Discussion Topic

[signbabybrady]

OL certainly wasn't better in run blocking (again the passing offense was but thats it) I dont know how the DL got better, it was the same group but in 03 we had Ted Washington.
Secondaries are night and day. We lost the AFCC in 06 and the SB in 07 because we couldnt cover when the other team was doing nothing but pass. Losing Ty Law, having Rodney Harrison at half of what he was, and not replacing them with like players is a big decline.
LB was actually a slow decline that got worse after 07,

well sure if you mix the talent between 03 and 04 then you have a better team than 07.....my comparison was 04 to 07.


washington was gone in 04 Wilfork was a rookie warren was still fairly young....I think the trio of Seymour, Vince, and Warren was at its best in 07.

The secondary in 04 had lost Law for the season...which is why I said that position was close compared to 07 which had a lesser rodney but had Samuels.

OL vs the run it is hard to argue that 04 was better they paved the way for 1600 but they also had an unstopable Corey. when I said the OL was better in 07 I think Mankins is the key there I guess you have to say that the 3 guys who were the same likely had some skill decline.


I could run this vs the 03 team too but I always kind of thought the 04 team was the best of the trio of wins (certainly this is a fun debate for another thread). 03 D was better but corey balanced the team and made the 04 team what it was.

 

[signbabybrady]

I think the Miami Heat is about to put this question to the test.


depending on what they surround Wade, Bosh, and James with it will be the 3 best with likely crap for at least season.....someone might take a bs cheap one year deal to play with them and ruin the live test but still interesting.

there are certainly some above average teams he has to go thru so there isnt a test subject for the average though.

 

[Ring 6]

well sure if you mix the talent between 03 and 04 then you have a better team than 07.....my comparison was 04 to 07.


washington was gone in 04 Wilfork was a rookie warren was still fairly young....I think the trio of Seymour, Vince, and Warren was at its best in 07.

The secondary in 04 had lost Law for the season...which is why I said that position was close compared to 07 which had a lesser rodney but had Samuels.

OL vs the run it is hard to argue that 04 was better they paved the way for 1600 but they also had an unstopable Corey. when I said the OL was better in 07 I think Mankins is the key there I guess you have to say that the 3 guys who were the same likely had some skill decline.


I could run this vs the 03 team too but I always kind of thought the 04 team was the best of the trio of wins (certainly this is a fun debate for another thread). 03 D was better but corey balanced the team and made the 04 team what it was.

You cant not count Law because he was injured when we are talking about talent on the roster.

I use both 03-04 as the jumping off point because we were very decimated by injury in 2004.

Look at it this way. Aside from passing offense, what have we gotten better at since 03/04?
My point is that there was simply no way to keep the roster together due to the cap, and that also makes it impossible to replace with equal talent We were facing a potentially sharp decline, and BB, rather than trying to do the same thing under different circumstances for one great strength that went a long way toward overcoming the cracks developing in the armor.
My comments arent designed to say the 07 team was worse than 06 or 03 or nothing like that. I am saying that faced with certain overall roster decline BB chose to focus on some(one) area of strength and have it lead the way and overcome decline elsewhere. In the short run it was a great plan. In the long run, well it caught up, but that has to be expected.

 

[signbabybrady]

You cant not count Law because he was injured when we are talking about talent on the roster.

I use both 03-04 as the jumping off point because we were very decimated by injury in 2004.

Look at it this way. Aside from passing offense, what have we gotten better at since 03/04?
My point is that there was simply no way to keep the roster together due to the cap, and that also makes it impossible to replace with equal talent We were facing a potentially sharp decline, and BB, rather than trying to do the same thing under different circumstances for one great strength that went a long way toward overcoming the cracks developing in the armor.
My comments arent designed to say the 07 team was worse than 06 or 03 or nothing like that. I am saying that faced with certain overall roster decline BB chose to focus on some(one) area of strength and have it lead the way and overcome decline elsewhere. In the short run it was a great plan. In the long run, well it caught up, but that has to be expected.

I am not arguing there wasnt a decline I am just arguing when the decline took place. there was a slight decline following o4 but then they put together a team surounding what was remaining from then that was in realty as good if not better then the decline happened in flash as we lost one season to bradys injury and others aged and retired......I think the thing to focus on is that with the 20 some odd players selected and the play so far from a lot of the youth gives us reason to believe the decline has been suspended and we are on the rise again only time will tell how high.

