Re: I have an idea

On Jan 14, 10:03 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
X-No-archive: yes
Innews:db970173-55e7-4f3d-a8c9-35626542e727@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
jvampate...@xxxxxxxxx <jvampate...@xxxxxxxxx> mused:

On Jan 14, 7:41 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2003 - Warren, DL - Pro Bowl
2004 - Wilfork, DL - excellent player, *should* have made a Pro
Bowl by now;

That's having to go way back to find success.

All part of the track record.

I'm really only interested in fairly recent track record.

Ok. You didn't say that in your original post. That's a helpful
clarification. What, though, do you mean by "fairly recent"?

Watson, TE - starter on a winning team

Meeting minimum expectations doesn't equate to good.

It's hard to be a starter in the NFL.  You have to be a good
player to start...especially on a good team.  Watson didn't turn
out to be what we all hoped he would be, but he's a starting
caliber NFL tight end. That's a pretty good player.

Not necessarliy.  Every good team has its weaknesses, and so a
starter on a team that's weak in a particular area doesn't say much.
Anyway, by your standard, every team has a very good player at every
position.  After all, someone starts at every position.

Now you're making things up. I never said that, and you know it. I
said that if you're a starter on a *good* team, that's a "good"
player. I didn't say "very good" player, and I didn't say that if
you're a starter on, say, the Lions, that it automatically makes you a
"very good" player. I do think that if you're a starter in the NFL,
you're a "pretty good" player. But that's a nice straw man there,
AllYou!

(Of course, even "pretty good" is a relative measure. The starting
OLB for Detroit isn't good compared with the other starting OLB in the
league, probably. But compared with the other guys on his team, he's
probably pretty good. And compared to the guys that aren't starting
elsewhere, he's still probably pretty good. But it's just that the
starting guys on good teams are even better, and they tend to have
more of those guys, with better coaching, and thus, when Detriot's
starters encounter New England's starters....the outcome is fairly
predictable.)

2007 - Meriweather, DB - starter, rapidly improving...could
easily see him becoming a Pro Bowler

Not a chance. He looks good because there's no one else back
there.

You think there's *not a chance* he eventually makes the Pro
Bowl?

Possibly a bit hyperbolic, but realistically, no, I'd be very, very
surprised if he does.

Fair enough. You could be right about that. Time will tell. In the
least, he's improved to the point where he's more than just
serviceable back there. He's getting "good".

Wow.  He's significantly better than he was in 2007, and
with this kind of improvement, there's no reason why we
shouldn't see him continue to improve.

He's had significant imporvement because his starting point wasn't
very good.

<shrug> Whatever.

 I'm not guaranteeing a
pro bowl appearance or anything rash like that....just that I
can see it happening.

2008 - Mayo, LB - rookie of the year
So every single one of these picks is a starting player in the
NFL (Maroney is when he's not hurt), 3 of them have been to the
Pro Bowl, one should have been, one just won the defensive
rookie of the year, and another is rapidly improving and may
soon be in the Pro Bowl. Of this group, all but one are still
on the team. I'd consider that to be a very solid performance
in the first round of the draft.

Sure, if you think that simply starting is good for a 1st
rounder, and sprinkle in a bunch of shoulda - wouldas.

I didn't say that "simply starting is good for a 1st rounder".

It seems that you did.  The only reason you gave for many of the
players that you claimed are pretty good was on the basis that they
were starters.

Given how many 1st rounders actually aren't starters, I'd say that it
is the most basic baseline expectation. At a minimum, in order to be
considered a good pick, a 1st rounder ought to at least be a starter.
Yet many 1st rounders never achieve even that. To get *every single
1st round pick* to make it to the level of starter is a genuine
accomplishment, especially considering that the Pats routinely have
drafted in the last few picks of the first round. It ain't that easy
to do, AllYou!

Though, as I mentioned earlier, a *lot* of 1st rounders never
even make it that far.  And a "bunch of shoulda-wouldas"?

I said 'sprinke in a bunch of shoulda-wouldas', which you did.  I
didn't say that's all you did, nor did I ever minimize your
references to the pro-bowlers.

 Heh.
Guess the three actual pro-bowlers...well, you discount them for
one reason or another.

Not true.  Show me where I discounted even one pro-bowler.  

