Ban Rusty Pact

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Ban Rusty Pact

    In response to BunkerSpreckels' comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     


    What was so great about the 2000-2005 drafts other than getting the luckiest pick in NFL history and not blowing the #6 overall for Seymour?

    Bottom line is Brady and the inherited players along with great coaching made the dynasty, not BB's team building. To the contrary, his team building has slowly brought the team down as the inherited players have gone.

     

     

     



    Brady, Seymour, Light, Graham, Branch, Green, Givens, Koppen, Samuel, Wilson, Warren, Wilfork, Mankins and Kaczur were all drafted in that period.  All of them played pretty big roles many on SB winning teams.  And that isn't even counting some of the smaller role players I left out.

     

     

     

    As for your second point BB drafted those guys and brought in Vrabel, Colvin, Phifer, Smith, Dillon,  Harrison, Hamilton, Pleasant, Washington, Traylor, Patten, Poole as well as almost all of the offensive line on the 3 winning squads and some more role players.  You think we win 3 SBs without the contributions of the guys on these lists?  I have a bridge to sell you.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Other than the luckiest pick in NFL history and that #6 overall I mentioned the rest of the draftees you mention were not spectacular picks considering where they were taken. Though Samuel is overrated, he was a good find in the 4th round.

     

     

    I think BB the GM didn't blow the dynasty by being a mediocre team builder, but he has blown the aftermath of the dynasty by fielding a mediocre team around Brady as the inherited impact players aged.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    It wasn't luck.  BB sent Grier to check him out.  He knew he could get him in the later rounds and that he would quickly replace Bledsoe.  It was reported that BB had TB on his radar for a couple of years prior to drafting him.  No NFL GM has the connections to the college ranks like BB.

    [/QUOTE]


    All nonsense and speculation. Nobody has ever said BB asked Grier to check him out. Grier wasn't even BB's guy. And we have published accounts that Rehbein pestered BB over and over to draft Brady.

    Stop making things up dumbkoff.

    And go take a nationwide poll on who the luckiest draft picks in NFL history were. LMAO@U Your denseness is legend.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Ban Rusty Pact

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Hindsight is 20-20.  There's an element of luck involved in any draft.  The prize could be behind door number two or door number three.  If it happens to be behind door three, this doesn't necessarily make the guy who picked door two a bad chooser or the guy who picked door three a good chooser.  It's merely luck.

     

     


    Hunh? So, Matt Millen didn't really suck as a GM, he was just unlucky?

     

    Well, let's replace BB with a luckier guy then. LMAO

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Ban Rusty Pact

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Hindsight is 20-20.  There's an element of luck involved in any draft.  The prize could be behind door number two or door number three.  If it happens to be behind door three, this doesn't necessarily make the guy who picked door two a bad chooser or the guy who picked door three a good chooser.  It's merely luck.

     

     

     

     


    Hunh? So, Matt Millen didn't really suck as a GM, he was just unlucky?

     

    Well, let's replace BB with a luckier guy then. LMAO

    [/QUOTE]

    C'mon Babe.  BB isn't Matt Millen, nor are the Pats the Lions.  I'm not saying BB is the world's best GM ever.  As I said above, I'm not Rusty when it comes to evaluating BB as a GM.  But I'm also not TexParrot, who is every bit as hyperbolic as Rusty when he says one bad draft was "inexcusable" and almost ruined the future of the Brady era.  That's absurd too.  My baseball analogy is apt.  Good GMs are like the .340 hitters in baseball.  Every once in a while, they'll go 0 for 5 and strike out with men on base.  They'll never hit .800.  But this doesn't mean they are bad hitters.  Quite the opposite, actually.  If you want to argue BB is really a .290 hitter, fine--there's a good argument that he's not winning any triple crowns.  But he's definitely not a .210 hitter like Matt Millen.  

     

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: Ban Rusty Pact

    Ask him for a fact based source. Conjuring up such bs only validates that he's a BB ball washer. TB ball washing here is nonsense and unnecessary according to him. I just don't get it.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Ban Rusty Pact

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    Hindsight is 20-20.  There's an element of luck involved in any draft.  The prize could be behind door number two or door number three.  If it happens to be behind door three, this doesn't necessarily make the guy who picked door two a bad chooser or the guy who picked door three a good chooser.  It's merely luck.

     

     

     

     

     

     


    Hunh? So, Matt Millen didn't really suck as a GM, he was just unlucky?

