Jump to content

Jerry/Sidbury are already considered a bust


Recommended Posts

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.

This and your next post really make your point conclusive. I always knew it was true, but I've never broken it down like this.............good job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The three reasons why Pariah Jerry is a bust:

I've been around long enough to not bother arguing with our rantings about Jerry, nothing anyone says is going to make a bit of difference to you. Your mind is made up, it is not open to new information.

Jerry had a knee injury and has only played 2 seasons. To proclaim you know e is a bust is no different than all those claiming Roddy and Kerney were busts after their second seasons.

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.

On the Jerry bandwagon now gazoo? lol After Jamaal Anderson, i really feel like you should just give up now. Preferably top yourself, but that wont happen :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gritz

On the Jerry bandwagon now gazoo? lol After Jamaal Anderson, i really feel like you should just give up now. Preferably top yourself, but that wont happen :rolleyes:

Yeah, God forbid a Falcon fan should cut a player slack after a major knee injury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, God forbid a Falcon fan should cut a player slack after a major knee injury.

Lets be honest, gazoo is :rolleyes:

Last time i was in Honduras sucking on a cuban cigar overlooking the water, a cook with a Vick jersey came.... We all know how this ends :lol:

Pure gold that thread. gazoo has really been a bore since the Vick days ended

Edited by d#d#d#
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

See, you never said any of that to begin with- you only started changing the definition when I showed you were wrong. You're simply re-defining the idea of starter to meet your criteria.

I'm using the depth charts for the teams from ESPN, if I'm wrong about one or two, doesn't change my point.

And you still are wrong - about 15-20% of the starters in the league are going to take a few years to develop.

If I took a team that drafted poorly, they'd have fewer 1st rounders doing well and probably have more slowly developing starters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See, you never said any of that to begin with- you only started changing the definition when I showed you were wrong. You're simply re-defining the idea of starter to meet your criteria.

I'm using the depth charts for the teams from ESPN, if I'm wrong about one or two, doesn't change my point.

And you still are wrong - about 15-20% of the starters in the league are going to take a few years to develop.

If I took a team that drafted poorly, they'd have fewer 1st rounders doing well and probably have more slowly developing starters.

Never said huh. Try reading pal. What do you call this?

Aria7, on 14 May 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

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.

I added the bold in your quote to emphasize STARTER QUALITY numbers WITHIN 2 years.

Also:

Aria7, on 14 May 2011 - 10:51 PM, said:

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?

Or the initial arguement that YOU quoted which was:

Aria7, on 13 May 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

The fact is the MOST players, right from the start, either play well or not. Those players that do take 3 or more years are EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. This RARELY happens. It is highly probable that Jerry will not contribute anymore than his current role with the team.

You obviosly did not bother to read my posts and probably glanced over them quickly because you were reacting.

ONCE AGAIN I DID NOT CHANGE THE CRITERIA. I HAD SAID "QUALITY STARTERS" from my posts. Not any starter, not good situational players or people who did well INITIALLY. Some who became a QUALITY STARTER 3 years or more years into the league.

Now what?

I also noticed that you purposely OMMITED your isolation of using the #1 team who drafts (Patriots) as well as the top 50 WRs and DEs to show how players get better.

You have not shown once an example of a AVERAGE team or bothered to see the nfl as a whole by mixing the top 50 players with the BOTTOM 50.

Why not show the bottom 50 WRs and DEs or look at the starting lineup of the Browns for instance?

You have failed in your attempts and kept isolating your examples to groups that have a HIGH success rate which is NOT representative as whole of MAJORITY of players who come in the NFL.

Edited by Aria7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Never said huh. Try reading pal. What do you call this?

Aria7, on 14 May 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

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.

I added the bold in your quote to emphasize STARTER QUALITY numbers WITHIN 2 years.

Also:

Aria7, on 14 May 2011 - 10:51 PM, said:

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?

Or the initial arguement that YOU quoted which was:

Aria7, on 13 May 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

The fact is the MOST players, right from the start, either play well or not. Those players that do take 3 or more years are EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. This RARELY happens. It is highly probable that Jerry will not contribute anymore than his current role with the team.

You obviosly did not bother to read my posts and probably glanced over them quickly because you were reacting.

ONCE AGAIN I DID NOT CHANGE THE CRITERIA. I HAD SAID "QUALITY STARTERS" from my posts. Not any starter, not good situational players or people who did well INITIALLY. Some who became a QUALITY STARTER 3 years or more years into the league.

Now what?

I also noticed that you purposely OMMITED your isolation of using the #1 team who drafts (Patriots) as well as the top 50 WRs and DEs to show how players get better.

You have not shown once an example of a AVERAGE team or bothered to see the nfl as a whole by mixing the top 50 players with the BOTTOM 50.

