Where do we NEED rookie contributions?

[Kontradiction]

So... we needed everything except QB, K, and NT. And somehow we managed to have players available in the draft at those seven different positions.

I think you're drawing a one to one correlation that isn't there. Need is a factor, but not the driving force behind a pick. If we needed an OLB, and there was a future pro-bowl safety available at our slot OR a mediocre OLB, I guarantee you we're taking the safety, not the OLB.

Perhaps I should have clarified this. We take the best player available according to need. For one, we didn't draft a safety this year. The reason for this is because we didn't NEED a safety. It's the deepest position on the team. Sure, we take talent at the best position available that we either have a hole or deficiency in. But make no mistake about it, by the end of the day we have drafted positions for which there was a significant amount of need available.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: "drafting for need": Belichick has answered this more than once, and he's said that need is part of what's factored in for "value":

"You value the players, however you put a grade on them. You value them, and then within that, there’s a draft strategy, maybe where you think that player is going to go in the draft, what the league thinks of him relative to what your individual team thinks of him, and need can sometimes factor into that, too, or maybe the compilation of your roster. I shouldn’t necessarily say need — a player that you see having a bigger impact on your team because of whatever the circumstances are on your team versus another one that may — for the same value for lack of a better word — duplicate something that you already have and maybe make it less valuable for your particular team at that particular point in time.

Bill Belichick Compares Value to Positional Need Heading Into Draft - New England Patriots - NESN.com

That entire article is a worthwhile read, btw.

 

[Deus Irae]

Interesting comment from Reiss, for those who want to see him offering more of an analysis type of opinion on occasion:

I'm no scout, but I watched Cunningham dropping back in coverage in practice and he looks comfortable. You notice a big difference when comparing the way he moves to someone like a Pierre Woods, who is a little more stiff. Tough to say how fast Cunningham might emerge.

Chat: Chat with Mike Reiss - SportsNation - ESPN Boston

 

[RobertWeathers]

Interesting comment from Reiss, for those who want to see him offering more of an analysis type of opinion on occasion:



Chat: Chat with Mike Reiss - SportsNation - ESPN Boston

If the kid can pressure the QB and re-route TEs and RBs and make them uncomfortable in the process, great!!

 

[townes]

Other than TE and Punter they don't have to have any rookies stand up, but if you look at in terms of young players overall they need many to seriously contribute. If McKenzie wins the starting job and plays well then there is less need for Spikes to contribute right off, if Edelman builds off of last season there is less need for Price to contribute right away, and if Butler is the starter and plays really well then there is less need for McCourty to play right off, however their overall future is going to require that many if not most of these players need to turn into really good players for them to be a championship team over the next 4-5 years. The list is pretty long for the young players they will be counting on in the future, but i think Belichik made good choices and many of these guys are going to be good players.

 

[Ring 6]

While I agree with your comments, I think you misrepresent others with regard to "holes" and needs. Of course, the first question is how we would play with the best use of the resources that we have. Also, I don't think that there is any question that rookies are treated differently.

I always view a roster before the draft (before rookies and before late additions). Don't you think Belichick does that? The staff considers how the team might develop and play with the team as consitituted BEFORE the draft. Perhaps "hole" is the wrong word. The question is always is how to use value (draft picks and additional signings) to upgrade the team at various positions.

Coming in to the draft and later free agency, it was certainly clear to all that we needed help at TE. This was a clear hole in the roster. Other than that, we are simply talking about upgrades.