     

    Well, let's replace BB with a luckier guy then. LMAO



    C'mon Babe.  BB isn't Matt Millen, nor are the Pats the Lions.  I'm not saying BB is the world's best GM ever.  As I said above, I'm not Rusty when it comes to evaluating BB as a GM.  But I'm also not TexParrot, who is every bit as hyperbolic as Rusty when he says one bad draft was "inexcusable" and almost ruined the future of the Brady era.  That's absurd too.  My baseball analogy is apt.  Good GMs are like the .340 hitters in baseball.  Every once in a while, they'll go 0 for 5 and strike out with men on base.  They'll never hit .800.  But this doesn't mean they are bad hitters.  Quite the opposite, actually.  If you want to argue BB is really a .290 hitter, fine--there's a good argument that he's not winning any triple crowns.  But he's definitely not a .210 hitter like Matt Millen.  

     

     

     

     

     




    Name a better GM in the cap era. You never do this, and then you turn around and say "he's not the best".

     

    lol

    It's a fact that there is not a better GM in the cap era than BB. It's a fact. All the records, stats, SB wins, appearances, etc, prove it. So, you need to stop mentioning people's names in your commentary as if they are wrong, when actually YOU are wrong.

    There has never been a coach in the cap era who is also a GM other than Mike Holmgren. And, Holmgren failed in Seattle overall. 

    So, really, name another GM who has a better resume as a GM in the cap era. Good luck!

    [/QUOTE]

    We've been through this Rusty.  I think you can argue that guys like Newsome and Thompson are darn close.  Who is better is hard to say, but I don't see BB as a slam dunk as best considering the number of bad picks he's had and the general success those guys have had.  In my opinion, BB is a .300 hitter.  But he's not the only .300 hitter and he's also neither a .400 hitter (where you seem to want to put him) nor a .200 hitter, where TexPat seems to want to put him. 

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Ban Rusty Pact

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    Hindsight is 20-20.  There's an element of luck involved in any draft.  The prize could be behind door number two or door number three.  If it happens to be behind door three, this doesn't necessarily make the guy who picked door two a bad chooser or the guy who picked door three a good chooser.  It's merely luck.

     

     

     

     

     

     


    Hunh? So, Matt Millen didn't really suck as a GM, he was just unlucky?

     

    Well, let's replace BB with a luckier guy then. LMAO



    C'mon Babe.  BB isn't Matt Millen, nor are the Pats the Lions.  I'm not saying BB is the world's best GM ever.  As I said above, I'm not Rusty when it comes to evaluating BB as a GM.  But I'm also not TexParrot, who is every bit as hyperbolic as Rusty when he says one bad draft was "inexcusable" and almost ruined the future of the Brady era.  That's absurd too.  My baseball analogy is apt.  Good GMs are like the .340 hitters in baseball.  Every once in a while, they'll go 0 for 5 and strike out with men on base.  They'll never hit .800.  But this doesn't mean they are bad hitters.  Quite the opposite, actually.  If you want to argue BB is really a .290 hitter, fine--there's a good argument that he's not winning any triple crowns.  But he's definitely not a .210 hitter like Matt Millen.  

     

     

     

     

     

     




    Name a better GM in the cap era. You never do this, and then you turn around and say "he's not the best".

     

     

    lol

    It's a fact that there is not a better GM in the cap era than BB. It's a fact. All the records, stats, SB wins, appearances, etc, prove it. So, you need to stop mentioning people's names in your commentary as if they are wrong, when actually YOU are wrong.

    There has never been a coach in the cap era who is also a GM other than Mike Holmgren. And, Holmgren failed in Seattle overall. 

    So, really, name another GM who has a better resume as a GM in the cap era. Good luck!



    We've been through this Rusty.  I think you can argue that guys like Newsome and Thompson are darn close.  Who is better is hard to say, but I don't see BB as a slam dunk as best considering the number of bad picks he's had and the general success those guys have had.  In my opinion, BB is a .300 hitter.  But he's not the only .300 hitter and he's also neither a .400 hitter (where you seem to want to put him) nor a .200 hitter, where TexPat seems to want to put him. 

     

     



    Thompson and Newsome (named GM in 2002) each with only 1 ring each, taking years and years to get to a SB, who couldn't keep all those players together to defend their titles due to poor cap salary allocation, are better than BB who has 3 rings, the best winning% since 2000, been to 5 SBs, been to 7 Conf Title games?

     

    Really, dude? Really?   How do those resumes make sense in terms of stacking up to BBs?   Those are the Johnny Come Lately GM choices? Those guys represent your argument?

    I got news for ya. BB is the best GM of all time because he's the best GM of the cap era. Bar none. 

    Yeah, I think he is a high .300s hitter. He's Ted Williams who once hit .400.

