gasoline to the "best GM" debate

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    I thought we lost 2 SBs because we couldn't draft?  Notice how this "analysis" gave the G Men an F as well.  LMFAO.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is rich.  Jacksonville has drafted the best in the 1st two rounds since 2006?  LMFAO.

    [/QUOTE]


    This is for 2006.  Is that difficult to understand? 

    Do you think anything but an "F" grade would have helped or not?

    Those are the results, like it or not.

    There were only 6, " F "grades calculated.  BB was one of them.

    Hardly BESTEST GM, EVA, grades.

    F='s FAIL

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You complain about Brace. Fair enough. He is gone. However, possible reasons : 1) Wilfork was a hold out and forced the Patriots hand. 2)Brace is local and easy access to scout and see and know a heck of a lot about. 3) Played very well for BC for a number of years.

    Ras-I. While he ultimately failed because his body would not let him play. I think it has taken on a life of its own. You carefully chose the word nagging and I would agree with that. However, typically people try to say Ras-I was "always" injured. People accept that as fact when it is not the case. If you look at his college career, with the exception of a serious injury his sr year, he missed only a couple games. 

    We will have to disagree on the looking at alternate players of the same position within the next 10-12 picks or so. That's what I believe if you really want to judge. 

    On top of that the year he was drafted the Pats got almost the same exact sack production out of a guy they resigned in FA that cost not much if I recall correctly. You seem to be playing both sides on the Brace/Mathews thing.

    As far as DT this year, no idea. Have to assume they felt they had Wilfork, Kelly, Armstead(at the time), don't remember the timelines for the releases of Love, Deaderick, etc, Forston, and whatever UDFA types they picked up. And for those that might wish to say well then you have to know Wilfork and Kelly are old and will eventually get hurt so they should have drafted one in the first round. I would simply say, then you should be saying that about drafting a QB in the first round as well.

    The fact that the NFL tries its best to make the league as much a parity league as possible further emphasizes the importance of finding those gritty grinders with mental toughness  to fill your roles and not simply collect talent where you don't need it most. If parity is achieved, or close to it, then overall roster talent level should at least be close and the gritty grinding mentally tough and deep roster will make the potential difference.

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

    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. 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?

    What I'm saying is you shouldn't lock into a single position 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? 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. You watch their senior year and you can see Matthews was a player, Brace just looked like a JAG next to a great player

    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.

    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

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is rich.  Jacksonville has drafted the best in the 1st two rounds since 2006?  LMFAO.

    [/QUOTE]


    This is for 2006.  Is that difficult to understand? 

    Do you think anything but an "F" grade would have helped or not?

    Those are the results, like it or not.

    There were only 6, " F "grades calculated.  BB was one of them.

    Hardly BESTEST GM, EVA, grades.

    F='s FAIL

    [/QUOTE]

    Chad Jackson had no impact on the 2007 team. BB missed on Jackson and then scores Moss and Welker in 2007 with the team in the SB.

    What does Jackson and a 2nd rd pick that missed in 2006, have to do with Brady choking in the 2007 or 2011 postseasons?

    LMAO

    [/QUOTE]


    2006.  Are you really this dense?

    He traded for Welker and Moss BECAUSE of Jackson and bug eyes, admitting  and fixing his own failure.

    Then came all those defensive picks with similar results and again, a trade to help fix it, five years later.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    '

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    Imagine if BB missed on the Corey Dillion, Randy Moss, and Wes Welker trades and these players were terrible?

    Or if T-cal actually knew what he was talking about and Mayo suxed as opposed to being one of the best MLB's in the game today, or if McCourty was not a rock in the secondary, or if Talib was a bust, or if Nink wasn't Mike Vrabel part 2, or if Wilfork was Ron Brace instead of Wilfork, or if Jones and Hightower were more like Huff and Spears, or if BJGE, Ridley, Vareen, and Woodhead were bad runningbacks, or if our O-line wasn't one of the best in the league year in and year out, or if Gronk and Hernandez were busts instead of 2 of the most explosive young TE's in the game, or if guys like Rodney Harrison, Ted Washington, Rosey Colvin, Dieon Branch, Givens, Patton, A Smith, Rhoman Phifer, Matt Light, Ty Warren, Asante Samuel and a whole bunch of others were not key components to Super Bowl wins,  or if BB didn't value leadership, work ethic, and mental toughness and he never drafted a 6th round runt from Michigan.

    Then you guys would be right.

    Or imagine if Robert Kraft hadn't of pulled off the greatest theft since the Herchel Walker "Great Trade Robbery" and signed Belichick to run this team, then none of us would be on this board beause we would be the Jets, and the Jets would be dominant and would have won more games then any team in the league over the past 13 years and we would be wondering what having a great GM feels like.

