Re: gasoline to the
posted at 10/31/2013 4:06 PM EDT
In response to PatsEng's comment:
The Brace pick I can understand as a just in case pick if Wilfork left, however MB among others all pointed out that Brace benefited greatly from having Raji next to him. It was commented on numerously that Brace just didn't look all that good when Raji was getting the majority of the attention and even singled up was inconsistent at best. He had no injury red flags or off field issues but his red flags came with his play next to Raji and when he came to the pro's his inability to play at a high level 1v1 really came out. Again I understand why they took him on a personal decision basis but overall that was an extremely bad DT class. Again pointing to BB would rather draft into a weakness of the draft than a strenght.
My opinion is that BB has kept this thing rolling, where he has an opportunity every year, because of doing just that. Deciding how best to cover his biggest needs to give himself a chance of winning "every" year. I have seen people post that they would rather be the giants or steelers because they have won a couple superbowls since the Pats. Not me. I would much rather have a team who is consistently winning and not wildly all over the map, miss the playoff a couple seasons and then resurrect after some higher picks. That's just the coach in me. My mind set. I believe that is why he'll address a position if he has to at the point he feels is most appropriate in a draft even if it is not "the" position of strength for that draft class. Especially if he sees another class just as good or better coming the following year or in upcoming FA. I would imagine he is asking what can I do "this" season to give me the best chance without making it strictly "one" year or Future tense. I want the team I am a fan to want to win every game every year. I don't want to play for a bridge year after a winning year. That is a losers mentality to me but to each their own. If the RedSox stink next year, I am sure many fans would say well that's ok we won it all last year. I was always p|ssed when I lost a single game in any season as both a coach or player.
Ras - he didn't miss many games but he was limited in most. Ras had nagging hip and leg injures dating back to HS. It was a major red flag and why his stock dropped like a rock his senior year.
Well as I said it is a very rare exception that a player misses substantial time in their Sr season and does not drop drastically. There is no denying him not being able to stay healthy, it is just fact at this point. Other things to remember, the Pats trying to get some trade action on the pick spot and no one offering much or wanting it or something. There was also a lot of talk at that time about a shift in trying to get bigger CB's who had the size and length to deal with the bigger TE's and WR movement.
All the warning signs were there saying his body just couldn't hold up to the physical stress of playing the game. So if he was rated as a 1st round player with big injury red flags why would you take him essentially where he was ranked? Now the top 3 CB's in the draft were much stronger than the 09 DT draft class but then beyond taht it was considered a weak CB draft class with no depth. Once those 3 came off the boards shouldn't your priority shift to a stronger area of the draft?
Sorry I was not sure what you meant in this part with your question. Are you asking about a single year or one years CB's vs the previous or following years DT's?
What I'm saying is you shouldn't lock into a single position
I agree with that before the pick is made. What I am suggesting is that after BB has decided, with all the information the Pats org has, to go with a particular position that a second guesser is really limited to that position as well. At least if they think BB is a good coach and knows what the neediest position is at that point in time of the draft. I just think it is only fair "at that point". Obviously second guessers would not like that. I don't either, as I often liked some other player at the time the pick was made. In my opinion it is the fair thing to do however.
and only judge those players of the same position in such a narrow field. I mean that one position wasn't the only place the Pats were weak when they drafted player X. You know it to be true because they drafted other positions after that one and we all saw where the holes were on the team. If you want to limit it I would say within the next 32 picks (by then you can claim they still could have taken player x with the next pick) and open it up to positions of need. Ie, they need a WR but took Collins first so why limit it to just looking at coverage LBs for the next 10 picks vs coverage LBs and possible WRs taken until their next pick?
Because clearly he believes he needs to develop that big safety/coverage lb spot. How many years has he been trying to find it? They did draft a WR early. They had to top scoring offense in NFL history in 2007 and only scored 14 points when it mattered. Think he learned a lil bit of a lesson? Right or wrong who knows but clearly he thought one need had a higher value to what his vision is/was than the other position. Maybe he ran some plays on the whiteboard to a couple WR's that went in the 1st round and they were dumbos for the Pats system? Not to mention I think there was only 1 WR taken between their original 1st round pick and where they picked their WR? That would mean they missed out on Robert Woods, I think(just from memory, did not check). We liked Hopkins, he was already off the board. Did they try and trade up? Who knows. Did they even like him? Who knows. Hopkins has seemingly done well in Houston. Would he here? Who knows.
Just seems like it's an artifical limitation like saying the country doesn't have a drunk diving issues between 10am and 3pm on the 2nd Monday of every month.
How so, Matthews was dominant in 1v1 even with great players around him, Brace was good but not great and didn't do anything special to stand out.
Matthews didn't look that great to me. I thought he was good. I thought more about his bloodlines, and 10 yard split than his limited film. I only mentioned a few of the LB's and 1 DT around him that got drafted "that" year. Not only were there other players drafted from the d that year but the year after that also, that he played with. Go look at the BC drafted players from Brace's D. Raji, that is it. Nothing after and nothing before except a 6th round DB one year. Matthews pick worked out, no denying. However in the year the Pats are trying to win the Pats were able to try and fill another position through the draft while also "still" filling the role Matthews might fill through FA and get the same production. Hard to argue with the thought process regardless of the result.
You watch their senior year and you can see Matthews was a player, Brace just looked like a JAG next to a great player
I did not think so. How many DT's actually stand out or look "great" in a game? You know the ones that do? They often go in the top 5. Brace went in the 2nd. They took him earlier than I thought however. I thought they might take him because of the situation but with their 3rd pick of the 2nd round not the 2nd of the 2nd. Was there another team that liked him they were worried about in between the picks? No idea. Just think it was a situational pick. When you try and stay at the top year in and year out in a parity and salary cap driven league, situations like this are going to be near impossible to avoid completely.
Love there is no way you can't tell me they didn't see diabeties coming, Deaderick was removed for locker room issues so I'm sure he was on a short leash, Kelly is a bandaid not a long term solution and his contract reflected that, Wilfork love the man but his contract is insane (base salary wise) next year and a FA the year after isn't they why they drafted Brace? DT would have been a good decision to draft but again BB doesn't draft in areas of strength in the draft for one odd reason or another.
This is the same thing I already addressed and it is a strong belief. I think he is trying to build the most competitive "team" he can every single year and not build strictly for the future. Just my opinion and I know it probably is annoying to fans who just want a championship at any point and will live with down years as a byproduct, either leading to or following on the heals of. I just don't fall in that camp.
In fact one announcer was talking about this very point in regards to the seahawks or 49ers this past weekend (I don't recall specifics). They have talented rosters right now because of collecting talent form being poor for so long but now have a very limited window to capitalize on it because many will become FA's and they won't be able to afford to keep the roster together for long.
Don't get me wrong, there are some picks where I am hard pressed to find possible reasons why they took a guy as early as they did. My conclusion on that is that the media is late to the party compared to the league so when the league gets on a player "very" late we never hear about it and it seems very extreme to us? That is the best I got.
I agree with your final point but would say you shouldn't be looking in the first 3 rounds for grinding players but talented players that will mesh with your team first and foremost. The grinders are usually the sub role guys who can come in and give a spark but the starters need talent upfront. Given the choice I'd rather have 1 extra talent upfront than 3 grinders on the backside. But, that is my opinion too
This is just how we view those terms being used. I don't consider the use of the adjective grinder as somehow exclusive to non talented players or even less talented players. I doubt we really disagree on the point and it is just the semantics of the wording or adjectives.