Now instead of being your usual pushy and argumentative self, you're just being a condescending jerk, much in the same vein as when you pretended to laud me for "sticking to my guns" that Baltimore would still be a worthy opponent, when you were (incorrectly) thinking differently, and attempted to boss your way around via a series of constant sentence by sentence breakdowns that went on for pages.
Wow. So we are back to this? When we disagree and state our cases back and forth, I an pushy and argumentative, and you are kind, understanding and flowery? You should recognize that you are the one who consistently makes it personal, while I stick to the discussion.
I'm not sure how breaking down your post to replay to each different point, so as to be clear is 'bossing my way around'. You should read the lines more and what you think is between them less.
I never once claimed that Chris Jones was ahead of Siliga when healthy. I simply pointed out that my wording of Siliga as "rotational depth" was certainly very true, considering that Jones gained the bulk of the looks AND that Siliga was hurt on short-term IR.
Of course you did Here it is
Your quote:
The fact remains that Wilfork and Chris Jones (11 starts) were the only two clear cut starters for DTs. The other three players of Easley, Siliga, and Branch were "rotational depth" that I spoke of earlier. All 3 beat each other out for reps at certain parts of the season, and all 3 used other outside circumstances (player injury) to their advantage to see more action.
In other words, you may think that Belichick's choice to use Siliga at the end of the season some how made him a clear cut starter for the bulk of 2014, but that isn't even close to true. You have a problem with my wording but can't honestly try and tell me that Siliga received the bulk of the reps there. He didn't. That never happened; therefore, he was "rotational depth" for both 2013 and 2014. That's a fact, and I'm not even sure why you're trying to dispute it?
You know that is wrong. Siliga played #1 or #2 snaps when he was healthy. You are now trying to use who played when he couldn't as proof they were ahead of him when they were behind him when he was healthy.
Consider:
SB
VW 39
SS 38
Branch 19
Chris J 10
AFCCG
VW 31
SS 26
Branch 25
Vellano 20
(Of course the snaps are skewed by playing the backups at the end of the blowout)
Div Round
VW 63
SS 56
AB 26
CJ 14
Now, that should prove the point.
Total playoffs out of 186
VW 133
SS 120
AB 70
CJ 24
JV 20
You cannot honestly look at that and tell me Siliga was not the #2 DT clearly. The others were the 'depth'. Or are we calling VW a 'rotational guy' since he played 4 more snaps a game than SS?
I shouldn't have to go through the regular season too, should I?
Lets just do it this way:
In the games he played (going in reverse)his snaps were:
Week 17 first among DT 43 first backup was 26
Week 16 second among DT 47 first backup was 26
Week 15 second among DT 32 first backup was 16
Week 14 second among DT (even in his first game back from injury) 25 first backup was 24
Note:
This marked Siliga's return to the field (3 tackles, half-sack) after being placed on short-term injured reserve in late September, and safety
Devin McCourty credited him with bringing energy to the unit.
Week 3 Injured left game in first quarter after playing 11 snaps
Week 2 Most snaps of all DTs 40 first backup was 29
Week 1 Second among DTs 41 first backup was 32
So in every game Siliga played except the one he was injured in the first quarter he played the most or second most snaps of the DTs
In the 9 games he played (not counting the one he was injured in the first quarter of, he played 348 snaps or 39 a game. If we exclude the unusually low number of snaps in his first game back from injury, then it is 323 in 8 games or 40 a game.
Vince Wilfork played 943 snaps in 19 games and average of 48.
By the way in 2013 Siliga played 319 snaps in 7 games which is 45 per game.
Which supports my claim, that he has been the 1 or 2 DT his entire Patriots career. Is there any dispute of this?
Can we finally end this silly discussion with facts?
The facts that Easley was a rookie and injured, along with the fact that Siliga was on short-term IR certainly went hand in hand with Belichick deciding who to give more playing time to. How can you even dispute that? It obviously changes on a year to year basis.
What changes on a year to year basis? Siliga is the player that he is and BB considers him a first team DT, unless you think something other than playing time tells us how he rates his players.
Easley was available for and played in 11 games and played 270 snaps, although something like 50 of them were at Chandler Jones DE spot in one game. So he got about 20 snaps a game. It seems your argument is that he was healthy enough to play 20 snaps but not healthy enough to play 30 or 40, except when there was a game where he was the best option at a position, which happened to not be DT.
I am optimistic about Easley, but he is just a different player than Siliga. Its like comparing Edelman to Gronk. Siliga is 30 lbs heavier and a force against the run.
To take it one step further, there is absolutely no way in hell that you can tell me that Sealver Siliga will definitely be a starter for the 2015 season, because neither you nor anyone else knows for sure.
THAT is your standard for discussion?
OK, there is no way you can defintiely tell me Tom Brady didn't have a needle in his wrist band and deflate footballs, so that means all the evidence to the contrary is pointless?
Are we now going to call LaFell, Vollmer, Stork, Browner, and others 'depth' because even though they clearly earned their first team jobs, we don't know they DEFINITELY will be a starter next year.
This is an incredibly weak argument. Hopefully my researching the actual facts that I posted above will show you that reality matches my impressions that you argued were wrong.
The potential emergence of first round draft pick Easley (who isn't going to just be seeing 3rd down/sub reps anymore...c'mon dude) along with any other draft picks and/or free agents puts that status up in the air.
Easley needs to earn playing time. He did not do that last year other than in sub.
If he improves in non passing situations, perhaps he will be the rotational guy to reduce Wilfork and/or Siligas snaps, since they play close to the same amount.
Again, saying a guy doesn't have his job because there may be draft picks or FAs when a first round pick and 3 veterans at his position didn't take it away is simply grasping at straws.
Now....why don't you drop this ridiculous subject matter and go and watch the girl in gray bounce up and down in the Golden Tate video. That would be much more productive than carrying on this ridiculous nonsense:
http://thornography.weei.com/sports...-rumors-he-had-sex-with-russell-wilsons-wife/
I really don't understand why you get so offended and worked up over a simple discussion.
I assumed you were aware of the data I posted here, but it seems you were not so hopefully we can move forward now with some facts.
If you want to make it a snark battle, I can do that too, but just keep in mind, you are the one who started it down that road.
I'll finish by copying in my first comment to you, which has proven to be 100% accurate, so if you think this discussion has been ridiculous, look at that then a mirror (my snark back)
Siliga has played more snaps than anyone except Wilfork whenever he has been healthy. That would make him a "starter" not an "depth option".
He had beaten out players such as tommy Kelly, branch and Chris jones.