I think that he views need differently than many people think he does.
I'm not trying to attach a tough process to you, however many people communicate as if its a checklist. Get one and check it off and move to the next. I don't think corner was nearly the highest priority on the team in this draft, but it was certainly a position that could be upgraded. I think OLB, ILB, DE,TE and perhaps G,T and RB (many fans would include C and WR here too I suspect) may have been considered high level needs, i.e. if we drafted no one we would be worse that those spots than corner. However, corner definitely could be improved by a first round caliber player. McCourty was the player that BB felt was the best player on the board, AND the one that would help the team the most. That doesn't mean we were weakest at that spot, but the improvement was the greatest with that pick.
I do not believe that he weighs that by thinking that he must be sure he can get a TE later and is choosing McCourty plus the TE he guesses he will take later vs the best TE o the board and what corner he thinks is available at some later point. In other words, you can only take care of one need with one pick, and there are many, many options to fill other needs.
If Gronko and Hernandez were drafted before we picked and we didn't like the other TEs we wouldn't have drafted them for the sake of drafting them. We would have drafted a TE when one was a value pick, and if that never happened, we would have signed UDFAs, street FAs, picked up waiver wire guy, and deemphaiszed the TE position.
My point simply is that personell decisions are a fluid thing, and the quest is never to fill a spot then move to the next, but to continue to maximize the overall roster by getting the most out of each resource.

 

[Robdude]

I understand all of the talk about the system and making the most of chances. But seriously, Cunninngham has to make an impact. I have lost hope with Crable and I think all the others are decent at certain roles. We need a player like Mayo at OLB that can be on the field regardless of what the offense might do. I think it would be much better if Cunningham works out to be a complete OLB that can drop back in coverage or set the edge or rush. I am not saying he has to be an All Pro this year but I certainly hope he shows he is capable of being an all around OLB and he needs to contribute this year to avoid the same problems over and over again.

 

[Ring 6]

I understand all of the talk about the system and making the most of chances. But seriously, Cunninngham has to make an impact. I have lost hope with Crable and I think all the others are decent at certain roles. We need a player like Mayo at OLB that can be on the field regardless of what the offense might do. I think it would be much better if Cunningham works out to be a complete OLB that can drop back in coverage or set the edge or rush. I am not saying he has to be an All Pro this year but I certainly hope he shows he is capable of being an all around OLB and he needs to contribute this year to avoid the same problems over and over again.

We are certainly a better team with a guy at OLB who is a complete, very good player. But it doesnt mean we can't win without one. It is a piece of the puzzle, not an absolute certainty. We should know that after 2001. We were able to win with many pieces of the puzzle in questionable condition.

I know that everyone loves the pass rush, but pass rush and coverage go hand in hand. We have come a long way from where we were in the 06 AFCC and the 07 SB as far as the quality of players we have to cover. While the pass rush arguably is not what it used to be (I dont think thats a certainty) there is no doubt that we have improved the coverage ability from those days when if we didn't get to the QB immediately there were at least 2 guys running free because we had players in coverage that couldn't keep up with them. Anyone that doubts that, fire up the tapes of those games and watch Rodney Harrison, Randall Gay, Eric Alexander, Eugene Wilson, Artrell Hawkins, and even Hobbs in addition to the aging LBs cover man to man. Particularly watch how easy it was for any receiver to get open by just changing direction.

If having the best and perfect player at every position is a score of 100, SB winners probably need to score about 40. There is plenty of room to overcome having less than perfect players and being poor at some things. All teams face that dilemma.

 

[Robdude]

We are certainly a better team with a guy at OLB who is a complete, very good player. But it doesnt mean we can't win without one. It is a piece of the puzzle, not an absolute certainty. We should know that after 2001. We were able to win with many pieces of the puzzle in questionable condition.

I know that everyone loves the pass rush, but pass rush and coverage go hand in hand. We have come a long way from where we were in the 06 AFCC and the 07 SB as far as the quality of players we have to cover. While the pass rush arguably is not what it used to be (I dont think thats a certainty) there is no doubt that we have improved the coverage ability from those days when if we didn't get to the QB immediately there were at least 2 guys running free because we had players in coverage that couldn't keep up with them. Anyone that doubts that, fire up the tapes of those games and watch Rodney Harrison, Randall Gay, Eric Alexander, Eugene Wilson, Artrell Hawkins, and even Hobbs in addition to the aging LBs cover man to man. Particularly watch how easy it was for any receiver to get open by just changing direction.

If having the best and perfect player at every position is a score of 100, SB winners probably need to score about 40. There is plenty of room to overcome having less than perfect players and being poor at some things. All teams face that dilemma.