Why not show the bottom 50 WRs and DEs or look at the starting lineup of the Browns for instance?

You have failed in your attempts and kept isolating your examples to groups that have a HIGH success rate which is NOT representative as whole of MAJORITY of players who come in the NFL.

You started off with this:

The fact is the most players, right from the start, either play well or not. Those players that do take 3 or more years are EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. This RARELY happens. It is highly probable that Jerry will not contribute anymore than his current role with the team.

I countered with 15-20 % of starters take 3 years or more, and listed dozens of examples to prove my point.

It was only AFTER I proved you wrong that you came up with "quality starter"

Suddenly, there's all these exceptions that were not there with your first statement.- players you don't like don't count, players stuck behind another player, or on a bad team don't count.

For many different reasons, about 20% of the starters in the league take longer to develop- they may be raw, or behind a vet, be a bad scheme fit, be lazy, or suffer injuries. Doesn't matter why they took so long, the point is they did.

You want me to look at all players- what does that tell me about starters? Nothing. Looking at a 7th rounder who never made it out of training camp isn't going to tell me anything about starters.

You tell me that looking at 100 out of 704 starters in the league isn't enough. It's more than enough to prove my point.

You tell me that I'm cherry picking my teams- no, I'm simply going through them one at a time, I'll do Cleveland for you next.

Falcons have 9 starters that took longer than 3 years to develop. Clabo, Dahl, Jenkins, White, McClure, Ovie, Turner, Grimes & Babs.

You don't think I should count Dahl and Jenkins because you don't like them, Turner because he was stuck behind LT, but you don't get to make that exception. It doesn't matter why they didn't make it big early, the point is they didn't.

And it's like that league wide. Every team has 3,4,5 or more players that took longer to develop for one reason or another.

That means that the second part of the statement- that Jerry has no shot is wrong too. If 3-5 players on every team take longer to develop into starters, there's no reason to think that Jerry won't make it simply because he hasn't yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK here's Cleveland: Started using profootballreference.com to find number of starts for low stat players like linemen.

Cleveland

Thomas 1st

Eric Steinbach 1st

Mack 1st

Womack 5+ years

St Clair 1yr

Robiskie INC

Watson 2nd

Massaquoi INC

Vickers INC

Hillis 3rd

MCoy INC [Delhomme 3rd]

Coleman 5+ years

Rubin 3rd

Schaefering 2nd

Roth 3rd

Gocong INC

Barton 4th

Bowens 5th

Haden 1st

Elam 4th

Ward 1st

Brown 3rd

INC[onclusive] means they don't fit either category- can't use robsikie or MasQ to prove anything about good players. Gocong has started most games for 4 years, but you can't prove it by his stats.

6 first year, 2 second year, 5 INC, 9 third year or later. Don't know why you thought bad teams would make your point. Should have been obvious they were going to have more players who weren't as good that took longer to develop- that's why I looked at good teams first- better draft picks, more likely 1st year starters.

When you are talking about starters, which I have been from my first post in this thread- at least 20% of the starters in the league take 3 years or longer to develop. Saying Jerry won't develop because he hasn't yet is just wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You started off with this:

The fact is the most players, right from the start, either play well or not. Those players that do take 3 or more years are EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. This RARELY happens. It is highly probable that Jerry will not contribute anymore than his current role with the team.

I countered with 15-20 % of starters take 3 years or more, and listed dozens of examples to prove my point.

I countered this by showing that you used the TOP 50 players for WR and DEs which is not a reflection of the NFL as a whole or even an average. Your INFLATED results included backups/situational players AND players who did well initially.

It was only AFTER I proved you wrong that you came up with "quality starter"

Posted 13 May 2011 - 02:00 PM I Made a response to delaigle which YOU responded to which included:

"I fully understand your argument but it is not applicable. Even though Clabo and Dahl took 5-6 years respectively, they were not starters for some time and played beyond expectations. If both played as expected then being a bust would be irrelevent because both were never to be considered to be anymore than backups.

So you have UDFA taking 5-6 years that became QUALITY STARTERS [i capitalized this now to show you when I FIRST talked about "Quality Starters"].

Now look at Jerry and Sidberry; Jerry being a first round draft pick is expected not only to start by contribute immedietly and succeed at his position. This is not even expecting the guy to be a pro bowler but simply to live up to his draft status. On this case Jerry IS a bust. He is essentially a 27 year old SITUATIONAL PLAYER [i discounted situational players RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING]. He is FAR from meeting expectations. Given what he has done, he would be worth nothing more than a late 5th rounder at best. This giving rookies 3 years to meet expectations [TIME FRAME I WAS LOOKING FOR] is TOTALLY ARBITRARY. It is a made up standard that is wishful thinking in hoping that a highly rated player will actually play well.

