Lost in the discussion

[patchick]

the fact that we lost so many guys from last year and basically replaced them ALL with rookies, I dont like it.

Jeff, just go back and look at your replacement list one more time. Those "rookies" you're worried about appear to include Lewis Sanders, Stephen Spach, John Lynch and Lamont Jordan, with a combined 32 years of prior NFL service. Feel better now?

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Lost in the discussion - O'Connell is effectively the number 2 QB. Cassel may be there in name but if Brady goes down for more than a game or two then Cassel will get about 10 minutes to show something before KO comes in for the punch out. So, it doesn't matter that Guit was slashed not Cassel, because neither was long for the number 2 spot anyhow.

 

[AllabouttheVinces]

A lot of rookies means a lot of rookie mistakes. The 1st half of the year will be learning time for these guys. Missed coverages, special teams weaknesses, blown plays. Can't sugar coat it. It will take time.

Fortunately, we've got one of the easiest schedules in the league, so as long as Brady is healthy, BB will get them through it, and the playoffs are in the picture again. Just don't expect anything close to 16-0 in the reg season.

 

[PatsFan37]

A lot of rookies means a lot of rookie mistakes. The 1st half of the year will be learning time for these guys. Missed coverages, special teams weaknesses, blown plays. Can't sugar coat it. It will take time.

Fortunately, we've got one of the easiest schedules in the league, so as long as Brady is healthy, BB will get them through it, and the playoffs are in the picture again. Just don't expect anything close to 16-0 in the reg season.

This is a good point. Normally guys like Mayo and Wheatley would not be full-time starters under Belichick. They will have to be fast learners, but at least CB isn't nearly as challenging as, say, ILB or DL. And Mayo really did seem to earn that starting slot.

The rest of the rookies who made the roster won't see much playing time until mid-season. Woods is the rotational OLB and he's no rookie. They don't typically rotate at ILB, so Guyton won't have to play until he's ready. Meriweather played nickelback last year, so Wilhite doesn't have to do that until he's ready, either, though I have a feeling he'll be a pleasant surprise.

Slater might start on KRs right away, but that's a position that rookies can excel at, and Maroney and Hobbs are there in a pinch.

 

[jeffbiologist]

Jeff, just go back and look at your replacement list one more time. Those "rookies" you're worried about appear to include Lewis Sanders, Stephen Spach, John Lynch and Lamont Jordan, with a combined 32 years of prior NFL service. Feel better now?

In my 2nd response I was being short and you corrected me.Thanks. But guys likes Stupar,CJ Jones, OConnell(over Gut I forgot), again dont add the same type of veterans that made last years team so good. I think it was safe to say both at the time and now that last years team was pretty much set BEFORE the draft, and that there were few(maybe 1-2)roster spots available. I think having so many rookies along with PS guys/3rd stringers making the team is an admission to a loss of talent. What I dont understand is that last year IT WORKED, this year we have gone so far away from the same type of thinking......I dont see the reasons because our team isnt as old as the talking heads want us to think it is. Missing are SOLID pros like the Mel Mitchell--types, instead we have Mr Ventrone.

 

[Deus Irae]

In my 2nd response I was being short and you corrected me.Thanks. But guys likes Stupar,CJ Jones, OConnell(over Gut I forgot), again dont add the same type of veterans that made last years team so good. I think it was safe to say both at the time and now that last years team was pretty much set BEFORE the draft, and that there were few(maybe 1-2)roster spots available. I think having so many rookies along with PS guys/3rd stringers making the team is an admission to a loss of talent. What I dont understand is that last year IT WORKED, this year we have gone so far away from the same type of thinking......I dont see the reasons because our team isnt as old as the talking heads want us to think it is. Missing are SOLID pros like the Mel Mitchell--types, instead we have Mr Ventrone.

Lynch and Jordan are both vastly superior to Mitchell.

 

[Horace's Ivories]

You didn't say Stupar. You said Spach. Spach was on the team last year when K. Brady was injured/left the team. Spach filled in admirably. There were some of us who were very surprised that the Pats didn't carry him on the SB roster. Especially with K. Brady's poor play.
.