You said, "That's having to go way back to find success." As if
because of that, it's kind of irrelevant. If you don't think that
it's irrelevant, then say, yes, there's no question that they hit on 3
bona-fide pro-bowlers in the 1st round since 2001. And leave it at
that. Don't qualify it with the idea that because it happened several
years ago that it's not that relevant.

What I
discounted wrt to Pioli's current value to this organization were
the two pro-bowl DL guys on the basis that they were drafted quite a
while ago.  That's all.

I know. So you're coming across (whether you mean to or not) that it
devalues that achievement.

 That's your choice, but it doesn't
diminish the overall track record, which is very, very good.
Let's see how many other teams that have had, from 2000-2008,
the following record of 1st round picks:

- 3 pro bowlers
- 9 starters (out of 9)

Every team has 22 (plus ST guys) starters.  Does that mean that
every teeam has very good players at every position?

<sigh> I never said that, and you know it. Please go back and read
what I said. "Pretty good" is not the same thing as "very good".
Must I be more specific than that?

- 1 defensive rookie of the year

Four very good players, two of whom were drafted years ago, does not
equate to a track record that scares me to lose.  That's my only
point.  

I don't agree with your assessment of their 1st round picks, but I
*do* agree with you that I'm not afraid to lose Pioli. I'll speak
more to this at the end.

As to the starters, any personel guy, the majority of whose
1st round choices *don't* start, is a guy who should be replaced,
and so just because the majority do start is nothing all that much
to write home about.  Someone has to start.

It's not just that the *majority* are starters in the NFL. They *ALL*
are starters in the NFL. That's quite amazing, actually, since you'll
not really find that same level of success with that kind of
consistency.

I am highly skeptical that you'll find many other teams with
that kind of success in the first round.  Let me know if you do.

That's why I don't think it's a bad thing to let Pioli go. I'm
not so wild about seeing McDaniels go, but maybe BB has
someone else in the wings, or maybe he'll go after one of the
X head coaches for OC.

But I don't think we lose much in the personnel department by
losing Pioli. He's very good, but nor irreplaceable.

I agree on Pioli. Wish he would stay, but I think the team can
live without him. BB is the key.

And that was my only point.

Then we agree on that, for sure.

Hmmmm.

Here's why I agree with your point about Pioli. Not because we agree
on their success of 1st round drafting. Clearly we don't agree on
that, and that's fine. But here's why I agree with your Pioli point.
No doubt he (Pioli) was a significant contributor in personnel - heck,
that was his job. But Belichick has the final say on everything
football-related, including the draft. If BB didn't like a guy, he
wasn't drafting him, period. So I credit BB more than Pioli with the
personnel decisions. So in my mind, if you don't like the job the
Pats have done with the 1st round picks, then that's a discredit to
*Belichick*, not Pioli, Since, however, I think they've done a good
job with those picks, I think it's a credit to Belichick more than
Pioli. Therefore, I'm not afraid to lose Pioli. I don't think losing
him helps the Patriots, but I'm not afraid of his loss either.

John
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I have an idea
    ... Pioli should get for those choices anyway. ... That's a pretty good player. ... becomes a starter in the league (preferably for the team that drafted ... But obviously this isn't the case for every 1st round pick, ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • World Baseball Classic Rules
    ... PLAYER ELIGIBILITY ... If a player is injured in Round One of the Tournament, ... A replacement shall be subject to the same game and tournament Roster ... PITCHER USE LIMITATIONS ...
    (rec.sport.baseball)
  • Re: I have an idea
    ... That's a pretty good player. ... What you actually said was "It's hard to be a starter in the NFL." ... pro bowl appearance or anything rash like that....just that I ... rounder, and sprinkle in a bunch of shoulda - wouldas. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: The Big, BIG damage challenge
    ... In a two player game, ... Player A influences out out Dragos (3rd round); Player B influences out Lazverinus. ... Strike hands for 14, play Undead Persistance inferior, Taste of Vitae for 7. ...
    (rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad)
  • Re: OQFTCI98 Game 4 Rounds 4,6: kid lit, game show rules
    ... Game 4, Round 6: Entertainment - TV Game Show Rules ... the player in the Bonus Round is given ... Final Jeopardy!? ...
    (rec.games.trivia)