 

[loosebearing]

I just read all the posts in this discussion

Wow

This discussion has led me to the hypothesis that the average poster on this thread is less than average.

Example of average:

The Patriots OL starters (with Vollmer substituting for Mankins) would consist of 5 average (talent) players out of the whole NFL. But coaching and teamwork make them above average on the whole. (Even if you want to substitute Vollmer for Light and LeVoir for Mankins.)

With good coaching and teamwork the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

I've been on teams that won championships with no stars or all-stars. Winning was the result of learning how to play together.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

With good coaching and teamwork the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

:agree:

This is what got the Pats their first SB win.

 

[jah]

The Patriots OL starters (with Vollmer substituting for Mankins) would consist of 5 average (talent) players out of the whole NFL. But coaching and teamwork make them above average on the whole. (Even if you want to substitute Vollmer for Light and LeVoir for Mankins.)

I would say that Mankins would be replaced by Kaczur. I know that you don't mean Vollmer would be playing LG, but what you said would mean that Kaczur had a spot in the starting OL over Vollmer. I don't think that will be the case.

With Mankins, I see a line of: Light-Mankins-Koppen-Neal-Vollmer, with the backups being Kazcur, LeVoir, Connolly, and possibly Larsen.

Without Mankins, I see: Light-Kaczur-Koppen-Neal-Vollmer, with the backups being LeVoir, Connolly, Larsen, and another young guy (maybe Welch or Bussey).

Not sure why I say Larsen is the most likely young player to make it to the 53-man, but I've heard good things about him in general.

 

[loosebearing]

Elijah

Did you read the premiss of this discussion

I eliminated Mankins because he is ABOVE AVERAGE.

And I even substituted for Light incase anyone calls him ABOVE AVERAGE

Vollmer/Neal/Kazur/Levoir/and Koppen would constitute an Offensive Line of Average Talent in the NFL but would be Above Average in execution.

 

[everlong]

But no team is either average or half stars half sucks. It is a comparison between those 2 alternatives, so how you think it would do against a regular team is moot. I could take the same approach and give you half the worst players in the league, and how confident are you in that team.

While an all average team may be the 05-07 Jags a team with the 11 worst starting football players in the NFL may be worse than any one we have ever seen.

My point in listing out a team of all average players was to given an example of what it would look like so we could have a frame of reference to work off of. You're right that my opinion of how that team would do is subjective but everything we do here is subjective.

I do agree that you could do the same where you take on defense for example Ware, Dansby, Revis, Polamalu, Wilfork and Tuck. Then couple them with 5 scrubs and one average player to keep it even and match them up vs the offense I put together and it's anybody's guess who would win. ESPN would certainly tell you this is a dominating defense.

 

[jah]

Elijah

Did you read the premiss of this discussion

I eliminated Mankins because he is ABOVE AVERAGE.

And I even substituted for Light incase anyone calls him ABOVE AVERAGE

Vollmer/Neal/Kazur/Levoir/and Koppen would constitute an Offensive Line of Average Talent in the NFL but would be Above Average in execution.

Ah, misread. Sorry :bricks:

 

[Ring 6]

I just read all the posts in this discussion

Wow

This discussion has led me to the hypothesis that the average poster on this thread is less than average.

Example of average:

The Patriots OL starters (with Vollmer substituting for Mankins) would consist of 5 average (talent) players out of the whole NFL. But coaching and teamwork make them above average on the whole. (Even if you want to substitute Vollmer for Light and LeVoir for Mankins.)

With good coaching and teamwork the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

I've been on teams that won championships with no stars or all-stars. Winning was the result of learning how to play together.

It could be argue that a unit, such as 5 OL of all players that are average, meaning each one is capable, and no poor players hold back the unit would produce better than average results.

 

[Ring 6]

My point in listing out a team of all average players was to given an example of what it would look like so we could have a frame of reference to work off of. You're right that my opinion of how that team would do is subjective but everything we do here is subjective.

I do agree that you could do the same where you take on defense for example Ware, Dansby, Revis, Polamalu, Wilfork and Tuck. Then couple them with 5 scrubs and one average player to keep it even and match them up vs the offense I put together and it's anybody's guess who would win. ESPN would certainly tell you this is a dominating defense.

