Jump to content

Jerry/Sidbury are already considered a bust


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Really?

Sure, there are players that come in and tear up the league, most actually make their biggest jump in year two, but a good chunk of them take some time:

WR/TE receptions

Roddy White, 29, 30, 89 receptions

Tony Gonzalez 33, 59, 76

Reggie Wayne 27, 49, 68 receptions

Greg Jennings 45 ,53, 80 receptions

Andre Johnson 66, 79, 63, 103

Miles Austin 0, 5, 13, 81

Chad Ochocinco 28, 69, 90

Derrick Mason 14, 25, 8, 63

Lance Moore, 1, 32 ,79

Hines Ward, 15, 61, 48, 94

Donald Driver, 3, 21,13, 70

Steve Smith Car 10, 54, 88

Sacks

Patrick Kerney 2.5, 2.5, 12

Osi Umenyiora 1, 7, 14.5

Justin Tuck 1, 0, 10

Charles Johnson 0, 6, 4, 11.5

Shaun Phillips 4, 7, 11.5

James Harrison 1 , 3, 0, 8.5

Trent Cole 5, 8, 12.5

Chris Long 4, 5, 8.5

Ray Edwards 3, 5,5, 8.5

Hardly seems like a rarity to me.

It is rare and only showing example of whom did do well by their 3rd season shows intellectual dishonesty. Why don't you show all the prospects that don't make it instead of only isolating people who did? Let see how the proportion is between those who do and those who don't.

Second, I only mentioned about players being contributing quality starters within 2 years which many of the examples you gave DID contribute WITHIN 2 years. Those whom you gave took 3 years to have pro bowl type numbers, but my comments were not on Jerry of Sidbury making the pro bowl there 3rd year but being a quality starter.

So thanks for the examples, you validated my point. :D

I added the bold in your quote to emphasize starter quality numbers WITHIN 2 years.

Edited by Aria7
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is rare and only showing example of whom did do well by their 3rd season shows intellectual dishonesty. Why don't you show all the prospects that don't make it instead of only isolating people who did? Let see how the proportion is between those who do and those who don't.

Second, I only mentioned about players being contributing quality starters within 2 years which many of the examples you gave DID contribute WITHIN 2 years. Those whom you gave took 3 years to have pro bowl type numbers, but my comments were not on Jerry of Sidbury making the pro bowl there 3rd year but being a quality starter.

So thanks for the examples, you validated my point. :D

I added the bold in your quote to emphasize starter quality numbers WITHIN 2 years.

Hey, you want to prove me wrong, rather than make unsubstantiated claims do the numbers yourself. My guess is of the players that become stars about 15-20% of players start off well, about 60% really take off in the second year [ by far the thing that happens most often] about 15-20% take 3-4-5 years to develop.

It's not dishonest to just find enough examples to disprove your point. If it's so rare for players to take 3 + years to develop, then I shouldn't be able to go through the top 100 players or so in receiving and sacks and come up with two dozen examples of players developing late.

A significant portion of stars take 3 or 4 years to develop, I just got tired of looking them up. But here's a couple more-

Sacks

Jay Ratliff 1,4, 3, 7.5

Receptions

Wes Welker 0, 29 ,67,112

both took 4 years to really take off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly Sidbury is a bust too. Yes DEs may take awhile to develop and Sidbury is considered 'raw' talent, but when a guy can't even see the field in his sophomore season - not even on special teams - he's a HUGE bust.

How can a 4th round project DE in his second year be considered a "HUGE bust?" Are you on crack?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, you want to prove me wrong, rather than make unsubstantiated claims do the numbers yourself. My guess is of the players that become stars about 15-20% of players start off well, about 60% really take off in the second year [ by far the thing that happens most often] about 15-20% take 3-4-5 years to develop.

It's not dishonest to just find enough examples to disprove your point. If it's so rare for players to take 3 + years to develop, then I shouldn't be able to go through the top 100 players or so in receiving and sacks and come up with two dozen examples of players developing late.

A significant portion of stars take 3 or 4 years to develop, I just got tired of looking them up. But here's a couple more-

Sacks

Jay Ratliff 1,4, 3, 7.5

Receptions

Wes Welker 0, 29 ,67,112

both took 4 years to really take off.

you listed about 20 people in the entire nfl that did well later on in their careers. So what. Do you not hear announcers during the draft that showed that 2nd round draft picks have about a 4 year shelf life and you are telling me that it is not rare for people to do well after 3 years. you are insane. Unless they have potential, the coaching staff is not going to give them 3-4 years to develope because you have another draft and another group of free agents that are set to compete for the weakest positions on the team.