Sure we can win games without a full time OLB that was proven this year but it is hard to stop the play off caliber teams I think. I also understand that a good system can (and has to) overcome weaknesses on D and that every team has a weakness somewhere. I just think if our DBs are expected to over preform to compensate for average/below average play at OLB that is asking a lot from so many younge players. Also I think the better offenses can effectively plan against our Lbs in general. To me the key to moving our D back up to an elite level is having one OLB that is effective on every down. I dont need 2 I would be happy with one. The only person I see that might fill that role is Cunningham. If someone else does that I would be thrilled but I am not optomistic.

I think solid LB play offsets needs in other areas better then solid Db play offsets needs at LB. Ofcourse just my opinion

 

[ctpatsfan77]

For example, I could see Ninkovich stepping up a bit and replacing the 2009 "contributions" of Thomas.

Heck, I think Box_O_Rocks or PATSNUTme could do that.

 

[mgteich]

There is all the moaning and whining. The fact is that we had a top 10 defense last year and will likely improve at ILB, improve in the secondary and be about even on the defensive line.

If the OLB position stays at least around even with last year, the defense should be expected to improve. Even if the OLB position is a bit weaker, the defense should improve. And as i keep repeating, Banta-Cain, Woods, Burgess and Ninkovich are back. The only "loss" is Thomas. Perhaps Ninkovich can step up and take the reps of Thomas. Perhaps Cunningham and Crable will help take those reps. It seems that the OLB position should be able to at least what it did last year. And if they do that much, I see a major improvement in the defense.

Heck, I think Box_O_Rocks or PATSNUTme could do that.

 

[Deus Irae]

There is all the moaning and whining. The fact is that we had a top 10 defense last year and will likely improve at ILB, improve in the secondary and be about even on the defensive line.

If the OLB position stays at least around even with last year, the defense should be expected to improve. Even if the OLB position is a bit weaker, the defense should improve. And as i keep repeating, Banta-Cain, Woods, Burgess and Ninkovich are back. The only "loss" is Thomas. Perhaps Ninkovich can step up and take the reps of Thomas. Perhaps Cunningham and Crable will help take those reps. It seems that the OLB position should be able to at least what it did last year. And if they do that much, I see a major improvement in the defense.

What is this "should be expected to improve" based upon?

 

[stinkypete]

What defines "need?"

If we're talking roster makeup, TE is the only position where we NEED rookie contributions. Punter is arguable depending on how this Aussie rules guy pans out.

After that, it's purely a question of "at what positions could a rookie win out AND improve the overall unit." While we all hope every rookie can step in immediately, there's some guys, Price and Cunningham come to mind, that are likely to take some seasoning before they are ready to fill their roles.

The bad news there, OLB is almost certainly the weakest position on this team and the spot where we NEED to see someone step in. It's just not likely.

Much more likely, Spikes and McCourty see significant playing time and solidify the defenses overall toughness and tackling. The improved run defense means fewer 3rd and shorts and the improved DB play (no more Wilhite covering #2's) augments what pass rush exists.

 

[mgteich]

My overall assessment at this point is that I expect the defense to improve. Obviously, this doesn't have to happen. Any of the groups could perform worse that these early expectations.


DEFENSIVE LINE about even
INISDE LINEBACKERS better with a healthy Mayo, and Spikes/McKenzie for Seau
OUTSIDE LINEBACKERS even to a bit worse
CORNERS better with the addition of McCourty and some maturity
in the rest
SAFETIES a bit better with Chung in his second year

What is this "should be expected to improve" based upon?

 

[Deus Irae]

My overall assessment at this point is that I expect the defense to improve. Obviously, this doesn't have to happen. Any of the groups could perform worse that these early expectations.

It's the "expectations" part of your claim that I'm not following.....

DEFENSIVE LINE about even

So, the team loses its starter and will probably be replacing him with someone who's never been a 3-4 end before, while Wilfork will have to fight off the "just signed the big deal and am going on vacation blues", and that's EXPECTED to be about even?