K. Brady was so bad that I think it would have helped alot to have Spach in the SB..

 

[DaBruinz]

In my 2nd response I was being short and you corrected me.Thanks. But guys likes Stupar,CJ Jones, OConnell(over Gut I forgot), again dont add the same type of veterans that made last years team so good. I think it was safe to say both at the time and now that last years team was pretty much set BEFORE the draft, and that there were few(maybe 1-2)roster spots available. I think having so many rookies along with PS guys/3rd stringers making the team is an admission to a loss of talent. What I dont understand is that last year IT WORKED, this year we have gone so far away from the same type of thinking......I dont see the reasons because our team isnt as old as the talking heads want us to think it is. Missing are SOLID pros like the Mel Mitchell--types, instead we have Mr Ventrone.

So, its an admission to a "loss of talent" because of what it looks like on paper. Not because of what they've actually done? It can't be that they actually UPGRADED some of those positions? In fact, you basically say that because they are rookies they can't be good. And that is just plain false.

I thought Mel Mitchell was a great addition when he signed. He would have been had he not spent much of the time injured. Guess what. Rey Ventrone got playing time because Mitchell was injured. Ventrone was on the team LAST YEAR and no one missed Mitchell.

The only one you've been close on is Samuel to Wheatley.

 

[DaBruinz]

Hey, you cant have it both ways!! Last year only 1 draft pick made the team and no rookies start....and we go 16-0....or did you forget?? We are NOT an "old" team, that is just the talking heads saying that we a few old players. Our average age is in the middle of the pack in the league. There are only 13 players still on the team from the last super bowl winner by the way.

Wilfork,TB, Light,Koppen, Seymour, Warren, Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison, Paxton, Faulk, Green and Watson.

We lost ALOT of talent since the beginning of the season last year. I think we brought in alot of redundancy for competition for some spots(CB,ILB) but didnt for others(namely the OL). In every decision we chose to keep a rookie instead of the vet FA, every one! Now some were warrented for sure, and others may have been salary cap related.....but the fact that we lost so many guys from last year and basically replaced them ALL with rookies, I dont like it. That "balance" we like to keep with this team was just tipped, and I will be looking for some further roster shifts to more accurately reflect the use of rookies on a veteran team like ours. There should be NO WAY that more rookies make this team over alot of others with "less talent".

The Patriots have lost SOME talent and added some talent. It remains to be seen how little or how much it truly was.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Lost in the discussion - O'Connell is effectively the number 2 QB. Cassel may be there in name but if Brady goes down for more than a game or two then Cassel will get about 10 minutes to show something before KO comes in for the punch out. So, it doesn't matter that Guit was slashed not Cassel, because neither was long for the number 2 spot anyhow.

10 minutes huh. that's probably about 5 drives? or 5 three and outs?

I'd say more like 4 minutes.

I'm still baffled by Cassel, but as long as he's on the bench I could care less.

 

[DaBruinz]

10 minutes huh. that's probably about 5 drives? or 5 three and outs?

I'd say more like 4 minutes.

I'm still baffled by Cassel, but as long as he's on the bench I could care less.

Were you baffeled by Rohan Davey staying on the team as long as he did?

I know I was because Davey made Cassel look like Brady. Yet, the Pats kept him for 4 years.

Cassel knows the system. Cassel could be very good at imitating other QBs as part of the scout team, I don't know. But i think that BB has shown he'd rather go with someone who knows the system at QB than have 2 youngsters who don't. And that's what he'd have with O'Connell and Gutierrez.

 

[jeffbiologist]

So, its an admission to a "loss of talent" because of what it looks like on paper. Not because of what they've actually done? It can't be that they actually UPGRADED some of those positions? In fact, you basically say that because they are rookies they can't be good. And that is just plain false.

I thought Mel Mitchell was a great addition when he signed. He would have been had he not spent much of the time injured. Guess what. Rey Ventrone got playing time because Mitchell was injured. Ventrone was on the team LAST YEAR and no one missed Mitchell.

The only one you've been close on is Samuel to Wheatley.