All you showed was a handful of players that did do well after some time. What is that about 10 % of all the players. This is not to mention those just barely making the team, getting traded and or being out of the nfl altogether.

It is hard to make it as a quality starter as a UDFA because you have to earn the chance to be there and you are not given as many chances in comparison to a 1st or even a 4th round. If the falcons get a free agent DE this year how long do you think Sidberry has to prove himself?

You are only giving examples of the FEW who did make it. It is lopsided towards those who DON't. Shall we review the falcons draft choices who did NOT make it after 3 years?

Lets see how many of these guys were decent STARTERS from 2002 - 2008 given 3+ years to develop. I am only going to put "*" to player who did well AFTER 3 + years of being in the league. Guys that did well right off the bat will NOT have a "*".

2002

T. J. Duckett Running Back Michigan State

3 15 80 Will Overstreet Linebacker Tennessee

4 18 116 Martin Bibla Guard Miami (FL)

5 13 148 Kevin McCadam Safety Virginia Tech

5 23 158 Kurt Kittner Quarterback Illinois

6 12 184 Kahlil Hill Wide Receiver Iowa

7 6 217 [[Michael Coleman (wide receiver) Michael Coleman]] Wide Receiver Widener

7 34 245 Quincy Monk Linebacker North Carolina

[edit]

2003 DraftRound Pick # Overall Name Position College

2 23 55 Bryan Scott Safety Penn State

4 24 121 Justin Griffith Fullback Mississippi State

5 24 159 Jon Olinger Wide Receiver Cincinnati

6 23 196 LaTarence Dunbar Wide Receiver TCU

6 29 202 Waine Bacon Cornerback Alabama

7 24 238 Demetrin Veal Defensive Tackle University of Tennessee

[edit]

2004 DraftRound Pick # Overall Name Position College

1 8 8 DeAngelo Hall Cornerback Virginia Tech

1 29 29 Michael Jenkins Wide Receiver Ohio State *

3 27 90 Matt Schaub Quarterback Virginia *

4 5 101 Demorrio Williams Linebacker Nebraska no

5 10 142 Chad Lavalais Defensive Tackle LSU no

6 21 186 Etric Pruitt Wide Receiver Southern Miss no

7 18 219 Quincy Wilson Running Back West Virginia no

[edit]

2005 DraftRound Pick # Overall Name Position College

1 27 27 Roddy White Wide Receiver UAB *

2 27 59 Jonathan Babineaux Defensive Tackle Iowa *

3 26 90 Jordan Beck Linebacker Cal Poly

4 27 128 Chauncey Davis Defensive End Florida State

5 24 160 Michael Boley Linebacker Southern Miss

5 27 163 Frank Omiyale Offensive Tackle Tennessee Tech

6 27 201 DeAndra Cobb Running Back Michigan State

7 27 241 Darrell Shropshire Defensive Tackle South Carolina

2006 DraftRound Pick # Overall Name Position College

2 5 37 Jimmy Williams Cornerback Virginia Tech

3 15 79 Jerious Norwood Running Back Mississippi State

5 6 139 Quinn Ojinnaka Offensive Tackle Syracuse

6 15 184 Adam Jennings Wide Receiver Fresno State

7 15 223 D. J. Shockley Quarterback Georgia no

[edit]

2007 DraftRound Pick # Overall Name Position College

1 8 8 Jamaal Anderson Defensive End Arkansas

2 7 39 Justin Blalock Guard Texas *

2 9 41 Chris Houston Cornerback Arkansas

3 11 75 Laurent Robinson Wide Receiver Illinois State

4 10 109 Stephen Nicholas Linebacker South Florida

4 34 133 Martrez Milner Tight End Georgia

6 11 185 Trey Lewis Defensive Tackle Washburn

6 20 194 David Irons Cornerback Auburn

6 24 198 Doug Datish Center Ohio State

6 29 203 Daren Stone Safety Maine

7 34 244 Jason Snelling Running Back Virginia

[edit]

