 has those big question marks attached, in the persons of Bethel Johnson and Dan Klecko. If they seriously produce this year, then revise the grade. But neither is a real success story thus far. You could put them in the "minor hit" category, just for playing, but I was erring on the side of non-enthusiasm as best I could.
In judging whether BB is a "late round genius:" Well, we do have Brady (who is out of the date range), Givens, and Koppen, three bona fide starters in the league, Brady the best at his position. Late rounders from within the date range include Givens plus Koppen and maybe TBC - less than one per year. But then, Day 2 is a crap shoot by nature. You'd have to do this same kind of breakdown with other teams for comparison.
I for one was shocked to go over, year by year, the addition of household names. I was more impressed by others with '05 because the O Line made an okay showing with two rookies holding down the fort - and they've both earned starting jobs. Hobbs too. (Barring anything jarring in this year's draft/TC.) I gave 05 extra credit for immediate impact, and of course, the Day 2s are all still question marks, except for Stokes, who was, after all, the last man picked in the draft.
PFnV