     

    [/QUOTE]
    In most instances the GM doesn't have the luxury of also being the best coach in the NFL, that has got to be considered when talking about the best GM of all time. Also most GM's don't have the luxury of bringing players in to play with the best quarterback in the NFL...that has got to count for something too. You also have to consider the overall talent of other teams when discussing the best GM. The Cowboy's roster overall is very talented, but no one would say Jerry Jones is a great GM (and they shouldn't). The Steelers, Packers, Colts, Chargers, Broncos, and Ravens have all won a lot of games over the last ten years. The Texans look pretty loaded, but poor QB play has absolutely crushed them, plus their coach is nowhere near the level of Belichick...is that their GM's fault? The 49ers are loaded. It's not like there isn't talented teams across the league, it's just that very few have a coach or QB like ours.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from teegee. Show teegee's posts

    Re: Ban Rusty Pact

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    Hindsight is 20-20.  There's an element of luck involved in any draft.  The prize could be behind door number two or door number three.  If it happens to be behind door three, this doesn't necessarily make the guy who picked door two a bad chooser or the guy who picked door three a good chooser.  It's merely luck.

     

     

     

     

     

     


    Hunh? So, Matt Millen didn't really suck as a GM, he was just unlucky?

     

    Well, let's replace BB with a luckier guy then. LMAO



    C'mon Babe.  BB isn't Matt Millen, nor are the Pats the Lions.  I'm not saying BB is the world's best GM ever.  As I said above, I'm not Rusty when it comes to evaluating BB as a GM.  But I'm also not TexParrot, who is every bit as hyperbolic as Rusty when he says one bad draft was "inexcusable" and almost ruined the future of the Brady era.  That's absurd too.  My baseball analogy is apt.  Good GMs are like the .340 hitters in baseball.  Every once in a while, they'll go 0 for 5 and strike out with men on base.  They'll never hit .800.  But this doesn't mean they are bad hitters.  Quite the opposite, actually.  If you want to argue BB is really a .290 hitter, fine--there's a good argument that he's not winning any triple crowns.  But he's definitely not a .210 hitter like Matt Millen.  

     

     

     

     

     

     




    Name a better GM in the cap era. You never do this, and then you turn around and say "he's not the best".

     

     

    lol

    It's a fact that there is not a better GM in the cap era than BB. It's a fact. All the records, stats, SB wins, appearances, etc, prove it. So, you need to stop mentioning people's names in your commentary as if they are wrong, when actually YOU are wrong.

    There has never been a coach in the cap era who is also a GM other than Mike Holmgren. And, Holmgren failed in Seattle overall. 

    So, really, name another GM who has a better resume as a GM in the cap era. Good luck!



    We've been through this Rusty.  I think you can argue that guys like Newsome and Thompson are darn close.  Who is better is hard to say, but I don't see BB as a slam dunk as best considering the number of bad picks he's had and the general success those guys have had.  In my opinion, BB is a .300 hitter.  But he's not the only .300 hitter and he's also neither a .400 hitter (where you seem to want to put him) nor a .200 hitter, where TexPat seems to want to put him. 

     

     

     



    Thompson and Newsome (named GM in 2002) each with only 1 ring each, taking years and years to get to a SB, who couldn't keep all those players together to defend their titles due to poor cap salary allocation, are better than BB who has 3 rings, the best winning% since 2000, been to 5 SBs, been to 7 Conf Title games?

     

     

    Really, dude? Really?   How do those resumes make sense in terms of stacking up to BBs?   Those are the Johnny Come Lately GM choices? Those guys represent your argument?

    I got news for ya. BB is the best GM of all time because he's the best GM of the cap era. Bar none. 

    Yeah, I think he is a high .300s hitter. He's Ted Williams who once hit .400.

     


    In most instances the GM doesn't have the luxury of also being the best coach in the NFL, that has got to be considered when talking about the best GM of all time. Also most GM's don't have the luxury of bringing players in to play with the best quarterback in the NFL...that has got to count for something too. You also have to consider the overall talent of other teams when discussing the best GM. The Cowboy's roster overall is very talented, but no one would say Jerry Jones is a great GM (and they shouldn't). The Steelers, Packers, Colts, Chargers, Broncos, and Ravens have all won a lot of games over the last ten years. The Texans look pretty loaded, but poor QB play has absolutely crushed them, plus their coach is nowhere near the level of Belichick...is that their GM's fault? The 49ers are loaded. It's not like there isn't talented teams across the league, it's just that very few have a coach or QB like ours.

     

     




    So was Bill Walsh overrated as a GM or coach because he picked Montana like BB picked Brady? That doesn't make much sense.

     

    Yes, the Texans using poor salary allocation and not having an O Line until recently. while hiring a weak coach is the GM's fault! Who else's fault is it?  Pee Wee Herman's?

    Your premise is for children which makes sense since you act like one.  I never said "there are no other talented teams in the NFL". I said BB is the best GM in the league and of all time due to sustaining through it all, certainly better than the Colts with Polian, Pittsburgh or Baltimore, the latter two teams having sub .500 or .500 sesons and missing playoffs every 2-3 years, which our team NEVER does unless they go 11-5 with Matt Cassel.

    Also, SF sat on top 10 picks for a decade because they SUCKED. They should be loaded.



    Game, set, match.

     

Share