OT: Bruce Allen going at Peter King RE: Patriots Draft - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***Deus Irae*** · 05-05-2009, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sicilian

Again, not to belabor my point, but you have no idea what kind of players the Eagles got yet.

Ellis Hobbs says hello

Dirk3601215 · 05-05-2009, 02:12 PM

someone tell fatso to stop covering football and start writing about braodway plays. girlie guy.

***Deus Irae*** · 05-05-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pats67

That probably explains why the results of the trades left the Patriots two extra picks in the top 65, as opposed to four extra picks in the next 200.

This assumes that Oher was a target going in. I'd be interested to know how you discovered this was a priority for them. Or maybe you're just going with your feeling, as opposed to anything concrete.

I'm not sure how you figure that Oher wasn't a higher ranked player. He clearly was. He was considered one of the 4 top tackles. What BB has on his board doesn't matter. This is a draft evaluation and the reporters/analysts/columnists base everything off of their baselines, not the baselines of specific teams.

***Deus Irae*** · 05-05-2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sicilian

All assumptions about the draft (including yours regarding what they could have gotten, or even if Oher was someone they wanted), is pure speculation. There is no such thing as draft facts when it comes to who made the best moves until about three years after the draft was completed.

Then why is this even a point of discussion?

**Ian** · 05-05-2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sicilian

I think your arguments would be a whole lot less abrasive if you changed the wording from "King's right on this and Allen is wrong" to something like "I lean closer to King than I do Allen." That at least implies a recognized opinion, as opposed to a claim of fact.

I think we're arguing over semantics at that point. Again, who's right or wrong isn't the issue, and I think Bruce just admitted that. I think the bigger issue (and as I said I agree with Bruce) is that if King felt that the Eagles did better than New England, the simple fact is he could have put it far more eloquently than calling what New England did "mystifying" and saying they were "drunk with power."

***Deus Irae*** · 05-05-2009, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maverick4

King's response/defense doesn't even make sense:
[Though in principle you might be right, Bruce, it wasn’t the same thing. The Patriots didn’t have the same result in trading down as the Eagles did...]

Allen isn't arguing about which team did better. Allen is calling out King for bashing one team and praising another for different degrees of the same smart behavior/strategy.

Of course it "wasn't the same thing", King you moron. King is so dumb he doesn't even know what Allen is arguing about. Perhaps that's why Allen ended with, "I guess that’s all we can do right now", after realizing he was trying to argue with a pea brain.

His response makes sense. Perhaps if you actually thought about it rather than calling someone else a pea brain...

Sicilian · 05-05-2009, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Ellis Hobbs says hello

In the draft itself I mean, come on now. My point is that, if you accept that the strategies for the two teams were the same (trade down, get additional picks this year and next while still getting the guy you want), then the only case that can be made for the Eagles is that they got better players in the draft. Aside from Hobbs, every single player both teams got is an unknown until proven otherwise.

Pats67 · 05-05-2009, 02:16 PM

So basically, assume whatever the Patriots did is wrong, and work your way back.

***Deus Irae*** · 05-05-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sicilian

In the draft itself I mean, come on now. My point is that, if you accept that the strategies for the two teams were the same (trade down, get additional picks this year and next while still getting the guy you want), then the only case that can be made for the Eagles is that they got better players in the draft. Aside from Hobbs, every single player both teams got is an unknown until proven otherwise.

But Hobbs is part of the point King was making. Dismissing it is like dismissing Welker and Moss.

Here's what King's saying:

Quote:

The Patriots didn’t have the same result in trading down as the Eagles did, though they did acquire two second-round picks in 2010 in their wheeling-and-dealing. Philadelphia traded down six spots late in the third round and got one of the top guys they would have taken at 85 (Cornelius Ingram), half the value of a starting corner (Ellis Hobbs), a seventh-round pick this year and third-, fifth- and sixth-round picks next year … and still exited the draft with three potential impact players in 2009 — Jason Peters, Jeremy Maclin and LeSean McCoy.

Sicilian · 05-05-2009, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

I think we're arguing over semantics at that point. Again, who's right or wrong isn't the issue, and I think Bruce just admitted that. I think the bigger issue (and as I said I agree with Bruce) is that if King felt that the Eagles did better than New England, the simple fact is he could have put it far more eloquently than calling what New England did "mystifying" and saying they were "drunk with power."

My point in that quote was more related to Deus' approach to the argument, but your point stands. It was off topic.

But I believe that what King said is, to put it more tactfully, a bending of the facts to fit a biased opinion. When looked at objectively (as best I can through my admitted bias), I honestly can't see a big difference in what the two teams did. The argument then boils down to who picked the best players, which can't be judged for a long time.