heh I love the Ginn comment. I feel exactly the same way.

 

David clowney, Jerricho cotchery, and chansi stuckey, wow.

 

really, i think he had a nice 2nd year, actually showed some grit and toughness imo. I'll bet the regime likes him for the long term.

Kid is solid at the moment with a very high ceiling left, remember, he was just a junior, barely 21 comin out. let his body and mind mature, and you will see the talent come into play.

 

We still had 29 of 53 new players last year; that's a lot IMO and I would associate the word "gutted" with the roster.

 

A fairly large percentage of our starters were not Sparano/Ireland picks though.

Crowder, Will Allen, Y Bell, Roth, Joey Porter and Carey, Ronnie, Ginn, Greg C.

Throw in Rickey and DMart and JT.

Tuna rarely completely guts a roster, there are always a few guys who stick around and make large contributions.

BTW, if one looks at our team right, we are set up for a 3 year window or so, they are serious about making a run at the Super Bowl.

 

True but I would say that 54% of new players on the roster is considered "gutting" it, no?

 

yeah...when over half the team gets the boot...its safe to say that it was gutted.

 

Yeah they are, but that doesnt mean that were not built for the long term, Young qb's waiting in the wings, young *** o line. young receivers. young dends, young corners, tweak here, tweak there, couple a drafts picks here, there...we will compete every year under this regime, they dont know anything else, they know how to identify the right players and thats all it takes to become a contender every year.

 

Well, as long as the System is in place Dj this year or three years from now, it won't matter, but to me it appears they believe they can make a run this year, and either way, Tuna is outta here at the end of the season.

We play in the toughest division in the NFL IMO, no team sat on their hands this offseason, that is both good and bad.

Bad because the path to the division is rough, good because if we do win it again, the Dolphins will be "battle hardened".

 

Absolutely, some of that turnover was at the bottom of the roster though, Ireland moved a ton of players through our roster last season.

And there was almost as many replaced when Cam took over, 35% or so, but among the starters and "key" role players, Wanny, Saban and Cam all have an impact on the current team.

 

It was still turned over, however. That's what we are debating. 54% of the roster was turned over; more than half are gone from the last regime. In my opinion, that's gutting the roster.

Right but we're talking about gutting the roster here, not specifics such as key role players and starters.

 

Were the disagreement lays is "gutting the roster" is not the same as "flipping the starters", which we really did not do.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to say, can you clarify please? I never said anything about starters, I simply discussed the roster as a whole and how it was gutted because of the 54% overall of it is new.

 

And all I'm saying is Tuna typically doesn't clean the roster of everyone, there are usually starters that carry over into the rebuilt team.

You can gut 54% of the roster and not essentially change the team out on the field unless the starters are also mostly replaced and we won the division last season with close to 50% of the starters coming from elsewhere then Tuna.

 

Every coach carries over some starters. They almost never, if ever, replace a whole 22 starting squad.

14 new players or position changes to the starting lineup on offense and defense total from 2007to 2008. 11 new players starting from 2007 to 2008 offense and defense total. However, the starters are not the only one contributing on the field; there have been rotations and injuries contributing to players seeing time on the field so of those 54% players newly acquired to the bottom of the roster - to use your terms - may have contributed in some fashion. Just counting over the roster of 2008, I may be off but I've got eighteen new players that contributed in some way to the team.

 

True, and Tuna carried some previous starters for seasons afterwards.

I look at it differently Alen, to me, the starters are the ones who have an impact if they are replaced, and I made the point several times last season that we won the thing with Saban's players on Defense.

Which is the point the article made, all the talk of Cam Cameron presiding over 2007's version of the Lions is simply not the case, there was talent on the roster, Cam flunked as a Head Coach.

 

The starters aren't the only contributors, as evidenced in my last post though. That's what gets me; if we've overturned more than half of the roster, I guarantee you that only 22 of 53 men on the roster weren't the only reasons we went to the playoffs. There was contributions from other players on the team, that did not start and were not number one on the depth chart and that's what I was getting at from the beginning. They did gut the roster, over 50% of it is gone, and regardless of who's on top of the depth chart, there were other contributors to the team.

Agreed but I didn't highlight that point when I commented on it. What I highlighted or made in bold was Pro Football Weekly's case of the roster not being gutted, as many said it would be and it was, in my opinion.

 

Certainly, and that is a valid point of view, it's just not how I look at the team, I've been watching Crunch's excellent version of the Jets Dolphins pt 2 from last season and without Charlie Anderson blocking a punt, we could have lost and he is not a "starter".

But for impact, Starters matter more IMO, our front line 26 players (add the punter and FG kicker, long snapper and ST gunners) as they have to know the systems and be able to operate at a higher level more often then the backups and rotational players.

An analogy is..Who matter more to winning or losing, how Channing Crowder plays, or how Reggie Torbor plays?

Agreed, the roster was gutted.

 

Agree the starters do matter more. They're not alone though.

Depends on who sees the field and how much. I'd say both.

 

Channing C will see far more snaps then Torbor will, that is the way I look at it.

BTW, rewatched the Bills v Dolphins from last season and I'm stunned the Bills shed Peters and Dockery, seriously, they maybe believe L Walker can replace Peters, Dockery was a pro bowler as well and they just cut him.

The Bills are hoping TO and a no huddle will help them win, I'm just not seeing it, 5 new starters on the Oline, a couple don't have starting experience and Edwards was shakey to say the least last season.

 

What was this thread supposed to be about? I forgot.

Oh, the article, never mind. May I add 54% turnover could definitely be considered "gutting" a roster. JMHO

 

i definitely feel like their committed to making the run this year as well brother,and most importantly i think our team believes their good enough, what good hands were in...so grateful...

Iam holding out hope that if we dont win it all, Bill stays on another year, fufills his committment. I want to see that man doused with champagne.

I really dont know why he would retire if we dont win it, were such a perfect situation for him its ridiculous. I believe the onl reson why he would is because of unselfishness, as much as some will not understand where iam coming from, i believe he does not wanna stand in the way or hog the spotlight of the guys he hand picked.

Gosh i want him to hang around for a long time.

 

If Crowder gets more snaps then yes. If Crowder does not and Torbor was to get more snaps then Torbor.

Yeah I don't know how the Bills expect to have success behind a shuffled offensive line. That team is a mess IMO.