INISDE LINEBACKERS better with a healthy Mayo, and Spikes/McKenzie for Seau

Mayo should be better, given that he played last season with the effects of a sprained knee and will have had time to fully heal. However, the question is how you can EXPECT Spikes/McKenzie to be better than Guyton/Seau when you haven't seen either of them even get to training camp yet. You haven't even seen these guys facing NFL players in pads yet, never mind having seen them even in a scrimmage or exhibition game.

OUTSIDE LINEBACKERS even to a bit worse

TBC should be EXPECTED to be worse than he was in a career season, based upon the notion of falling to his statistical norm (I'd obviously love to see him follow up one career season with another). Ninkovich should be EXPECTED to be worse than a player he couldn't beat out last year, given that he's a 'seasoned' vet and improvement generally isn't anything major at this point in a player's career. Woods should be EXPECTED to be worse than a player he couldn't beat out last year. Cunningham is a conversion project and hasn't reached training camp as a rookie yet. Burgess, as has been discussed many times, was a pass rusher no matter where he was supposedly lined up, and was terrible for most of the season. Given that, how do you reach your conclusion? You might be right, and I certainly hope you are, but the OLB situation is ripe for a pretty big downturn even from last season.

CORNERS better with the addition of McCourty and some maturity in the rest

I can see an expected improvement in Butler (although beware the Wheatley syndrome), but Butler was in and out of the starting lineup last season, and wasn't really any major upgrade over Springs. Bodden may well have a lesser season in comparison to last year, and Wilhite will be manning the nickel/dime again unless McCourty beats him out. How should McCourty improve the corners under such circumstances? You think that him beating out Wilhite for the nickel is proof of a real upgrade?

SAFETIES a bit better with Chung in his second yer

Chung is only an improvement if he can become better than Sanders. Is that your expectation, That Chung/Meriweather will become the starters, and the defensive backfield won't have the communication and coverage problems it had with Sanders out of the lineup last season? If so, what's the basis for such an expectation, given how clearly Sanders was missed last season, once teams began exploiting McGowan?

I will note that you didn't point to coaching. While I thought Pees got a bad rap, I certainly think BB is the superior defensive coach. It's there that I think it's fair to EXPECT to see improvement. The rest seems to be more accurately described as hope than expectation. Hope's certainly not a bad thing, but I think it's a bit too soon to be calling this all stuff to be expected.

 

[Ring 6]

My overall assessment at this point is that I expect the defense to improve. Obviously, this doesn't have to happen. Any of the groups could perform worse that these early expectations.


DEFENSIVE LINE about even
INISDE LINEBACKERS better with a healthy Mayo, and Spikes/McKenzie for Seau
OUTSIDE LINEBACKERS even to a bit worse
CORNERS better with the addition of McCourty and some maturity
in the rest
SAFETIES a bit better with Chung in his second yer

I think that is at least fair.
To expand on your answer (which you gave in the first post btw) by position, I am looking at what is likely. Of course likely doesnt mean IS, WILL, or HAS TO BE, but then again show me any NFL team that performed exactly as expected at more positions than not in any season.

2009...............2010
DL
Warren (not 100% healthy).......Warren
more likely to have a more heathy season than a less healthy season therefore an improvement
Wilfork (not 100% healthy)........Wilfork
see above
Wright............Wright
Green.............Warren or Lewis
We all have fond memories of Green but he was downright terrible last year. It will be very difficult for the player who wins this spot to play worse than he did, although anything is possible. If we are comparing to Green at his peak, its a different story, but he was a shell of himself last year
Pryor.............Pryor or Warren/Lewis or Deadrick
It would seem Pryor year 2 ought to be better than Pryor year 1 and therefore if he is beaten out that would be improvement as well
Brace............Brace

Overall, it is extremely more likely that this unit plays better in 10 than in 09, and unlikely that the difference is immense.