What I am going by is our past success. Instead of relying on unproven rookies we went 16-0 by having only 1-2 rookies on the roster. Now this year we have about 8, and I suggest the overall loss of talent was significant. Now 3 years from now it will be ok to try and guage a draft's success. Of course its coaching and opportunity that also help player development. I think having more unproven players means more mistakes. Individually we can argue who has more talent, but I think its hard to argue that we didnt lose more than we gained.

 

[mgteich]

returner CJ Jones should go when Faulk comes back. This was a truly amazing draft. Everyone has lived up to the hype; we put one on IR; and we kept an UDFA!

The number is very likely to decrease in the next couple of days, or after Faulk returns.

 

[patchick]

This was a truly amazing draft. Everyone has lived up to the hype; we put one on IR; and we kept an UDFA!

Truly incredible -- a total transformation of the defensive back 8 in a single draft.

 

[patchick]

What I am going by is our past success. Instead of relying on unproven rookies we went 16-0 by having only 1-2 rookies on the roster.

Nope, you're not going by past success. You're going by a single season that was a huge aberration created by a lousy draft year. Look at past great BB Patriots teams and you'll see a slew of rookies on the roster, often contributing. 8 rookies made the team from the 2003 draft: Superbowl. 7 rookies made the team from the 2004 draft: Superbowl.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

Wow, on sunny days do you bore everyone with talk on the ozone layer? I mean, really. If you've been paying attention at all, this many rookies made the team because they're good. Mayo, obviously. Wheatley looks great. But those are the #1 and #2 picks, they should stick. The 2 #3's, Crable and O'Connell, should stick on draft status alone. It's a rare team that cuts players taken that high, but you know, they both looked pretty good as well.

So why keep all four of those? Because they had 4 high draft picks this year. That's why. Not because the sun went behind a cloud.

What about Wilhite? Did you watch the 4th preseason game? He looked terrific. Would he have been washed out in a numbers game if they had good corners? No, Richardson got washed, Bryant got washed. Wilhite is the real deal -- you watch.

How about Guyton? Are you going to tell me he barely made the team? Another great find.

When vets beat out rookies, your cap is higher and your future is lower. When rookies beat out vets, you're in much better shape for the future. With a team considered one of the oldest teams in football, how can you possibly hope that rookies will be cut in favor of older vets?

Let Mangini load up for one year. Belichick plans for the future.

This team just got younger and faster on defense. That's a fact.

Now you're going to tell me that I'm a blind homer. Wrong again. The Oline has real problems and no good solutions until Neal is off PUP. They should have drafted or signed better depth when it was available. Bryant was a disappointment, not the first time the FO has screwed up a vet CB signing. This time, at least, they were smart enough not to take him into the season. But I believe by the end of the year, with three fast DBs and three solid vet DBs, they'll be fine.

And with the Pat's having close to or the weakest schedule, this is the perfect year to have an influx of rookie talent.....

 

[DaBruinz]

What I am going by is our past success.

If you are only going on PAST success, then you have forgotten the other part of that sentence. The full sentence is:
"Past success is no guarantee of future returns."

I forget who did it, but someone mentioned last year that the Pats roster has had like 10-13 new people on it every year, on average. This is no different.

Instead of relying on unproven rookies we went 16-0 by having only 1-2 rookies on the roster. Now this year we have about 8, and I suggest the overall loss of talent was significant.

First of all, the number of rookies on a team is never a clear indication of how much talent a team has. A perfect example is the Giants from last year. And the Colts.

Second, teams have turnover year in and year out. Sometimes they replace them with veterans. Sometimes they replace them with rookies. What you aren't taking into consideration is that the Patriots only had 1-2 rookies last year because they felt that the talent in the draft was poor. They said as much PRIOR to the 2007 draft. So they loaded on on veterans such as Moss, Welker, Stallworth, Washington,

Third, this years draft was evaluated to be much stronger, talent wise, than the free agent class.

Now 3 years from now it will be ok to try and guage a draft's success. Of course its coaching and opportunity that also help player development. I think having more unproven players means more mistakes. Individually we can argue who has more talent, but I think its hard to argue that we didnt lose more than we gained.

No one said squat about evaluating the draft. Guess what, Moss, Welker, Washington, Stallworth, et al, were all unproven last year in the Pats system. They may have been vets, but that is no guarantee of success in the Patriots system. You should know that by know.