Saint_LB

I guess you mean this turning into an AB thread...which wasn\'t what I meant. I meant that .500 kinda said it all. However, your interpretation is better, so I will change it to meaning that...is that allowable?

JKool

Whodi, you\'re alive? I was beginning to worry. I\'m going with 7, parenthetical comments aside.

T-R, you don\'t think any more can be said about the units than their W/L record? How do scouts\' evaluate players? Is it impossible for coaches to say that this guy or that guy really contributed? When asked, \"how did Deuce play today?\", the only answer should be \"he lost\" or \"he won\"?

Finally, this isn\'t baseball, wins and losses do not accrue to the QB - and it doesn\'t even make sense in baseball.

Ooooo...

Danno

Oops, I quoted the wrong post. My bad.

LKelley67

7-9, 9-7, 8-8, and 8-8 is about .500 as ya can get

the offense has ranked 8,18,10,16

the defense 19, 28. 18, 32

the first 6 cumulative scores here for offense averaged 6.4

the first 6 defense averaged 5.4

for all the talent and yet unfulfilled potential that might reasonable for offense. lemme try-
qb 5 mr. erratic with no backup
wr 7 getting old joe and a buncha potential
og 7 good but not great with some depth
c 7 bentley will be all pro but not yet, depth
ot 3 one aging deteriorating skills guy, riley gone, big hole
te 4 yeah, ANOTHER off year and we still are hoping
rb 8 healthy and back to par for deuce is a 9-10
fb 6 looks good with upside to grow into

that\'s a 5.9 avg for me, in the pack, about right for a 16th ranked

mlb- 5 is a stretch to me for a talented kid that often got lost, his smarts n potential thing i guess. i\'d like him more outside.
slb- 2 hodge is likely gone, allen has the dummy rap. HELP!
wlb- 2 the hope of a 7th rounder! bodies here is all
de- 9 only prob is too much of a good thing eating cap space
dt- 3 how can this be a 5 when we have only one average guy with a motor and some other big bodies stuck there?
cb- 4 mac is solid but fakhir is far from proven. why was it ambrose was signed and thomas resigned?
fs- 3 tebuck is a historic bad trade. play might approach 5 but he is getting top fs pay. could be cut for his fat cap space then it is a 1 hole
ss- 4 at best, bellamy aging, why couldnt mitchell unseat him?

4 average for D there. more accurate for the worst in the league imo. playing at a much better level for 4 weeks still couldnt pull them out of the gutter in almost every major defensive category. they might have beat a vickless-crumplerless falcons but it is the same unit that was embarrased by the friggin arizona cardinals 34-10.

GumboBC

LKelley67-

You are basing your grades on how the team/players did LAST year.

But, I think we were all grading the players and not really looking that much at last year.

And if you\'re looking at results from last year, how can you grade Decue an 8? We had the 27th ranked rushing attack in the league. And Decue certainly didn\'t finish anywhere close to the top runningbacks in the league LAST year.

It seems to me if you\'re going to go by last year\'s results, Deuce would have to be a 5!

JKool

Good call Gator.

saintswhodi

So basically with Brooks and Bouman, QB is considered one of the stronger parts of the team for ya. Gotcha.

Oh. and my job sent me to this resort in Phoenix for a conference. Got back last night. Thanks for missing me.

LKelley67

no, not last year, look at the comments (hodge, riley gone, etc) i was just trying to bring perspective in scores that no matter how much improvement was had in the last 4 games this still is a far below average unit. as far as what will be i would lower de in anticipation of howard gone.

in comparing our defensive scores you only count the strong safety position as less than average and that only a little. so with howard and hodge gone as things now stand you think this is an adequate unit? the year to year trend with this group certainly isnt upward, it was 11th in the league in 2000 with all those non-haz slow and unathletic types.

JKool

Good point. 5. (All 5 are for Brooks, though.)

Tobias-Reiper

...well, exactly what are you \"grading\" them against?
Based on what?

..even if it is one of those \"on a scale of 1 to 10\', ten being whatever, what is that \"whatever\" being graded against?

[Edited on 23/2/2005 by Tobias-Reiper]