Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.
posted at 9/4/2013 7:42 PM EDT
In response to rkarp's comment:
In response to TrueChamp's comment:
Of course we won't know for fact until after the season is over, but seeing as this is a discussion board and all....
It is time for us to state our opinion. Try and be direct as some of you are not very direct at all. Please no waffling as my good friend prolate is the king of( well they could be good, but I won't get my expectations up too far, I'm not too high, and I'm not too low, etc. etc. etc.)
Here is the question: position by position, is our roster a better NFL roster then we have fielded since 2010? If you think one group or another is not as good please explain why, but also answer the question....do we look better this year then we have the past few years?
I say we look better at every position across the board! And in some areas it is not even close. Our front seven is as good as its been since the super bowl years, and our running back duo is the best it's been since Dillion, and Faulk.
The receiving combo is more talented then it's been the past few years, even though it is young, and our offensive line is as good as ever.
I could understand an argument against the TE position but if suddfield can play near as well as he is hyped we are looking at a dominant group. Then again having Gronk alone gives you the best TE in the league so you are already great.
cb's look better then they have since 07, and IMO the only thing we are missing is a hard hitting strong safety, but the coverage safeties look good.
Oh yeah, one more question....if you conclude that our roster is in fact more talented then it has been, do you also conclude that the general manager is doing an amazing job at team building, considering we have been as close as you can get to winning a championship the last 2 years?
I do not agree. I think this team, today is short on depth and experience. The top of the depth chart may look better, but the core is not, yet.
So you think we had better experience and better depth in 2011?
We have 3 starting CB's returning, 2 starting safeties, 5 starting O-linemen, 3 starting defensive linemen, 4 starting LBers, 2 starting RB's, starting QB, and starting #1 TE in all football. All of these guys are returning, yet you mention lack of experience?
Where we have complete turnover is the receiver position which is what many fans like you have been screaming for. Now that we have overhauled the position fans like you say it is a problem. Unreal. The past 4 years we would have killed to have 3 rookie receivers with potential on this roster.
OL- imo Waters and Mankins were the best tandem in the league.
Sure, but they played together for half a year. Now we have 2 of the best tackles in football. So....
WR- assume Amendola and Wes are equal. Assume Edelman is equal. There is no one on the team today that is as good as Lloyd was last year or Branch was 2 years ago.
Nobody on this roster is as good as 32 year old Branch? Really? Is that really how you feel? Honestly? How did Branch do in the Super bowl? Lloyd was a good fit imo, but you don't think between Thompkins/Dosbson and Boyce we can replace 900 yards and 6 td's? Really?
Ridley, Vareen, Bolden were all on the team last year. Woody was better than Blount.
Such a poor comparison as Woody played over Vareen last year. Plus you would disregard what another year of experience does for these 2 young RB's. As BB said today, "As we say dependability is more important then skill" This is the only reason BJGE started over Ridley, and is the only reason Woody started over Vareen. Now we have guys with tremendous skill and dependability due to 3 years in the system, yet you would push an agenda on us that our RB core was better in 2011? Sorry, I don't believe you really think that.