PatsEng's comment

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

    PatsEng's comment

    When I talked about how the Patriots have been doing things since 2000, PatsEng response was "Let me ask this, how did it work out in 06' when they took the same approach with Branch and Givens or in 08' with Samuel. Didn't work then and hasn't work since so when something doesn't work it's time to change"

    I ask PatsEng this, how did Deion Branch do when he was in Seattle and how did David Givens do in Tennessee? Branch was okay, but not even close to his days with the Pats the first time around and Givens didn't last long as he was forced to retire due to a knee injury. Asante, he did well in Philadelphia, but wore out his welcome with the Eagles as they traded him.

     

    Let me ask this, how many super bowls did they gone on to win after their days with the Patriots?

    Outside of not winning the Super Bowl, the Patriots success has been the same with all the change.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    You win

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

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    Congrats for remembering a conversation a long time ago? BTW how many SB's did the Pats win with those players and how many did they win without them?

    BTW, in 06' when we lost to the Colts did you think they found proper replacements?

    How long, how many picks, how much money spent did they spend in the secondary trying to replace Samuel again?

    Outside of not winning the super bowl (you know the goal of the season? The thing that teams are weighed against) the Pats have done very well but I'd be happy to take the 01-05 years over the 06-12 years anyday, wouldn't you?

    BTW them resigning Hern, Gronk, and Mayo before their contracts ran up kind of shows they have started to change their thinking, kind of like how I suggested

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

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    Congrats for remembering a conversation a long time ago? BTW how many SB's did the Pats win with those players and how many did they win without them?

    BTW, in 06' when we lost to the Colts did you think they found proper replacements?

    How long, how many picks, how much money spent did they spend in the secondary trying to replace Samuel again?

    Outside of not winning the super bowl (you know the goal of the season? The thing that teams are weighed against) the Pats have done very well but I'd be happy to take the 01-05 years over the 06-12 years anyday, wouldn't you?

    BTW them resigning Hern, Gronk, and Mayo before their contracts ran up kind of shows they have started to change their thinking, kind of like how I suggested



    Don't get me wrong, they had a lot to do with those Super Bowls, its just that change is going to happen.

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

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:

    You win



    Its not about being right or anything like that, its looking at this objectively.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    so a poster didnt agree with you, big deal. Dont be so sensitive, Patseng is a good poster so are you. No need to start a thread on it. Stay well.

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

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    Congrats for remembering a conversation a long time ago? BTW how many SB's did the Pats win with those players and how many did they win without them?

    BTW, in 06' when we lost to the Colts did you think they found proper replacements?

    How long, how many picks, how much money spent did they spend in the secondary trying to replace Samuel again?

    Outside of not winning the super bowl (you know the goal of the season? The thing that teams are weighed against) the Pats have done very well but I'd be happy to take the 01-05 years over the 06-12 years anyday, wouldn't you?

    BTW them resigning Hern, Gronk, and Mayo before their contracts ran up kind of shows they have started to change their thinking, kind of like how I suggested



    Totally agree with you....it's what happens after we don't sign these players - we end up drafting and drafting and drafting and signing and signing and trading and trading...just to replace their production. Meanwhile the positions that weren't a problem, become a problem because we don't have any resources left to replenish those spots.

    It's football...players come and go...I get that you can't keep everybody (and I wouldn't want them to), but at the same time I think this organization has taken too much pride in winning at the negotiation table and it has hurt us.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    I think the Pats coaching and fairly complex schemes requires a fairly aware and intelligent player.That kind of player will look good in the Pats system.

    Other systems that maybe do not ask for as much between the ears, will never make those players look quite as good.

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

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:

    so a poster didnt agree with you, big deal. Dont be so sensitive, Patseng is a good poster so are you. No need to start a thread on it. Stay well.



    I'm was not being sensitive. If that is what it sounded like to you, it wasn't.

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

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    It's pretty simple.

    After the rookie contract you decide if you want to pay market value for a particular guy. You can't keep them all. BB is extremely good at deciding who to keep and pay. That's because he is a great coach. If he has time to work with them first hand his judgement is nearly infallible.