2008 DraftRound Pick # Overall Name Position College

1 3 3 Matt Ryan Quarterback Boston College

1 21 21 Sam Baker Offensive Tackle USC

2 6 37 Curtis Lofton Linebacker Oklahoma

3 5 68 Chevis Jackson Cornerback LSU

3 21 84 Harry Douglas Wide Receiver Louisville

3 35 98 Thomas DeCoud Safety California *

5 3 138 Robert James Linebacker Arizona State

5 19 154 Kroy Biermann Linebacker Montana

6 6 173 Thomas Brown Running Back Georgia

7 5 212 Wilrey Fontenot Cornerback Arizona

7 25 232 Keith Zinger Tight End LSU

5 players out of 55 players that took 3+ years to developed into decent starters. I almost gave Bryan Scott a *, but he was decent his first couple of years and degressed since then. That is a little over 10 %. This is rare enough to show that MOST do not turn their careers around after 3-4 years BY FAR.

PS: I was generous with giving Jenkins a star because he did make it to be a starter and it is debatable if he is a decent starter or if he is starting for a lack of talent for that position.

Edited by Aria7
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's well known WRs and DEs take more time to develop. Pariah plays DT and is expected to contribute right away.

Totally disagree. It takes most DT's into their 3rd seasons to be able to play that position at a really high level on passing and running downs. Sure, there are exceptions, but many fans base their evaluations on a few plays a game. What is happening on all those other snaps matters as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you listed about 20 people in the entire nfl that did well later on in their careers. So what. Do you not hear announcers during the draft that showed that 2nd round draft picks have about a 4 year shelf life and you are telling me that it is not rare for people to do well after 3 years. you are insane. Unless they have potential, the coaching staff is not going to give them 3-4 years to develope because you have another draft and another group of free agents that are set to compete for the weakest positions on the team.

All you showed was a handful of players that did do well after some time. What is that about 10 % of all the players. This is not to mention those just barely making the team, getting traded and or being out of the nfl altogether.

It is hard to make it as a quality starter as a UDFA because you have to earn the chance to be there and you are not given as many chances in comparison to a 1st or even a 4th round. If the falcons get a free agent DE this year how long do you think Sidberry has to prove himself?

You are only giving examples of the FEW who did make it. It is lopsided towards those who DON't. Shall we review the falcons draft choices who did NOT make it after 3 years?

Lets see how many of these guys were decent STARTERS from 2002 - 2008 given 3+ years to develop. I am only going to put "*" to player who did well AFTER 3 + years of being in the league. Guys that did well right off the bat will NOT have a "*".

2002

T. J. Duckett Running Back Michigan State

3 15 80 Will Overstreet Linebacker Tennessee

4 18 116 Martin Bibla Guard Miami (FL)

5 13 148 Kevin McCadam Safety Virginia Tech

5 23 158 Kurt Kittner Quarterback Illinois

6 12 184 Kahlil Hill Wide Receiver Iowa

7 6 217 [[Michael Coleman (wide receiver) Michael Coleman]] Wide Receiver Widener

7 34 245 Quincy Monk Linebacker North Carolina

[edit]

2003 DraftRound Pick # Overall Name Position College

2 23 55 Bryan Scott Safety Penn State

4 24 121 Justin Griffith Fullback Mississippi State

5 24 159 Jon Olinger Wide Receiver Cincinnati

6 23 196 LaTarence Dunbar Wide Receiver TCU

6 29 202 Waine Bacon Cornerback Alabama

7 24 238 Demetrin Veal Defensive Tackle University of Tennessee

[edit]

2004 DraftRound Pick # Overall Name Position College

1 8 8 DeAngelo Hall Cornerback Virginia Tech

1 29 29 Michael Jenkins Wide Receiver Ohio State *

3 27 90 Matt Schaub Quarterback Virginia *

4 5 101 Demorrio Williams Linebacker Nebraska no

5 10 142 Chad Lavalais Defensive Tackle LSU no

6 21 186 Etric Pruitt Wide Receiver Southern Miss no

7 18 219 Quincy Wilson Running Back West Virginia no

[edit]

2005 DraftRound Pick # Overall Name Position College

1 27 27 Roddy White Wide Receiver UAB *

2 27 59 Jonathan Babineaux Defensive Tackle Iowa *

3 26 90 Jordan Beck Linebacker Cal Poly

4 27 128 Chauncey Davis Defensive End Florida State

5 24 160 Michael Boley Linebacker Southern Miss

5 27 163 Frank Omiyale Offensive Tackle Tennessee Tech

6 27 201 DeAndra Cobb Running Back Michigan State

7 27 241 Darrell Shropshire Defensive Tackle South Carolina

2006 DraftRound Pick # Overall Name Position College

2 5 37 Jimmy Williams Cornerback Virginia Tech

3 15 79 Jerious Norwood Running Back Mississippi State

5 6 139 Quinn Ojinnaka Offensive Tackle Syracuse

6 15 184 Adam Jennings Wide Receiver Fresno State

7 15 223 D. J. Shockley Quarterback Georgia no

[edit]