    Enjoy the ride.

    It's almost over.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is rich.  Jacksonville has drafted the best in the 1st two rounds since 2006?  LMFAO.

    [/QUOTE]


    This is for 2006.  Is that difficult to understand? 

    Do you think anything but an "F" grade would have helped or not?

    Those are the results, like it or not.

    There were only 6, " F "grades calculated.  BB was one of them.

    Hardly BESTEST GM, EVA, grades.

    F='s FAIL

    [/QUOTE]

    Chad Jackson had no impact on the 2007 team. BB missed on Jackson and then scores Moss and Welker in 2007 with the team in the SB.

    What does Jackson and a 2nd rd pick that missed in 2006, have to do with Brady choking in the 2007 or 2011 postseasons?

    LMAO

    [/QUOTE]


    2006.  Are you really this dense?

    He traded for Welker and Moss BECAUSE of Jackson and bug eyes, admitting  and fixing his own failure.

    Then came all those defensive picks with similar results and again, a trade to help fix it, five years later.

    [/QUOTE]

    That;s correct, but HE FIXED the idea Chad Jackson did not want to work and be a pro. So, he doubles down and secures two future HOFers.

    Chad Jackson did not make Brady choke in SB 42.

    FACT

    [/QUOTE]


    Is that the SB, or one of them, where the lead was lost in the last minute?

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Spin it any way you like, but better GM work by BB would have resulted in more SB wins than zero in the last 8 years.

    Game, set, match.

     




    A better thow by Brady/catch by Welker, a drop by Tyree or an interception by Samuel and none of us have a thing to say about the draft.  Any of those things happen and the lot of us have little to debate.  It's not a black or white  argument - it's a game of inches where one play makes you the hero or the goat.   

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't buy the "one play" argument.  If you play so close to the edge that one play makes a difference (or one call by the refs makes a difference), you haven't played well enough.

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.

    The homers like to lean on the close SB losses to support their flawed logic, but have selective amnesia when the close calls to even get to the SB went our way.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Selective logic?  I don't agree.  Yes, the Pats had some close/favourable calls to help get to the SB (tuck rule - Raiders), but so what?  It just goes to show that when good, well-coached teams meet that one pivotal play can make the difference.  Are you saying, for example, that the Raiders got jobbed and were the better team then?  If so, it goes counter to the argument that better talent guarantees the win.   

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    Pezz: I looked up the source of that graph you posted about the 2006 draft.  It uses pro football reference's career AV statistic to gauge a player's value.

    I don't think anyone denies that the 2006 draft was bad.  2007 was below par as well, but was slightly made up for by the acquisitions of Moss and Welker.

    Since 2008 the players the Patriots have drafted rank 4th in the NFL in total AV.  They are 1st in the NFL in both combined pro bowls and the first team all pro teams.

    Since 2010 the players the Patriots have drafted rank 1st in the NFL in total AV.  They are 2nd in the NFL in combined pro bowls and 1st in combined first team all pro teams.

    In addition there have been multiple analyses posted on this board that demonstrate that in BB's full tenure the Patriots rank highly in the NFL in terms of total AV drafted and pro bowls and all-pro teams.

    That is hardly bottom tier drafting.  Particularly when you consider that the Patriots haven't had the benefit of high draft picks because of their consistent winning.  Learn the game.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is rich.  Jacksonville has drafted the best in the 1st two rounds since 2006?  LMFAO.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, that's a case where stats tell only half of the story.  If a team stinks then rookies have a greater opportunity to stick and contribute.  If  a team doesn't stink then picks have to compete more to make the team and contribute. 

    that said, I'd have to agree that by and large - Belichick's personnel picks have been average to above average over the last several years.  He's had some stinkers and some great hits.  I think early in the last decade, he had more hits. 

    [/QUOTE]

    No team has had better yields than NE since 2010.

    None.

    It's very obvious that NE's drafts in this period are in the top 3 or 5 of the entire NFL.

    Losing Mayo, Wilfork and now seeing the holes plugged so well, proves this.

    He did not have more hits earlier in the last decade. He had a veteran base, which made it easier for rookies or young players to be brought along slowly.

    Example: Thompkins and Dobson are further along than Branch and Givens from the 2002 draft.

    FACT

    Enjoy your bluedgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Blatently false! 

    NE's 57% hits in the first 3 rounds (where picks are likely to contribute) in the drafts for that time period, ranks square in the middle of the pack.

    Having such a high amount of UDFA's contributing is a direct result of those failures both talent wise (busts) and monetarily. (paying those busts)

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    Would it be OK if I stay up on my soap box ranting against Josh McDaniels?

     

    Just checking......

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    This is for 2006.  Is that difficult to understand? 