    If he were as good at bringing in new guys we would have a few more rings. That's because he's not a great GM.

    Above all else, drafting is critical in this era. That's where you get your bang for the buck.

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

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    In response to millergrnv's comment:

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:

     

    You win

     



    Its not about being right or anything like that, its looking at this objectively.

     



    if it's not then why start the thread to begin with? We disagree on how they handled expiring contracts. Recently they've combined our approaches letting some players go the full length while re-upping others before their contracts run out. If you want to discuss the difference in philsophy that's one thing but bringing up my name directly on something I said (what 12' offseason prior to resigning Gronk and Hern long term) when there is still nothing to point to having different players kept the system running is about being right and not about being objective. But, PBWS76 is right that it's a very system oriented team and letting players who fit that system run out their contracts and be stolen by other teams is still not the best move imo when it's difficult to find replacement players that fit that system. In Branch's and Givens case it might have cost them the 06' SB as most would agree a stronger WR core would have beaten the Colts who went on to win the SB. In Samuels case they spent 3 2nd rounders and a 1st (McCourty who is now a FS) to replace him along with numerous vet contracts that didn't pan out. The Pats are a very strong team and losing one or two players (not named Brady or Wilfork) won't kill them during the regular season but when it comes to crunch time the limited talent that fit the system well becomes appearent from the lack of offensive production from the WR's and the poor secondary play. Since, they won the SB's with those players and couldn't without them you'd be hard pressed to convince me that those specific players (starters who were #1's or 2's at their positions not role players or backups) didn't play a role in those SB victories no matter what their careers looked like once they left the team.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    It comes to this The Pats were built on first round picks,lucky picks round 4-7 and free agents.BB value picking down to the second round is a double disaster.You miss out on the first rounder and pick garbage in the second basically tearing the team down bit by bit.Who plays as a impact good player for the defense-Wilfork-McCourty-Mayo-Jones-Talib-Denard,and maybe Hightower and Nickovich.First round or FA the others are just Jags.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    "Outside of not winning the Super Bowl, the Patriots success has been the same with all the change."

    At the risk of sounding like Rusty, "outside of not winning the Super Bowl" is a not-so-tiny distinction. 

    I'm one of those who considers those lost Super Bowl seasons a success, but they did point to problems and weaknesses in the team's approach. 

    Also, you are comparing individuals to a team which is kinda nutty and not a level playing field for comparisons.

    The Pats success is to at least some degree predicated on playing in a consistently weak division. 

    "so a poster didnt agree with you, big deal. Dont be so sensitive, Patseng is a good poster so are you. No need to start a thread on it. Stay well."

    Agreed. Not sure why a new thread was needed to address a comment on an existing thread. 

    Will you now start a new thread on my comment to your comment? 

    "Rabbit Hole Monday." 

     

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    It's pretty simple.

    After the rookie contract you decide if you want to pay market value for a particular guy. You can't keep them all. BB is extremely good at deciding who to keep and pay. That's because he is a great coach. If he has time to work with them first hand his judgement is nearly infallible.

     



    This point is supported by the number of players that were worse after they left the Pats vs. number that actually were the same or better on other teams.

    Personally I think market value has been inflated for most Patriots coming off their rookie contract. Point made in other comment..coaching in NE makes the team better than the sum of their parts...but naturally that makes each player look better than they would in isolation.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    People here seem to forget the reason Assante was let go.They don't remember how many times Rodney would end a scoring play, yelling at Assante for being out of position because he was too busy trying to freelance. Too busy looking in the backfield going for the INT or too busy trying to make a big hit and launching himself, only to totally miss the guy. Assante wasn't that good. Assante lost a superbowl twice. Once by dropping a sure interception and the second time by not covering Mr Catch the ball with my helmet Tyree.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

    People here seem to forget the reason Assante was let go.They don't remember how many times Rodney would end a scoring play, yelling at Assante for being out of position because he was too busy trying to freelance. Too busy looking in the backfield going for the INT or too busy trying to make a big hit and launching himself, only to totally miss the guy. Assante wasn't that good. Assante lost a superbowl twice. Once by dropping a sure interception and the second time by not covering Mr Catch the ball with my helmet Tyree.



    this. ^

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

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

    People here seem to forget the reason Assante was let go.They don't remember how many times Rodney would end a scoring play, yelling at Assante for being out of position because he was too busy trying to freelance. Too busy looking in the backfield going for the INT or too busy trying to make a big hit and launching himself, only to totally miss the guy. Assante wasn't that good. Assante lost a superbowl twice. Once by dropping a sure interception and the second time by not covering Mr Catch the ball with my helmet Tyree.



