Here is a situation that I have seen more and more regarding a couple of players in particular. Both has sub-standard years for the Patriots. Significantly more was expected of them. Player A: Age to start 2006 season 31 1) Unproductive 2) Played Injured 3) Said to be in decline Player B: Age to start 2006 season 32 1) Unproductive 2) Played Injured 3) Said to be in decline Do you know what the difference between the two players is? The 1st one is Corey Dillon and the other is Duane Starks. Fans seem to be so willing to give Dillon a pass and chalk this season up to his being injured and the carousel on the O-line. Yet, there are only a few people who are willing to do the same for Duane Starks. Starks, like Dillon, played INJURED. Starks' shoulder was a mess according to his doctor (and yes, an injured shoulder can seriously affect your ability to run properly). And there was just as much of a carousel in the secondary as there was on the O-line. So, why is that? Why are people so willing to chalk up Dillon's lack of production to his injury and such, yet not willing to give Starks the same consideration? Sounds like a great hypocracy to me. Box and others who are given so much credit for their break down of plays have spoken out as to how WELL Starks actually played given the circumstances. Yet, I find its generally ignored except by the most ardent fan. This really is mind-boggling to me.