Those 2 paragraphs which are at the beginning of my initial response to delaigle, and BEFORE the "EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE" paragraph which you isolated, were ommited in YOUR initial reponse to me.

You did not prove me wrong. You simply ISOLATED your results, as well as my quote. You isolated your examples to top teams/player which is intellectually dishonest.

Suddenly, there's all these exceptions that were not there with your first statement.- players you don't like don't count, players stuck behind another player, or on a bad team don't count.

For many different reasons, about 20% of the starters in the league take longer to develop- they may be raw, or behind a vet, be a bad scheme fit, be lazy, or suffer injuries. Doesn't matter why they took so long, the point is they did.

You want me to look at all players- what does that tell me about starters? Nothing. Looking at a 7th rounder who never made it out of training camp isn't going to tell me anything about starters.

You tell me that looking at 100 out of 704 starters in the league isn't enough. It's more than enough to prove my point.

You tell me that I'm cherry picking my teams- no, I'm simply going through them one at a time, I'll do Cleveland for you next.

Falcons have 9 starters that took longer than 3 years to develop. Clabo, Dahl, Jenkins, White, McClure, Ovie, Turner, Grimes & Babs.

You don't think I should count Dahl and Jenkins because you don't like them, Turner because he was stuck behind LT, but you don't get to make that exception. It doesn't matter why they didn't make it big early, the point is they didn't.

And it's like that league wide. Every team has 3,4,5 or more players that took longer to develop for one reason or another.

That means that the second part of the statement- that Jerry has no shot is wrong too. If 3-5 players on every team take longer to develop into starters, there's no reason to think that Jerry won't make it simply because he hasn't yet.

The rest of your rebuttal is irrelevent since I did not change the criteria. You simply did not look at what I posted and glossed over it. You failed to meet the criteria and created a strawman which you responded to and you acted like you rebutted by claim which you did not. You simply met YOUR OWN criteria (strawman) and passed it as IF you met mine. Finally, when I showed you that you did not meed MY criteria, you cried fowl and said I changed it. You are simply wrong.

PS: That May 13th response IS the first reply to ANYONE on this thread and IS what YOU responded to. You have NO excuses.

Edited by Aria7
Link to post
Share on other sites

You started off with this:

The fact is the most players, right from the start, either play well or not. Those players that do take 3 or more years are EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. This RARELY happens. It is highly probable that Jerry will not contribute anymore than his current role with the team.

I countered with 15-20 % of starters take 3 years or more, and listed dozens of examples to prove my point.

I countered this by showing that you used the TOP 50 players for WR and DEs which is not a reflection of the NFL as a whole or even an average.

It was only AFTER I proved you wrong that you came up with "quality starter"

Posted 13 May 2011 - 02:00 PM I Made a response to delaigle which YOU responded to which included:

"I fully understand your argument but it is not applicable. Even though Clabo and Dahl took 5-6 years respectively, they were not starters for some time and played beyond expectations. If both played as expected then being a bust would be irrelevent because both were never to be considered to be anymore than backups.

So you have UDFA taking 5-6 years that became QUALITY STARTERS [i capitalized this now to show you when I FIRST talked about "Quality Starters"].

Now look at Jerry and Sidberry; Jerry being a first round draft pick is expected not only to start by contribute immedietly and succeed at his position. This is not even expecting the guy to be a pro bowler but simply to live up to his draft status. On this case Jerry IS a bust. He is essentially a 27 year old SITUATIONAL PLAYER [i discounted situational players RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING]. He is FAR from meeting expectations. Given what he has done, he would be worth nothing more than a late 5th rounder at best. This giving rookies 3 years to meet expectations [TIME FRAME I WAS LOOKING FOR] is TOTALLY ARBITRARY. It is a made up standard that is wishful thinking in hoping that a highly rated player will actually play well.

Those 2 paragraphs which are at the beginning of my initial response to delaigle, and BEFORE the "EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE" paragraph which you isolated, were ommited in YOUR initial reponse to me.

You did not prove me wrong. You simply ISOLATED your results, as well as my quote. You isolated your examples to top teams/player which is intellectually dishonest.

Suddenly, there's all these exceptions that were not there with your first statement.- players you don't like don't count, players stuck behind another player, or on a bad team don't count.

For many different reasons, about 20% of the starters in the league take longer to develop- they may be raw, or behind a vet, be a bad scheme fit, be lazy, or suffer injuries. Doesn't matter why they took so long, the point is they did.

You want me to look at all players- what does that tell me about starters? Nothing. Looking at a 7th rounder who never made it out of training camp isn't going to tell me anything about starters.

