AndyJohnson said:
When your approach is to overrate the players who came in the past, and discount anyone who is here now, of course you have won your circular argument.
To argue what they were WHEN THEY WERE ACQUIRED by arging what they did after they were acquired, your points become irrelevant.
I severely doubt Bill Belichcik would crawl through broken glass to get a guy who at the start of 2002 he told him he was deactivated for the first game, and sent him home to decide if he still wanted to be on the team, then in 2003 told him to go seek his own trade.
Ted Johnson was a great run stopping MLB in the mid-90s. Since the turn of the milenium he was a horrible football player. I have said if all along, and its based on watching him play the position.
I wasn't rating the players at all. I was saying what "credentials" they had before they played or were acquired.
Since we haven't seen the young linebackers we can only guess their potential by their "draft position" or "previous accomplishments".
You seem to want berate Phifer and Ted Johnson. That has nothing to do with my argument.
We can't compare their accomplishments to current young players since these players don't have any accomplishments yet to base a comparison on.
We can guess at their talent by the "credentials" draft position or "accomplishments" elsewhere, (in the case of trades, pickups).
Obviously these things aren't absolute indicators, (see John Sullivan DT or Tom Brady), but they are a way to guage talent level in the aggregate.
The Patriots have 3 #1 picks on their DL. Maybe 3 rookie free agents on another team would be better, but until proven one could say the patriots have
more talent on their DL,(assuming they are all rookies).
I hope you at least can understand my argument now.
I like Woods myself. I think he's looked good and that is what counts the most.