    Do you think anything but an "F" grade would have helped or not?

    Those are the results, like it or not.

    There were only 6, " F "grades calculated.  BB was one of them.

    Hardly BESTEST GM, EVA, grades.

    F='s FAIL



    One bad draft suddenly makes BB NOT a top GM?  No top GM ever has a bad draft?

    You may want to come over to the real world.  Here you go, a link to a complete body of work for the entire NFL instead of cherry picking a single bad instance and claiming "BB made a bad pick!  BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!"

    http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/decade-the-making-the-ultimate-nfl-draft-grades/2419/

    "Using information from the great folks at pro-football-reference.com – or, as we like to call it, "The Bible" – we broke down the 10 drafts from 2001-2010 looking for an impartial answer to who was the best. Who drafted the most stars, the most longtime starters, the most promising young players? Who had the most players from their drafts active in the league last year? Who was the best?

    When it was all said and done, there was an easy and not-so-surprising answer: the New England Patriots."

    The best part of this?  It includes 2006-2009, also known as BB's worst drafting period.  It doesn't include his incredibly strong 2011 and 2012 drafts.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pezz: I looked up the source of that graph you posted about the 2006 draft.  It uses pro football reference's career AV statistic to gauge a player's value.

    I don't think anyone denies that the 2006 draft was bad.  2007 was below par as well, but was slightly made up for by the acquisitions of Moss and Welker.

    Since 2008 the players the Patriots have drafted rank 4th in the NFL in total AV.  They are 1st in the NFL in both combined pro bowls and the first team all pro teams.

    Since 2010 the players the Patriots have drafted rank 1st in the NFL in total AV.  They are 2nd in the NFL in combined pro bowls and 1st in combined first team all pro teams.

    In addition there have been multiple analyses posted on this board that demonstrate that in BB's full tenure the Patriots rank highly in the NFL in terms of total AV drafted and pro bowls and all-pro teams.

    That is hardly bottom tier drafting.  Learn the game.

    [/QUOTE]


    Well I think you should learn the game.

    2006-2009 were extremely poor.

    Failed drafts are failed drafts,  sure there are individul players that rank highly, but the overall misses are not indicative of good drafting.  A Mayo here or a Jones there are great but they do not make up for the Wheatly or Wilhites or Cunninghams, or Jacksons who shouldn't have been picked.

    The Pats ranking for the past 3 years is mediocre, as stated they only hit on 57% of the money picks.

    When there are teams like the seahawks hitting on 88% or Cowboys 86%, despite having less ammunition, there is a problem.

    When Edelman is playing DB, although it's great he could, how is this a good thing?

    Where were the DB's?  They only drafted 1000 of them.  FAIL!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The Pats ranking for the past 3 years is mediocre, as stated they only hit on 57% of the money picks.*

    [/QUOTE]

    *citation needed.  10 out of their 13 picks from the first 3 rounds in 2010-2012 are still on the roster.  Only Cunningham, Price and Dowling are gone.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    The Pats ranking for the past 3 years is mediocre

    In the past 3 years they have a higher AV (you know the statistic you just used to complain about the 2006 draft) drafted than any franchise in the NFL.  No amount of handwaving or spin can change that.  Learn the game.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    This is for 2006.  Is that difficult to understand? 

    Do you think anything but an "F" grade would have helped or not?

    Those are the results, like it or not.

    There were only 6, " F "grades calculated.  BB was one of them.

    Hardly BESTEST GM, EVA, grades.

    F='s FAIL

     

    [/QUOTE]

    One bad draft suddenly makes BB NOT a top GM?  No top GM ever has a bad draft?

     

    You may want to come over to the real world.  Here you go, a link to a complete body of work for the entire NFL instead of cherry picking a single bad instance and claiming "BB made a bad pick!  BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!"

    http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/decade-the-making-the-ultimate-nfl-draft-grades/2419/

    "Using information from the great folks at pro-football-reference.com – or, as we like to call it, "The Bible" – we broke down the 10 drafts from 2001-2010 looking for an impartial answer to who was the best. Who drafted the most stars, the most longtime starters, the most promising young players? Who had the most players from their drafts active in the league last year? Who was the best?

    When it was all said and done, there was an easy and not-so-surprising answer: the New England Patriots."

    The best part of this?  It includes 2006-2009, also known as BB's worst drafting period.  It doesn't include his incredibly strong 2011 and 2012 drafts.

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh, boy.

    Do you think those poor drafts for the 4 year period of 2006-2009, hurt or helped the team?

    You do realize most of those picks were on D right? (Exception 2006 where they were on O) Given those picks 3 years to contribute......

