No, and I never said anything remotely close to that.
Yes, and you're making assumptions that run counter to history, and then calling the results of those assumptions "LIKELY".
I am not expecting anything to run counter to history. Did you even read what I wrote? I am expecting the young players to contribute something. At this point I do not know who or how much, but I am confident that it will amount to more than what we lost, which is negligible.
History says that if I bring in young players, highly regarded in the draft, to replace slugs, I have a good chance of improving.
That is what LIKELY means. Better chance of happening than not.
What player are we replcing at those positions that would represent a loss?
Yes, you're expecting rookie after rookie to step in and be better than veterans. It's not likely to be the case, as a general rule, when you look at NFL history. Now, is it likely that there will be 1-2 players who end up with a significant role? Absolutely, but who those players are, and where they play, is an open question.
Wrong once again. I am expcting the group of rookies to make a contribution. I see no lost player that it would take a big leap of faith to play better than. Again, do you read what I write?
It's a silly proposition to "expect" a rookie and a 2nd year player coming off of a season lost to an ACL injury before he even got to training camp to result in better play than 2 veterans who were here before them, when you haven't seen them play at all.
2 veterans? The only player gone is Seau who showed up at the end of the season and did nothing playing a total of 119 regular season snaps.
Yes, and people "expected" Wheatley to step up in his second season, too. That's the sort of reason why "expect" is a bad way to go before seeing them on the field.
Who are 'people'? Wheatley played 79 snaps as a rookie, that is a terrible example.
You have to expect something. You seem to want to ignore the existence of the draft class. You can expect bad, you can expect medicore, but when discussing the players before they have taken the field, there is still and expectaiton, you just want to hide behind making a backhanded opinion by saying you cant make one yet so it must be bad.
What is it that you're expecting? Are you expecting Crable to flourish, or Cunningham to be a quality starter for game 1? TBC had his career year last season. Expecting him to match or exceed that is unfair to him, although hoping for it is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. Ninkovich, Burgess and Woods were all unable to beat out Thomas last season. Unless you think Crable or Cunningham is winning the job as his replacement, you're left with expecting them to be better than he was, despite the fact that they are all multi-year veterans who weren't as good as he was last season.
Do you read? I said I expect the competition to produce a starter and the bar of playing as well as Thomas is so low, I am confident anyone who earns the job will do better. Thomas was not playing last year because he was playing well. He was playing because he played well in the past, and BB was hoping to jar him jnto being productive. It didn't work. He sucked. Or are you going back to your failed argument that there was nothing wrong Thomas' play
1.) I was originally responding to Mgteich, and you jumped in. So telling me how I'm categorizing your position, when I'm dealing with Mgteich's position as amplified by your posts, is simply off the mark.
But you responded to me, so whoever your original response was to is irrelevant. Your direct response to me categorized MY comments.
2.) My positions on current Patriots matters have nothing to do with the Seymour trade, save when it comes to discussing the RDE position.
Yeah right, and I have a bridge for sale.
3.) I have repeatedly suggested that you ignore my posts. If you are going to refuse to do that, you probably should not be suggesting that we end conversations, given that I don't want to have them with you in the first place.
I was't aware that I needed your permission for anything, although its apparent from your attitude that you feel it is necessary.
1.) To claim the expectations should exist even before seeing the players on the field is folly.
Well, when I sit here today and discuss expectations have to exist. Thir accuravcy is dubious, which is why I speak in terms such as "If Guyton keeps his job we are the same but if Spikes beats him out we are improved. Since most scouts feel Spikes will be a better player, that chance exists" See GUARDED expectation.
2.) The "discussion" is based upon the difference between optimism/hope and expectation, which is something I noted specifically, as well as the O.P. inspired discussion of where rookie contributions are NEEDED. If you can't handle that, perhaps you shouldn't be jumping into the discussion.
The discussion, started by mgteich was the liklihood that we will be better on defense. To address the question you have to assign expectations to all players. How diffcult is that to understand?
I'm not sure what part of "wait until practices, scrimmages and exhibitions" you think will prove to be wrong. Perhaps you could clear that up....
Gladly. We are discussing it TODAY. Today we dont have that information available. That information will alter expectations as it unfolds. However there still have to be expecations to have such a discussion.
Indeed. You're pulling your analysis out of air. History, both NFL and Patriots, favors waiting, at the very least, for training camp and exhibitions before beginning to "expect" anything. Save for the rare "NFL ready" player, anything you get from a rookie should be looked at as a great bonus, not as an expectation met.
Totally incorrect. You dont seem to understand that ignoring a topic is not the same as discussing it. I get that you want to ignore it and not have an expectation until you can have it adjusted by time. Then stay out of the discussion you are choosing not to have. You use more words to say 'I don't know" than anyone I have ever met.
The Crable experience should have taught that to Patriots fans. The Wheatley experience should have taught that to Patriots fans. The Chad Jackson experience should have taught that to Patriots fans. Vrabel, Rodney and Bruschi were supposedly shot veterans who were on their very last legs, yet none of their rookie "replacements" was an upgrade. We have all this evidence showing us why EXPECTING rookie replacements to exceed the aging veterans they are there to replace is a mistake, yet you want to ignore that and place that burden on these kids before they even get to training camp and demonstrate some legitimate potential to do get it done. :bricks:
Those are all FACTORS at our disposal today to form an expectation on.
Once again, if we are going to discuss the defense and Spikes, McKenzie, McCourty, Cunningham, Cranble all potentially have roles, then we have to include them in the discussion, or else say, I dont want to discuss this until later. If you are saying you don't want to discuss it until later, then do so.
I can only discuss it based on educated guesses and assumptions right now, and I have no concern whether my opinion is the same or different once more facts come to light.
As of right now, I feel there is a better chance our defense will be improved than worse after factoring in all of the information available to me today. Next week, next month or in November I may feel the opposite, or even more strongly in the same direction.
I dismiss "I can't offer an opinion yet" as a lame response to a topic.
Sorry, I forgiot tp ask you to tell me what I am supposed to think before I posted.