2007 DraftRound Pick # Overall Name Position College

1 8 8 Jamaal Anderson Defensive End Arkansas

2 7 39 Justin Blalock Guard Texas *

2 9 41 Chris Houston Cornerback Arkansas

3 11 75 Laurent Robinson Wide Receiver Illinois State

4 10 109 Stephen Nicholas Linebacker South Florida

4 34 133 Martrez Milner Tight End Georgia

6 11 185 Trey Lewis Defensive Tackle Washburn

6 20 194 David Irons Cornerback Auburn

6 24 198 Doug Datish Center Ohio State

6 29 203 Daren Stone Safety Maine

7 34 244 Jason Snelling Running Back Virginia

[edit]

2008 DraftRound Pick # Overall Name Position College

1 3 3 Matt Ryan Quarterback Boston College

1 21 21 Sam Baker Offensive Tackle USC

2 6 37 Curtis Lofton Linebacker Oklahoma

3 5 68 Chevis Jackson Cornerback LSU

3 21 84 Harry Douglas Wide Receiver Louisville

3 35 98 Thomas DeCoud Safety California *

5 3 138 Robert James Linebacker Arizona State

5 19 154 Kroy Biermann Linebacker Montana

6 6 173 Thomas Brown Running Back Georgia

7 5 212 Wilrey Fontenot Cornerback Arizona

7 25 232 Keith Zinger Tight End LSU

5 players out of 55 players that took 3+ years to developed into decent starters. I almost gave Bryan Scott a *, but he was decent his first couple of years and degressed since then. That is a little over 10 %. This is rare enough to show that MOST do not turn their careers around after 3-4 years BY FAR.

PS: I was generous with giving Jenkins a star because he did make it to be a starter and it is debatable if he is a decent starter or if he is starting for a lack of talent for that position.

Let me explain how I got my list, looked at about a hundred players - 50 of the top receivers and 50 of the top sackers out of those hundred, about 25 took longer to develop. So, out of the upper echelon receivers and sackers, about 1 in 5 took more than 2 years.

For the top players, it's a classic bell curve distribution- about 15-20% are really good first year, about 60% take 2 years, the rest take longer.

So, what I'm saying is that, of the players that became starters, about 20% take longer.

Problem with your count is 40 out of 55 never became starters, of the 15 that did, 5 of them took 3 years- that means a third of the starters from the drafts took 3 years or longer, which means it's not a rare occurrence at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, lets look at the Atlanta Falcons starters Offense now, Defense after church:

Mcclure- full time starter 3rd year

Blalock- stared first year

Dahl- took 4 years

Baker-instant starter

Clabo- took 4 years

Ryan instant

Turner- 4 years

White - 3 years

Jenkins - 3 years

O. Mughelli- full time starter 5 years

Gonzalez- 2nd year

7 out of eleven didn't develop until later in their careers, that's hardly rare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly Sidbury is a bust too. Yes DEs may take awhile to develop and Sidbury is considered 'raw' talent, but when a guy can't even see the field in his sophomore season - not even on special teams - he's a HUGE bust.

At some point, people will realize that you are either mentally ill, or just a 12 year old using his mom's AOL account to get online. Or that you are just playing the heel role as your gimmick. If it is #3, kudos. If it is #1 or 2, have fun never getting laid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, lets look at the Atlanta Falcons starters Offense now, Defense after church:

Mcclure- full time starter 3rd year

Blalock- stared first year

Dahl- took 4 years

Baker-instant starter

Clabo- took 4 years

Ryan instant

Turner- 4 years

White - 3 years

Jenkins - 3 years

O. Mughelli- full time starter 5 years

Gonzalez- 2nd year

7 out of eleven didn't develop until later in their careers, that's hardly rare.

First off it was not about starting their first year or JUST being a starter. It was about not playing well till 3 + years in the league and being a quality starter.