ILB
Mayo...................Mayo
Again, if healthy an imporvement and when a player was not healthy last year it is likely he will be more healthy this year
Guyton..............Guyton/Spikes/McKenzie
It is hard to imagine that bringing back the starter and adding 2 players that appear to be more talented to compete with him does not make a likely improvement at the position.
Seau/Alexander.........Guyton/Spikes/McKenzie
no comment needed

OLB
TBC................TBC
It is more likely that TBC will decline from his career year than improve upon it. I will mention however, that career year is only measuring the number of sacks which is a small part of his job, and his overall play has seemed to steadily improve over the years.
Thomas..........Cunningham/Crable/Woods/Nincovich
I am in the camp that says it would be hard for whoever lines up in that position to be worse than Thomas. So narrowly defined as compared to last year, or compared to possibly the worst OLB in the NFL, it is likely we improve. Of course, the Raiders could have had Mark Sanchez at QB instead of Russel last year and it would have been an improvement but would anyone have noticed. In a broader definition, this was a huge trouble spot last year, and a dramatic imporvement is attainable. The possibility of a dramatic improvement is encouraging, the liklihood though is not given the inexperience that we will be relying upon.
Backups...................Backups
Most likely the same JAG-itude wearing the same or a different number.

Sub Package Pass Rusher
Burgess.............Burgess
Common belief is year 2 in the system will help. IMO, you don't need to learn a system to line up and rush the passer. Age makes it likely we are worse rather than better here, while past production leaves the blimmer of hope of improvement.


Overall, you can say it is likely to improve only because Thomas was so bad, but moderate improvement, which is likely would still be disappointing given how low the bar was set.
Corner
Bodden..............Bodden
Now this is a case where I would say year 2 in the system will help because there will be less of those lost split seconds thinking it through. Some would say big payday leads to decline in play, I don't believe that concept.
Butler...............Butler
Rookie to year 2, especially for a corner, especially for BB usually marks an improvement in play. (most starting corners for BB became starters late in year 1 and much better players in year 2)
Wilhite...........Wilhite/McCourty
Wilhite played 345 snaps as a rookie and 573 in year 2. More experience typically equals improvement. My view of Wilhite is that only playing in passing downs will make his pass coverage better (to me he struggled more in run/pass situations and took run responsibilities very seriously, sometimes to the detriment of his coverage) Of course, McCourty is a much more talented corner, so if he surpasses Wilhite, there is certainly improvement
Springs............Wilhite/McCourty/Wheatly
Kinda hard to compare because Springs is really being replaced by more playing time from the top 3 than by the 4th. I'd say most likely here is no change.

Overall, it would be foolish to say improvement at corner is not likely.

SAFETY
Meriwether...........Meriwhether
Probably the same, but more consistency could elevate his play.
Sanders..............Sanders/Chung
Either the same guy, or one that is supposedly more talkented and beat him out
McGowan............McGowan/Sanders/Chung
Again, either the same #3 or the guy who beats him out for it.
Chung................McGowan/Sanders/Chung
For whatever a 4th safety will play, I guess we call it a draw.

Overall likely to impore based upon the liklihood that Chung contributes more.

I don't think its even possible to conclude the most likely result is improvemet. Sure there are a lot of variables that could go in either direction, but we are talking about what is likely.

Finally, the fact that it seems that BB will be more heavily involved in the innerworkings of the defense is a strong consideraton that imporvement is likely.

 

[Ring 6]

It's the "expectations" part of your claim that I'm not following.....



So, the team loses its starter and will probably be replacing him with someone who's never been a 3-4 end before, while Wilfork will have to fight off the "just signed the big deal and am going on vacation blues", and that's EXPECTED to be about even?



Mayo should be better, given that he played last season with the effects of a sprained knee and will have had time to fully heal. However, the question is how you can EXPECT Spikes/McKenzie to be better than Guyton/Seau when you haven't seen either of them even get to training camp yet. You haven't even seen these guys facing NFL players in pads yet, never mind having seen them even in a scrimmage or exhibition game.