You tell me that looking at 100 out of 704 starters in the league isn't enough. It's more than enough to prove my point.

You tell me that I'm cherry picking my teams- no, I'm simply going through them one at a time, I'll do Cleveland for you next.

Falcons have 9 starters that took longer than 3 years to develop. Clabo, Dahl, Jenkins, White, McClure, Ovie, Turner, Grimes & Babs.

You don't think I should count Dahl and Jenkins because you don't like them, Turner because he was stuck behind LT, but you don't get to make that exception. It doesn't matter why they didn't make it big early, the point is they didn't.

And it's like that league wide. Every team has 3,4,5 or more players that took longer to develop for one reason or another.

That means that the second part of the statement- that Jerry has no shot is wrong too. If 3-5 players on every team take longer to develop into starters, there's no reason to think that Jerry won't make it simply because he hasn't yet.

The rest of your rebuttal is irrelevent since I did not change the criteria. You simply did not look at what I posted and glossed over it. You failed to meet the criteria and created a strawman which you responded to and you acted like you rebutted by claim which you did not. You simply met YOUR OWN criteria (strawman) and passed it as IF you met mine. Finally, when I showed you that you did not meed MY criteria, you cried fowl and said I changed it. You are simply wrong.

It's cried foul, not fowl.

And, since you haven't bothered to read anything I've written, you've missed my point completely. Yes, most players never become starters in the NFL. However, of the players that become starters, which is what I'm talking about, about 20% of them take a few years to become starters/really start producing. Since that is so, you can't say Jerry isn't going to be a starter just because he hasn't been one yet. That's the only point I'm making.

All that verbiage eliminated ,what, two players from the list- as you admitted yourself, even using your standards, 4 starters on the Falcons took more than 3 years to become starters. That's 20%, about league average. No reason, just because he hasn't produced much yet, too write off Jerry.

Got another team you want me to look at?

You're trying to force your point- very few players become starters in the NFL-into my point, strictly about some starters taking longer and it doesn't work.

Yes, most players don't become starters, never disputed that. However, of those who become starters, a certain percentage of them take longer to develop.

You can't say Jerry won't be a starter strictly because he hasn't shown it yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's cried foul, not fowl.

And, since you haven't bothered to read anything I've written, you've missed my point completely. Yes, most players never become starters in the NFL. However, of the players that become starters, which is what I'm talking about, about 20% of them take a few years to become starters/really start producing. Since that is so, you can't say Jerry isn't going to be a starter just because he hasn't been one yet.

All that verbiage eliminated what two players from the list- as you admitted yourself, even using your standards, 4 starters on the Falcons took more than 3 years to become starters. That's 20%, about league average.No reason, just because he hasn't produced much yet, too write off Jerry

4 starters for the falcons took more than 3 years constitutes 20%? So there 20 starters? Try 22, and once again you are looking only at the starters and ommiting the rest of the team.

There are 53 men on the regular roster and up to eight on the practice squad. A total of 45 of the regular roster is active for the game. 4 out of 45 and not 4 out of 22. Which is about 10% for active weekly roster and if you include practise roster and it is about 7-8%. This is not even mentioning all those who get cut and never make it to a roster. You keep on isolating your results.

PS: Thanks for correcting the fowl/foul part. Also Jerry MAY be a quality starter, but it is UNLIKELY - which is my point.

Also to let you know that given his draft position that he is a bust, being relative to when he was picked and what is expected. If jerry was a UDFA like clabo is would not be as a big deal since the expectations are much lower as well as the cost.

IMHO Jerry might be the Norwood of DTs for the Falcons - Play well for his role but is not on the field as often as you would like.

Also Sidberry given that he is healthy and younger, even though he has not played as well, still has a greater shot than Jerry.

Edited by Aria7
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 starters for the falcons took more than 3 years constitutes 20%? So there 20 starters? Try 22, and once again you are looking only at the starters and ommiting the rest of the team.

There are 53 men on the regular roster and up to eight on the practice squad. A total of 45 of the regular roster is active for the game. 4 out of 45 and not 4 out of 22. Which is about 10% for active weekly roster and if you include practise roster and it is about 7-8%. This is not even mentioning all those who get cut and never make it to a roster. You keep on isolating your results.

PS: Thanks for correcting the fowl/foul part. Also Jerry MAY be a quality starter, but it is UNLIKELY - which is my point.

There are 22 starters, that's 18%, I rounded up, sue me.

My whole point has been that starters can take time to develop, of course I'm going to focus on starters. You keep trying to expand my statement to everybody in the NFL, and that's not the point at all.

I understood completely what your point was, and my point is you can't say he won't be a good player just because he hasn't shown it yet.

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...