    I'm not going to pretend Samuel was a great corner, because he wasn't, but until they picked up Talib, Samuel was the best corner we had since Law. And even now Talib has been inconsistent and has trouble staying on the field in his short stint with the Pats so far. I'm not sure if that speaks to BB's weakness in finding CB's or the system being too complex for the normal CB but whatever the case there is something wrong. Say what you will about Samuel but the fact of the matter is since he's been gone we have spent 3 2nds (Wheatley, Butler, Ras), 2 4th's (Talib, Wilhite), and a 1st (McCourty, now a FS) along with numerous mid level contracts (Springs, Bodden, O'Neal) and none have provided as much as Samuel did so far. The only two you can really make a argument for are McCourty in his rook year who has since been moved to FS and Talib who only played a handful of games but seemed to steady a broken secondary for that short time. Turthfully though with Talib, the secondary was so bad it's hard to tell if he's that good or if any starting caliber CB would have improved it.

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

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    Not re-signing Law and letting Samuel walk hurt this team for quite a while.  They spent a lot capital trying to replace two pretty good players.   Not much success at drafting CBs despite a boatload of picks.  They seemed to have turned the corner with Dennard and the Talib trade, but the revolving door at CB no doubt hurt this team.  I know the Pats' philosophy is that you can't retain everyone, and even those they do retain are at their price, but CB in particular has been a sore spot. 

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

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

    People here seem to forget the reason Assante was let go.They don't remember how many times Rodney would end a scoring play, yelling at Assante for being out of position because he was too busy trying to freelance. Too busy looking in the backfield going for the INT or too busy trying to make a big hit and launching himself, only to totally miss the guy. Assante wasn't that good. Assante lost a superbowl twice. Once by dropping a sure interception and the second time by not covering Mr Catch the ball with my helmet Tyree.




    Asante was a ball hawk who jumped routes. Nothing more. He wasn't a cover guy. The one thing did well he botched when it counted most. I've never regretted that guy being gone for a nanosecond, despite the secondary woes we have had for far too long.

     

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

    Re: PatsEng's comment

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to millergrnv's comment:

     

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:

     

    You win

     



    Its not about being right or anything like that, its looking at this objectively.

     

     



    if it's not then why start the thread to begin with? We disagree on how they handled expiring contracts. Recently they've combined our approaches letting some players go the full length while re-upping others before their contracts run out. If you want to discuss the difference in philsophy that's one thing but bringing up my name directly on something I said (what 12' offseason prior to resigning Gronk and Hern long term) when there is still nothing to point to having different players kept the system running is about being right and not about being objective. But, PBWS76 is right that it's a very system oriented team and letting players who fit that system run out their contracts and be stolen by other teams is still not the best move imo when it's difficult to find replacement players that fit that system. In Branch's and Givens case it might have cost them the 06' SB as most would agree a stronger WR core would have beaten the Colts who went on to win the SB. In Samuels case they spent 3 2nd rounders and a 1st (McCourty who is now a FS) to replace him along with numerous vet contracts that didn't pan out. The Pats are a very strong team and losing one or two players (not named Brady or Wilfork) won't kill them during the regular season but when it comes to crunch time the limited talent that fit the system well becomes appearent from the lack of offensive production from the WR's and the poor secondary play. Since, they won the SB's with those players and couldn't without them you'd be hard pressed to convince me that those specific players (starters who were #1's or 2's at their positions not role players or backups) didn't play a role in those SB victories no matter what their careers looked like once they left the team.

     



    I just wanted to make it clear that, yes, while it hurt the Patriots that letting those players go hurt them, but other than coming up short of the super bowl, the team is still successful.

     

Share