Ahh, now you hit on another angle that skews this type of discussion.
Watch the 'experts' discuss teams and games. Invariably they will name one or 2 players and say something like 'with Patrick Willis you wont be able to run on this team'. In fact if you surround a great player with terrible players the unit will be poor, and ironically the only decent player on a bad unit typically becomes overrated.
It never ceases to amaze me that these analysts forget there are 11 players on the field and if the OL misses the block against an NFL caliber defender 9 out 10 times no back will turn that into anything.

 

[jmt57]

Ahh, now you hit on another angle that skews this type of discussion.
Watch the 'experts' discuss teams and games. Invariably they will name one or 2 players and say something like 'with Patrick Willis you wont be able to run on this team'. In fact if you surround a great player with terrible players the unit will be poor, and ironically the only decent player on a bad unit typically becomes overrated.
It never ceases to amaze me that these analysts forget there are 11 players on the field and if the OL misses the block against an NFL caliber defender 9 out 10 times no back will turn that into anything.

Quite true. I recall a few years ago when Champ Bailey was one of the best, if not the best corner in the league - yet the Broncos had one of the worst pass defenses in the league due to their lack of a pass rush. We also saw the reverse three years ago when an average to below average Giants secondary was able to get the job done due to a superior pass rush.

And yes, it never ceases to amaze me as well that when any NFL team does not have a running back that rushed for at least 1200 yards, the fans and media immediately declare that that team needs to replace their starting running back - and never considers other possibilities, such as poor run blocking by the line, a quarterback that can't throw, coaching, play calling, etc.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

And yes, it never ceases to amaze me as well that when any NFL team does not have a running back that rushed for at least 1200 yards, the fans and media immediately declare that that team needs to replace their starting running back - and never considers other possibilities, such as poor run blocking by the line, a quarterback that can't throw, coaching, play calling, etc.

Making excuses for Maroney?

 

[everlong]

Ahh, now you hit on another angle that skews this type of discussion.
Watch the 'experts' discuss teams and games. Invariably they will name one or 2 players and say something like 'with Patrick Willis you wont be able to run on this team'. In fact if you surround a great player with terrible players the unit will be poor, and ironically the only decent player on a bad unit typically becomes overrated.
It never ceases to amaze me that these analysts forget there are 11 players on the field and if the OL misses the block against an NFL caliber defender 9 out 10 times no back will turn that into anything.

I think that's part of the ESPN sensationalism that goes on. People don't realize that Patrick Willis isn't making those plays without a good D-Line that allows him to flow to the ball. That's what makes football the ultimate team sport.

I think in the end what you need to be successful is 9 or so guys on each side of the ball who are average or slightly better and a couple of impact guys who can play in your system and be unselfish but at times step out of the system and make an impact at the right time. Rodney Harrison was as important as anybody on those 03 + 04 teams. He would make a read at the right time and make a tackle for a loss or jump a route and pick one off. The pick against the Steelers at the end of the half to go up 24-3 totally changed that game for the second half. If that's 17-6 or 17-10 for all their domination it's a different ball game.

 

[Metaphors]

So, the questions are:

-If you fielded a full team of exactly average players, would you be a good, bad or average team.
The obvious answer is average since your players are average but what I'm looking for it the cumulaive effect of having no bad players at all on the field, so the second, more telling question is how would that team compare to:

A team with half the players being the best at their position and half being the worst in the league.

Discuss....

The exactly average team would seem to be able to hold their own but not make any plays when the game was on the line. Seems to me that games are won with big plays at big times. I would think it would be easier to have your bad players come up with an average effort...versus your average players making an elite throw, run, pick or sack.

So my choice would be to have a handful of elite players, but they would have to be at key positions (QB, C, NT, ILB, S, plus a couple of others depending on scheme). The other positions would need to be coached up to perform at a higher level than their talent would suggest. While you didn't include coaching in your question, it makes a big difference.

 

[jmt57]

Making excuses for Maroney?

Actually I was thinking more across the board, all 32 NFL fan bases and most of the media as a whole. Similarly if a team has a bad pass defense many fans scream for a new corner, or if their team is losing they'll say need to cut their quarterback and/or fire the coach. A lot of people who have only a limited and superficial knowledge of the situation tend to make a lot of noise. And then there are draft experts and draft sites that will often say a team needs a RB when that is not the case, when there is some other problem with a running game.