Mcclure- full time starter 3rd year

Blalock- stared first year <does not count since he did this BEFORE 3 years

Dahl- took 4 years <not a quality starter. more or less won the position by default.

Baker-instant starter <does not count since he did this BEFORE 3 years

Clabo- took 4 years

Ryan instant <does not count since he did this BEFORE 3 years

Turner- 4 years <played behind Tomlinson, and for all purposes could have started right away with another team.

White - 3 years

Jenkins - 3 years <not a quality starter. more or less won the position by default.

O. Mughelli- full time starter 5 years

Gonzalez- 2nd year <does not count since he did this BEFORE 3 years

so in actuality you have about 3 guys that would be examples for your case, that is it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally disagree. It takes most DT's into their 3rd seasons to be able to play that position at a really high level on passing and running downs. Sure, there are exceptions, but many fans base their evaluations on a few plays a game. What is happening on all those other snaps matters as well.

The three reasons why Pariah Jerry is a bust:

1) No stats to prove that he should be a number 1 pick. You say that it takes DTs a few years to develop and I'll give you that point.

2) He was the hospital's best friend in college and we still drafted him. So far he hasn't proved that he isn't injury prone and he doesn't have the stats to make up for the injuries.

3) This guy is 27 in August. If we drafted a 21 year old DT that's taking time to develop, that's not as big of a deal. But when we draft a guy that's old for his grade, he needs to come in and contribute on day one. Most DTs at 27 are playing their best ball. Pariah's career is halfway over and we haven't seen anything.

In conclusion, if you are going to draft a project DT that takes time to develop, draft a 20 year old that's not injury prone. Pariah is every bit of a bust because with the high risk (injury prone and age) that came with the pick, he better be able to dominate on day one.

Ask yourself this: Would you draft a 29 year old, injury prone WR that's going to take 3 years to develop? Probably not. By the time he can make an impact, he's at retirement age.

How can a 4th round project DE in his second year be considered a "HUGE bust?" Are you on crack?

He's a bust because the Falcons organization insinuated that Sidbury was the steal of the draft and would turn out to be a dominant pass rusher. Turns out it was just Young 'Tomfoolery' at his best again...fooling fans into thinking we have a team of all-stars and can make it past the first round of the playoffs.

Edited by Mr. Right
Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to see a fully healthy Jerry play a season of football before making any judgement.

Thats actually a good way to look at it.

It gives the 'injury excuse camp' no excuse any longer because he would have been off surgery 2 years now.

It gives the 'lack of experience camp' no excuse because the guy has been in the NFL for 3 seasons, and practiced/played all last season.

So now lets see what he can do with 2 years off injury, NFL weight room trained, NFL coaching/mentors/game film trained, and good ol' game time/practice trained...it would be a huge bonus and lift for our D to have another pass rush capable DT to complement Babs and Abe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off it was not about starting their first year or JUST being a starter. It was about not playing well till 3 + years in the league and being a quality starter.

Mcclure- full time starter 3rd year

Blalock- stared first year <does not count since he did this BEFORE 3 years

Dahl- took 4 years <not a quality starter. more or less won the position by default.

Baker-instant starter <does not count since he did this BEFORE 3 years

Clabo- took 4 years

Ryan instant <does not count since he did this BEFORE 3 years

Turner- 4 years <played behind Tomlinson, and for all purposes could have started right away with another team.

White - 3 years

Jenkins - 3 years <not a quality starter. more or less won the position by default.

O. Mughelli- full time starter 5 years

Gonzalez- 2nd year <does not count since he did this BEFORE 3 years

so in actuality you have about 3 guys that would be examples for your case, that is it.

Dahl & Jenkins are starters that took time to develop- just because you don't like them as player doesn't change the fact they fit the definition.

You never said a player couldn't be stuck behind another player [Turner] or on the wrong team [Ovie] when you made your statement.

That takes it to 7 of 11 and guess what?

Even 3 out of 11 is way more than rarely. IF a third or more of a teams offense takes 3 or more years to develop, then it's not a rarity.

When you have to keep backtracking and changing your definition, you're just trying to avoid being wrong. You've added all sorts of qualifications and judgments to try and make your original statement correct.

And it just isn't- about 15-20% of the starters in this league took 3 or more years to develop. That can be because of injury, wrong team, sloth, being extremely raw or stuck behind another player. Doesn't change the fact that it takes time for some players.

The whole point is it's too early to give up on Jerry. You're free to do so, of course, but don't pretend he's hopeless because he hasn't produced for 2 years.

