big dog cowboy said:
I can promise you the fact his father posts in here from time to time has NOTHING to do with the way Petitti is spoken about. I don't believe he is a regular visitor just drops in from time to time. Go back in the archives and you will see the posts in here about Petitti didn't change any at all once he stopped in for the first time.
Petitti was overmatched last year. Then again, losing 40 pounds in 3 months and playing hurt would do that to most if not all players. I'm not making excuses, again facts are facts. He was drafted with the plan on learning the pro game, losing weight, getting stronger and becoming a factor in year two.
To say that Petitti was the single largest reason our season went in the tank last year is something many won't agree with. For starters, Tucker was worse than Petitti and that has been well documented. From what you said in your original post, you obviously disagree with that and that is OK. But facts are facts. TO say Petitti was the worse in the league when he wasn't even the worst on our own team is just stretching the truth some.
Additionally, anytime I see a kicker singlehandedly lose us at least 2 games is another great place to point a blaming finger.
In professional sports there are two primary manners that players are evaluated. One is statistically and the other is qualitatively. To take the example of baseball, Billy Beane and the Oakland As are the champions of the statistical approach. Anybody who has read Moneyball knows the story of how Beane totally eschwed traditional scouting to build the Oakland As, a low market team, into a consistent contender through a player evaluation scheme based entirely upon the "new" baseball metrics. On the other hand, you have the Atlanta Braves, who are probably the classical example of the traditional "5-tools" approach to scouting. The Braves consistently draft players based primarily upon projected potential rather then production. In both cases the results were extremely succesful. However, because of Moneyball and the hype surrounding Beane there is an increasing movenment towards the statistical approach to player evaluation. This is exhibited by the recent advent of new player metrics applied to basketball and football.
However, these two sports are not defined by individual battles in the same way that baseball is. For example, the be all and end all of basketball metrics, the +/- ratio of when a player is on or off the floor, is dependent on so many factors outside of the individual players control that it is hardly comparable to OBP or slugging percentage (depending on their position in the lineup) for a baseball player.
Like any case of extremes, the truth probably lies somewhere in between a purely statistical and purely qualitative approach. It is true that Torrin Tucker allowed more sacks the Rob Pettiti. It is also true that Tucker, a college guard, playing left tackle, was thus consistently isolated against the other teams best pass rusher while Petitti, even after Flozell's injury, consistently got help from Witten or Campbell. It is also true that multiple times last season (e.g. the Seattle game) Parcells quoted RT at being the problem position along the offensive line, eventhough the "less effective" Torrin Tucker was on an island at LT. It is also true that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers made a lucrative restricted free agent offer to Torrin Tucker this past offseason. While Tucker did allow more sacks last season (despite this, his overall metrics are superior to Pettiti's), Pettiti is clearly the qualitatively inferior player. Go back and watch some tape of Pettiti. It's not only that he consistently was beat, in all facets of the game, it is the
way that he gets beat. Thrown around like a rag doll by Bryce Fischer. Making Renaldo Wynn look like an All-Pro in the second Washington game. Etc.
If Rob Pettiti becomes a consistent NFL RT, I will be happy to eat crow. However, based upon my admitedly limited experience, there is simply no way that I see that happening.