TBC should be EXPECTED to be worse than he was in a career season, based upon the notion of falling to his statistical norm (I'd obviously love to see him follow up one career season with another). Ninkovich should be EXPECTED to be worse than a player he couldn't beat out last year, given that he's a 'seasoned' vet and improvement generally isn't anything major at this point in a player's career. Woods should be EXPECTED to be worse than a player he couldn't beat out last year. Cunningham is a conversion project and hasn't reached training camp as a rookie yet. Burgess, as has been discussed many times, was a pass rusher no matter where he was supposedly lined up, and was terrible for most of the season. Given that, how do you reach your conclusion? You might be right, and I certainly hope you are, but the OLB situation is ripe for a pretty big downturn even from last season.



I can see an expected improvement in Butler (although beware the Wheatley syndrome), but Butler was in and out of the starting lineup last season, and wasn't really any major upgrade over Springs. Bodden may well have a lesser season in comparison to last year, and Wilhite will be manning the nickel/dime again unless McCourty beats him out. How should McCourty improve the corners under such circumstances? You think that him beating out Wilhite for the nickel is proof of a real upgrade?



Chung is only an improvement if he can become better than Sanders. Is that your expectation, That Chung/Meriweather will become the starters, and the defensive backfield won't have the communication and coverage problems it had with Sanders out of the lineup last season? If so, what's the basis for such an expectation, given how clearly Sanders was missed last season, once teams began exploiting McGowan?

I will note that you didn't point to coaching. While I thought Pees got a bad rap, I certainly think BB is the superior defensive coach. It's there that I think it's fair to EXPECT to see improvement. The rest seems to be more accurately described as hope than expectation.

I think it is very fair to expect that when you return young players and add players that can be expected (based upon college play, ability, draft value, scouting reports, etc) to be more talented that you expect imporvement at the position. At ILB and corner that is exactly what we have done.
I dont know that the competition between Guyton, McKenzie and Spikes will produce a better player than Guyton was last year, but I know it won't be worse. Since it is very reasonable to assume that players with the college careers, scouting reports, skillsets, measurables and production at the college level of these 2 players will be better than what we saw from Guyton, isnt it reasonable to assume he will be beaten out and therefore we will be better at the position? I expect if you draft a player who beats out your starter you have gotten better. I don't have to be correct, but its a reasonable expectation.

I don't think that not having seen them in training camp means you can't have an expectation. Otherwise, we would just have to fill the board with, "I don't know the season hasm't played out yet". I would agree that expectations will be more accurate as time goes on, but there still have to be expectations of some sort.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think it is very fair to expect that when you return young players and add players that can be expected (based upon college play, ability, draft value, scouting reports, etc) to be more talented that you expect imporvement at the position. At ILB and corner that is exactly what we have done.

Given that a Patriots draft typically results in 1-2 players who become real contributors (non-special teams) in the first season, "expect" is a terrible way to go. Last season, we saw a higher number than that because of all the turnover and turmoil. Butler got some starts because Springs couldn't get it done. Edelman saw extended time because Welker got injured and Aiken sucked. The only position where the rookie really seized his position was Vollmer taking the RT spot eventually (although it was rumored that Kaczur had bum ankles, I'm giving Vollmer the flat-out win there).

I dont know that the competition between Guyton, McKenzie and Spikes will produce a better player than Guyton was last year, but I know it won't be worse.

Well, it certainly could be worse than Guyton/Seau, but I wouldn't EXPECT either improvement or decline at this point. The Crable experience should have settled this issue for all time.

Since it is very reasonable to assume that players with the college careers, scouting reports, skillsets, measurables and production at the college level of these 2 players will be better than what we saw from Guyton, isnt it reasonable to assume he will be beaten out and therefore we will be better at the position? I expect if you draft a player who beats out your starter you have gotten better. I don't have to be correct, but its a reasonable expectation.

Success rate in the NFL is less than 50%. Guyton has already made it in the league. It's completely unreasonable to expect players, especially players outside of the first round, to supplant starters in their first seasons. That's not to say that it doesn't happen, but the word being tossed around is expect, not hope. Anyone who's seen my posts about Guyton as a starter knows that I'm definitely on the "I hope Spikes/McKenzie can knock Guyton out of the starter position" side of the equation, but expectations of that will have to wait until I see the potential replacements actually playing football rather than running around in shorts.