The D is much more bell curve like- most of the players really took off their second year. Only person that took a while to develop is Grimes. Which, even using your new restrictive definition, means that 4 out of 22 starters for Atlanta took 3 or more year to develop- which is 18%, I think you have to include Jenkins and Dahl, which takes it to 6 out of 22, or 27%.

Either way 18% or 27% its not a rarity- its the other side of a classic bell curve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off most NEVER become starters or let alone stay with the team, a few win a starting spot and do well and about the same take a while to finally win a spot for a team - no where near a third. You are smoking crack if you think 10% equates to about a third. LOL

1 out of every 10 players makes it if they do not play well initially. Using the top 100 players would be grossly misrepresenting your argument because obviously ALL the players played well REGARDLESS if they did it initially or took some time to finally do well.

What you are doing is akin to someone trying to say how rich americans are and looking at the top richest americans and coming up with an average not taking into account that the top 1% percent is not an average as a whole. I am not sure you know how to fairly evaluate your cause. Would it been fair if I showed the bottom 100 players and attempted to make a case out of it? I think not. You are proving my case that you are being intellectually dishonest.

If you wanted to make a case you would have randomly picked players and not just top players. You could have easily picked an 8-8 team and looked at their drafts, say 7-10 years going no earlier than 2008, so we could see how players were given at least 3 years experience.

Intellectual dishonesty is starting with an absolute and then changing the definitions you're using when the absolute is proved wrong.

Using a 100 player sample of the 700 NFL starters to look at how many years it takes starters to become starters is just good statistical practice.

Looking at players that aren't starters doesn't tell you anything about the starters. Falcons got 15 starters out of the drafts you looked at, 5 of them took time to develop. You can try to re-deifne that away, doesn't make me wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking this in another direction, if any of you were asked to name 10 draft sites, would any of you had listed this place? There is a reason for this. Beernuts' comment about fourth round picks demonstrated more draft knowledge than anything in the original post. If we're just going to pull out random, unaccredited internet sites and disingenuously pretend they offer tremendous wisdom, could we at least pick one that has some cleavage on display?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The three reasons why Pariah Jerry is a bust:

1) No stats to prove that he should be a number 1 pick. You say that it takes DTs a few years to develop and I'll give you that point.

2) He was the hospital's best friend in college and we still drafted him. So far he hasn't proved that he isn't injury prone and he doesn't have the stats to make up for the injuries.

3) This guy is 27 in August. If we drafted a 21 year old DT that's taking time to develop, that's not as big of a deal. But when we draft a guy that's old for his grade, he needs to come in and contribute on day one. Most DTs at 27 are playing their best ball. Pariah's career is halfway over and we haven't seen anything.

In conclusion, if you are going to draft a project DT that takes time to develop, draft a 20 year old that's not injury prone. Pariah is every bit of a bust because with the high risk (injury prone and age) that came with the pick, he better be able to dominate on day one.

Ask yourself this: Would you draft a 29 year old, injury prone WR that's going to take 3 years to develop? Probably not. By the time he can make an impact, he's at retirement age.

He's a bust because the Falcons organization insinuated that Sidbury was the steal of the draft and would turn out to be a dominant pass rusher. Turns out it was just Young 'Tomfoolery' at his best again...fooling fans into thinking we have a team of all-stars and can make it past the first round of the playoffs.

Excellent.

This man should be on the falcons payroll!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, lets look at another team, Dallas and how long it took their starters: Oline is starting, others are when they start or stats take a huge Jump:

doug free 4 years

Kyle Kosier 2nd year

A. Gurode 1st year

L. Davis 1st year

M Columbo 4 years

R. Williams 1st year

J Witten 2nd year

T Romo 4th year

F Jones 2nd year

C Gronkowski INC- 5 runs in 2 years

M Austin 3rd year

S Bowen 2nd year

J Ratliff 4th year

I Olshansky 1st year , but

A Spencer 3rd year

B James 3rd year

K Brooking 2nd year

D Ware 1st year

T Neumann 1st year

G Sensabaugh 4th year

A Ball 3rd year

M Jenkins 2nd year

That's

6 first year, 7 2nd year, 8 3rd year or later, 1 INC

Again, hardly looks like a rarity to me when 35% of a team's starters take longer than 3 years to develop. Even assuming half are taken out because of another re-definition, that's still 20% of Dallas' starters.