As for Maroney, I'll be shocked and upset if the Pats don't use an early draft pick on a running back next spring. In my opinion he's not as horrible as some portray him to be, but still, he's just average. Regardless, that position needs to be upgraded next year.

 

[Ring 6]

The exactly average team would seem to be able to hold their own but not make any plays when the game was on the line. Seems to me that games are won with big plays at big times. I would think it would be easier to have your bad players come up with an average effort...versus your average players making an elite throw, run, pick or sack.

So my choice would be to have a handful of elite players, but they would have to be at key positions (QB, C, NT, ILB, S, plus a couple of others depending on scheme). The other positions would need to be coached up to perform at a higher level than their talent would suggest. While you didn't include coaching in your question, it makes a big difference.

Well, I dont think the argument can include whether a bad player can expect to play well or an average one good, or how they are coached up because that defeats the definition of the discussion. You are saying that if 2 teams are eqaully talented the team with guys who play better than they are will win
Also since coaching would divert the argument, it should be considered equal.

I actually think a group of average players will do better in the clutch than a half good half bad team. I say this because you have 11 capable, reliable players on the field, and each are likely to do their job, and get the play done.

Here is a different way to look at it.
Would you rather had Tom Brady for 8 games and Jamarcus Russell for 8 games, or Donovan McNab or Carson Palmer for 16?

See thats what average is. McNab was 17th in passing yards, Palmer was 16th in QB rating.
Are people in this thread thinking the average team has a McNab or Palmer at qb?
The RB would be Rashard Mendehall (yds) or Steven Jackson (ypc).
WRs would be arques Colston and Micheal Jenkins by catches or Larry Fitzgerald and Jabarr Gaffney by yards.

See 'average' is a lot different than I suspect most people think. Are you saying that a team with
QB McNab
RB Mendenhall
WR Fitzgerald
WR Jenkins

Is a bad team when everyone else fits the same level of quality?
I think there is no question that there is a MUCH, MUCH larger difference between the 16th or 17th best player at a position and the WORST starter in the league than between the 16/17 and the best.

One step further.

1)McNab and Mendenhall every game
or
2)Brady and Chris Johnson for 8 Russell and Tomlinson for 8
or
3)Brady and Tomlinson for 8 and Russell and Johnson for 8
--ironically the last 2 are a tough choice because the 2 gets you 8 and 8 and 3 might not.

 

[loosebearing]

What constitutes average? A lot of posters think it is a JAG. But it is not. There are different ways to add players to your roster. Rookies (Draft and UDFA). FA Veterans and Trades. Rookies drafted in the 4th round or later are average to below average. UDFA’s are below average. FA looking to cash in are above average. FA who are let go by teams are average to below average. And Trades involving compensation of a 4th rounder or worse are also average to below average.

So with my above definition of average I have compiled a beginning roster of 35 players from the BB era - who I think would at least make it to the playoffs

Tom Brady
Antowain Smith
Heath Evans
Troy Brown
Randy Moss
Jermain Wiggins
Dan Koppen
Joe Andruzzi
Stephen Neal

Ted Bruschi
Mike Vrabel
Roman Phifer
Bryan Cox
Rodney Harrison
Brandon McGowen
Asante Samuel
Leigh Bodden
Ted Washington
Anthony Pleasant
Bobby Hamilton

Matt Cassel
David Givens
David Patten
Julian Edellman
Keith Hernandez
Tully Banta-Cain
Randall Gay
Jarvis Green
Mike Wright
Gary Guyton

Sam Aiken
Kyle Arrington
Pierre Woods
Ken Walter
Adam Viniatieri


In compiling the list you become aware that they didn’t stay average to below average while playing.

So the conundrum - if coaching and practice and piecing it either together (or in some cases back together ) then cause the player to become better than average does that mean he must be cut from the Roster of the Average Team. (Salary Cap ??)

It might also explain why Patriot players who leave for cashing it in in FA don’t fare well.

P.S. How do you put lists into columns ????

 

[loosebearing]

Or how about this

All the other teams have to live by the by laws of the NFL

Your AVERAGE team has 10 pick per year from 120 to 129. And since they are theirs - they can trade them. I think this is BB's wet dream