San-O

I really don't think he's gonna be around that long.

The Pats have 15 of 22 starters that were drafted by them, 68 %. The Bills have 8 of 22 starters that were drafted by them, 36 %. My point was that I felt only having eight drafted starters seemed low, and one starter drafted after round two was shocking for a very average team. US. Some posters challenged me to look at another teams drafted starters and I chose N.E. Then people wanted to skew the numbers by adding special team players and then said only go back to 2001 and other stuff. Guess I'm the only one surprised, OR maybe there are more Ole' Whitey apologists here than I thought.

If you virtually never get a starter after round 2, why not?

Some other posters asked for numbers from other teams that had more drafted starters than we do and more starters drafted after round two. I looked at New England, being the best team in the league and posted my results. I never said anything about only going back to 2001, someone else added that criteria. TD gutted this team, not me. So after four years of rebuilding, we're back to 9-7. And by the way, there are backups that New England has that could start for us, and starters for us that probably wouldn't make that team.

Thanks ajzepp, no problem.

Wooaooo, STOP NOW. These guys don't like talking about years prior to 2001. They get very upset!

That's fine. Then please grow up at least and stop the name calling. It makes you look ignorant. Maybe it's not your fault. 26-38, last time I looked, TD got worked by NE for Bledsoe and have won 3 of the last 4 Super Bowls.

Yes, you are correct. Much better than NE. Now again, PLEASE go away.

OK, that is STILL 100 % better the Ole' Whitey! 1 + 1 = 2, or 100 % more. What about drafted starters since 2001 all rounds.

Sure I can, I'm in idiot!

After round two (2). After.

More information. At least three of the eight defensive starters drafted after round two: http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=153 http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=...erbio&bio=23745 To sum this up, New England has drafted fifteen (15) of their starters, at least six after round two (2) We have drafted eight (8) of our starters, offense/ defense combined, with one (1) drafted after round two. Pretty stark contrast.

Not since 2001, bro, overall. Now please go away.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/depthcharts/NE Seven of New Englands offensive starters were drafted by them, three after round 2. ================================================ http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=571 http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=566 http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=...erbio&bio=12370 Eight of New Englands defensive starters were drafted by them, don 't have rounds. That's 15 drafted starters, we have 8.

Wrong again: Please NFL link depth chart for offense. Seven starters on OFFENSE drafted by New England, three after found two. This is just on offense. Didn't bother to check defense. http://www.nfl.com/teams/depthcharts/NE

Yes, and Good.

One win over .500 in four years isn't winning, it's win.

The Bills winning? When did this happen? They haven't won since TD got here. 26-38

Read the thread. The poster I was responding to is saying we would have more guys starting after round two if we weren't so good and didn't have as good FA signings. Brilliant!

Good spin, I think? So, we sign free-agents to start because we don't want to draft them? I am not including special teams. They are SPECIAL. This is not a Super Bowl team like NE loaded with talent.

ONE aspect? lol. How is this being blown out of proportion? It is what it is. One starter after round two.

You can do that. I'm not asking the question, you are. And who said tons, how about more than one. Like two.

Please READ the thread title. How many less than ONE can you have. You show me a team that hasn't drafted a starter after round two. Exclude SF, Lions and Bengals.

See thread title: Only One Starter Drafted After 2nd Round, Does anyone else find this startling?