So, I've looked at two teams starters and at least 20% or more take longer than 3 years to develop. Hard to claim it's a rare thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try NE:

T Light 1st year

L Mankins 1st year

D Koppen 1st year

D Connolly 4th year

S Vollmer 2nd year

T Brady 2nd year

W Welker 4 yrs

A Crumpler 1st year

D Branch 2nd year

D Woodhead 3 years

Green ellis 3 years

G Warren 1st year

V Wilfork 1st year

K Love INC

Banta-Cain 2nd year

J Mayo 1st year

B Spikes 1st year

K Arrington 2nd year

B Meriweather 2nd year

P Chung 2nd year

D McCourty 1st year

R Ninkovich 4th year

9 first year,7 second year, 5 later, 1 incomplete

5 of 22 is 23%,

So, I've done 3 teams, they all have 4-8 players who took more than 3 years to really blossom. Looks like it's hardly rare, more like about 20% of the starters are late bloomers. Don't have time to do any more teams right now, might do some more later.

Think it does prove the point it's too early to give up on Jerry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try NE:

T Light 1st year

L Mankins 1st year

D Koppen 1st year

D Connolly 4th year

S Vollmer 2nd year

T Brady 2nd year

W Welker 4 yrs

A Crumpler 1st year

D Branch 2nd year

D Woodhead 3 years

Green ellis 3 years

G Warren 1st year

V Wilfork 1st year

K Love INC

Banta-Cain 2nd year

J Mayo 1st year

B Spikes 1st year

K Arrington 2nd year

B Meriweather 2nd year

P Chung 2nd year

D McCourty 1st year

R Ninkovich 4th year

9 first year,7 second year, 5 later, 1 incomplete

5 of 22 is 23%,

So, I've done 3 teams, they all have 4-8 players who took more than 3 years to really blossom. Looks like it's hardly rare, more like about 20% of the starters are late bloomers. Don't have time to do any more teams right now, might do some more later.

Think it does prove the point it's too early to give up on Jerry.

I liked how you picked the team with the most success in the draft in the last 10 years as your example. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing again. Nice choice since another poster just happend to have a thread about teams with the best drafts. New England just happend to be on top. Man you really know how to be obvious.

< i am sure you used this thread and the thread's source as your example.

I am wondering why you did not use Seattle as a choice? They got a C. Oh wait, because then you could not make a case out of it. That is right. So first you pick the top players and when that doesnt work you figured you would be slick and pick the team with the best drafts. LOL.

New England is not average and they are definitely top of the bell curve. Let's be a little more honest next time.

I bet you will pick some team like San Deigo or Baltimore or perhaps look into the Pro Bowl Rosters. :D

Edited by Aria7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Intellectual dishonesty is starting with an absolute and then changing the definitions you're using when the absolute is proved wrong.

Using a 100 player sample of the 700 NFL starters to look at how many years it takes starters to become starters is just good statistical practice.

Looking at players that aren't starters doesn't tell you anything about the starters. Falcons got 15 starters out of the drafts you looked at, 5 of them took time to develop. You can try to re-deifne that away, doesn't make me wrong.

I did not change the definitions - YOU DID. I was ONLY asking about QUALITY STARTERS based on players who needed 3+ years to develop. I was very specific.

You are picking starters in GENERAL, whether if they are quality or not. You are also including players that played well BEFORE 3 years and decent SITUATIONAL players who do NOT EVEN START on their own team. This why your percentages are inflated.

So if I do not accept SOME of your examples its becuase they NEVER fit the criteria that my posts were about to begin with.

Like your example with Danny Woodhead for instance. He is a good 3rd back but he is NOT even a starter or using Dahl in the first place simply because he is a starter and not if he is a solid player. I don't recall anyone commentator calling Dahl ever good let alone decent. Dahl just has a reputation of being a nasty player. That is it. Dahl will most likely get replaced by a rookie or second year player who can play just as well for less money.

I was being specific and you are being general.

Just in case you try to accuse me of changing what I mean again:

Quality starter = Anyone who starts AND plays well enough to where there position is NOT seen as a weakness on the team. They don't have to be pro bowlers, but they can NOT be starters BY DEFAULT either - Winning the starting job because everyone else on the team in that position sucks and they just happen to suck less than the other players. Their play in the position has to at least be solid enough NOT to warrent their starting position on the team as expendable/replaceable.

Edited by Aria7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...