I don't think that not having seen them in training camp means you can't have an expectation. Otherwise, we would just have to fill the board with, "I don't know the season hasm't played out yet". I would agree that expectations will be more accurate as time goes on, but there still have to be expectations of some sort.

Unless your rookie is a top echelon player at his position (Peyton Manning, etc...), who's considered 'ready from day 1', expecting rookies to start and improve a team in their first season, without even having seen them in pads, scrimmages and exhibitions, is foolhardy. You yourself have been pummeling Mark Sanchez, for example, for months. He was a top 5 pick, and he certainly wasn't a step up from the Jets previous starting QB.

Just looking at last season's first round (if it's an iffy call, I'll go with yes)

Stafford - yes
Smith - no
Jackson - no
Curry - no
Sanchez - no
Smith - no
Heyward-Bey - no
Monroe - no
Raji - no
Crabtree - yes
Maybin - no
Moreno - no
Orakpo - yes
Jenkins - yes
Cushing - INC (PEDs)
English - no
Freeman - no
Ayers - no
Maclin - yes
Pettigrew - yes
Mack - yes
Harvin - yes
Oher - yes
Jerry - no
Davis - yes
Matthews - yes
Brown - no
Wood - no
Nicks - yes
Britt - no
Wells - yes
Hood - no

So, 32 players, 1 INC'd for PEDs, 13 players that were close enough to help to given them a yes vote, and a majority (18) that were of little to no real help to their team as rookies, especially in comparison to what was there before. Again, that's just in the first round, and you've got less than a 50% "help" rate, even with a generous "yes".

It's tough to "expect" as much as Mgteich and yourself seem to be doing when even round 1 players meet such expectations at less than a 50% clip. The edge the Patriots have over most teams is that they've been drafting more players and increasing the odds. That doesn't raise the expectations of specific individuals, though.

Again, I'm not saying that their won't be improvement. I'm just saying that, in the aggregate, we have no sound reasoning for expecting it as of this moment, other than BB vs. Pees. Let's see them in pads and exhibitions before we start tacking expectations on these guys (Well, other than Mayo with his rested knee).

 

[Water Boy]

There is absolutely no question that there is enough talent on this team to win the SB.

I hope you're right. I love where this team is headed, but I think we'll need significant contributions from rookies and year two players if this is too happen.

Here's my breakdown:

TE: one of either Gronk or Hernandez (likely both) will need to be significant contributors. Crumpler's age and time need to get in rhythm with Brady is also a concern.

WR: Tate or Price Will Moss, Edleman and Holt and Patten be enough in the beginning of the season? probably not.

ILB: Spikes or McKenzie These guys have time to develop behind Mayo and Guyton. Not surprised if Spikes is a starter from day 1. Not worried here at all.

OLB: Cunningham, Ninkovich or Crable Right now this is the team's achillies heel. TBC and Burgess are one trick ponies.

CB: Butler and McCourtey Need one of these guys to become a very solid starter at CB and the other to contribute in nickel and dime.

S: Chung with one year under his belt he needs to take the training wheels off and begin to become a dynamic player like Merriweather. Sanders is a solid JAG. We need better if we want this defense to improve.

 

[Ring 6]

Given that a Patriots draft typically results in 1-2 players who become real contributors (non-special teams) in the first season, "expect" is a terrible way to go. Last season, we saw a higher number than that because of all the turnover and turmoil. Butler got some starts because Springs couldn't get it done. Edelman saw extended time because Welker got injured and Aiken sucked. The only position where the rookie really seized his position was Vollmer taking the RT spot eventually (although it was rumored that Kaczur had bum ankles, I'm giving Vollmer the flat-out win there).




Well, it certainly could be worse than Guyton/Seau, but I wouldn't EXPECT either improvement or decline at this point. The Crable experience should have settled this issue for all time.