    Do you think, maybe, that it had something to do with the poor Defense in 2010-12?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The Pats ranking for the past 3 years is mediocre

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    In the past 3 years they have a higher AV (you know the statistic you just used to complain about the 2006 draft) drafted than any franchise in the NFL.  No amount of handwaving or spin can change that.  Learn the game.

    [/QUOTE]


    oops.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Oh, boy.

    Do you think those poor drafts for the 4 year period of 2006-2009, hurt or helped the team?

    You do realize most of those picks were on D right? (Exception 2006 where they were on O) Given those picks 3 years to contribute......

    Do you think, maybe, that it had something to do with the poor Defense in 2010-12?

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you ever watch football?  This is a serious question, because your knowledge of the game, and especially drafting and team building is absolutely atrocious.

    BB has been consistently the best drafter in the NFL.  This is proven in the link I provided covering 2001-2010 AND PCM's provided stat covering 2011-2013.  #1 in the NFL over both time periods.

    EVERY team makes bad picks and has bad drafts.  It's unavoidable.  Incredibly high hit rates in drafts over small periods of time are partially due to good scouting and decisions and mostly due to luck.  Incredibly low hit rates have the same factors.  A good drafter will have better scouting and decision making to minimize the impact of luck, but you cannot eliminate it entirely.

    When that happens, when you have bad drafts (as it always will at one point or another for every team in the league), the rest of the team building approach comes into play. This includes maximizing the number of picks to minimize the damage of blown picks (BB's much criticized, around these parts anyways, value strategy).

    It also includes taking chances in free agency, and accurately evaluating talent on your roster so you don't take up spots with high picks who aren't worthy of it.  This is part of why NE has so much success with lower drafted and undrafted free agents.  Top picks or high profile free agents don't get all the reps by virtue of their status, and have to earn their reps just like everyone else.  This contributes to cutting top picks earlier than some other teams might, and allows low-knowledge fans like you to point to "failures."  In fact, this propensity is what allows the Patriots to be successful.

    So, in answer to your incredibly over-simplistic question, the misses in 2006-09 didn't help, no.  But the overall approach of our GM led to a consistently competitive team regardless of the downturn, and those misses did not cripple this franchise as it might others.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, in answer to your incredibly over-simplistic question, the misses in 2006-09 didn't help, no.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why not just say this, which answers the question that was asked, instead of the attack? 

    Very, very Rusty-like approach.  No wonder he appreciates your posts.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, in answer to your incredibly over-simplistic question, the misses in 2006-09 didn't help, no.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why not just say this, which answers the question that was asked, instead of the attack? 

    Very, very Rusty-like approach.  No wonder he appreciates your posts.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why on Earth would I give a simple answer to a complex issue?

    And Rusty really doesn't like most of my posts, but every once in awhile we agree.  Or possibly we're the same person.  I forget which it is today.  I might be Bustchise next week.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    Let me see if I understand all this back and forth about BB and his draft record:

    "IF" the Pats had WON, instead of lose, the last two SBs, the AFCCG against the Ravens last year etc. with the players BB has drafted these last 10 years, his draft record would still be in question here?  Seems this is driven more by a lack of SB wins than anything and the way the Pats are playing this year.

    If one took a microscope to all the SB winners of the past decade, how many of these teams were built mostly via draft or FA etc? Wouldn't surprise me that every NFL team has the same amount of draft and FA signings hits and misses many are complaining about with regards to BBs record.  Yeah, the Pats haven't won a SB since 2005, so have a lot of other teams, but, as noted by many here, they have appeared in 2 more SBs since 2005, more than most teams.  Most are still trying to get there again, let alone a couple times in a decade.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The Pats ranking for the past 3 years is mediocre, as stated they only hit on 57% of the money picks.*

    [/QUOTE]

    *citation needed.  10 out of their 13 picks from the first 3 rounds in 2010-2012 are still on the roster.  Only Cunningham, Price and Dowling are gone.

    [/QUOTE]


    Well it was 14 picks and only 8 of them can be considered starters

    only Gronk, McC  and spikes remain from the 2010 class.  Only one extended from their rookie contract.  The others were cut in their rookie contracts, in prison or flipping burgers.

    Don't know if spikes makes it.

    The 2011-12 class is incomplete, although looking more promising.

    Much better yield than 2006-9 but, not complete.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    How do you grade a GM other than by long-term wins and losses over multiple seasons?  BB is easily the best GM in the league.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The Pats ranking for the past 3 years is mediocre

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    In the past 3 years they have a higher AV (you know the statistic you just used to complain about the 2006 draft) drafted than any franchise in the NFL.  No amount of handwaving or spin can change that.  Learn the game.

    [/QUOTE]


    oops.

    [/QUOTE]


    Haven't seen where their yield is better than the rest.  Was it posted?

    Please show the graft for those years.  Thanks

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


     

Share