Success rate in the NFL is less than 50%. Guyton has already made it in the league. It's completely unreasonable to expect players, especially players outside of the first round, to supplant starters in their first seasons. That's not to say that it doesn't happen, but the word being tossed around is expect, not hope. Anyone who's seen my posts about Guyton as a starter knows that I'm definitely on the "I hope Spikes/McKenzie can knock Guyton out of the starter position" side of the equation, but expectations of that will have to wait until I see the potential replacements actually playing football rather than running around in shorts.



Unless your rookie is a top echelon player at his position (Peyton Manning, etc...), who's considered 'ready from day 1', expecting rookies to start and improve a team in their first season, without even having seen them in pads, scrimmages and exhibitions, is foolhardy. You yourself have been pummeling Mark Sanchez, for example, for months. He was a top 5 pick, and he certainly wasn't a step up from the Jets previous starting QB.

Just looking at last season's first round (if it's an iffy call, I'll go with yes)

Stafford - yes
Smith - no
Jackson - no
Curry - no
Sanchez - no
Smith - no
Heyward-Bey - no
Monroe - no
Raji - no
Crabtree - yes
Maybin - no
Moreno - no
Orakpo - yes
Jenkins - yes
Cushing - INC (PEDs)
English - no
Freeman - no
Ayers - no
Maclin - yes
Pettigrew - yes
Mack - yes
Harvin - yes
Oher - yes
Jerry - no
Davis - yes
Matthews - yes
Brown - no
Wood - no
Nicks - yes
Britt - no
Wells - yes
Hood - no

So, 32 players, 1 INC'd for PEDs, 13 players that were close enough to help to given them a yes vote, and a majority (18) that were of little to no real help to their team as rookies, especially in comparison to what was there before. Again, that's just in the first round, and you've got less than a 50% "help" rate, even with a generous "yes".

It's tough to "expect" as much as Mgteich and yourself seem to be doing when even round 1 players meet such expectations at less than a 50% clip. The edge the Patriots have over most teams is that they've been drafting more players and increasing the odds. That doesn't raise the expectations of specific individuals, though.

Again, I'm not saying that their won't be improvement. I'm just saying that, in the aggregate, we have no sound reasoning for expecting it as of this moment, other than BB vs. Pees. Let's see them in pads and exhibitions before we start tacking expectations on these guys (Well, other than Mayo with his rested knee).

So your expectation is that all of the rookies will be liabilities?
I also explained that I am talking about what is LIKELY.
All I am expecting is that the players added, who by accounts have more talent than the players that are still here either contribute something more than the poor player that they have replaced on the roster, or if they do happen to beat out the incumbent player, I would expect based upon the fact they beat them out that it signals an improvement.
I 'expect' that the competition at ILB will most likely result in better play.
I 'expect' that a more seasoned Butler, plus the addition of a rookie who is more physically gifted (as a football player, I cold care less about 'athleticism' alone.) means we are likely to improve.
I 'expect' something to occur at the OLB position, and while the play there was so poor last year, I'm still reserving any hope that it will equal improvement.
I 'expect' its likley that the second year players will be better than they were last year.
You seem to be categorizing expect as a certainty while I have painstakingly definied it as more likley than not. If you seriously can tell me that the play at ILB, CB and S is more likely to be worse that better, then we should just end the conversation and you should take your manifestation of anger over the Seymour trade to a different discussion.
I can understand reserving opinion, but thats not what this discussion is about. This discussion is about based upon what we know now and projecting expectations what is most likely. To say the expectation should be that they don't exist is obtuse.
If we guess at the contribution of each rookie, it would be clear that your guess is that they won't even show up, and my guess is that they have a chance to make a contribution, some more than others.
We will both be correct in some cases and incorrect in others. The amount of contribution I am RELYING ON in my analysis is small, so the confidence level that the NET amount of contribution needed from the rookies for the defense to improve will happen should be pretty high. Doesn't mean it will, but the level the bar is set at and the quality of the players, along with the number of players who could have an impact tells me I can expect it is more likely the rookies as a group contribute a positive impact than end up non-existent.