ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
I get what you're claiming on this issue. You're just wrong. One would think that having seen Vrabel, Colvin, Pfifer, Cox, Seau, et al... would have helped you to figure it out. Sadly, that seems not to be the case.
Don't know what your talking about with the LB's listed above because they weren't drafted by the Pats. Because the team was strong at so many positions from 2003-2004 LB became their weakest link by default. Heck, people wanted Dansby in the 2004 draft.
Quote:
He did admit it. What he's doing here is attempting to put a different spin on it. Porter was drafted in the 3rd round, back in 1999. Gildon was a 3rd round pick from way back in 1994. Larry Foote was a 4th round pick, not some top 10 selection. Harrison was undrafted. Farrior was a free agent. The big focus on the position in the draft for Pittsburgh came in 2007, not during the earlier part of the decade. In fact, the one "high" pick they spent earlier in the decade (2003 2nd rounder) during the time I'm talking about was wasted on Alonzo Jackson, and even if you want to go back a bit further, Kendrell Bell (2001 2nd rounder) was a rookie wonder who had only one good season after that.
I misunderstood Ray Clay because I thought he was talking about drafts since 2000.
Last edited by HEY BRO! WHAT UP?; 05-17-2010 at 03:57 PM..
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Still don't get it do you? And you can't answer my question on how the Pats defense couldn't stop the Ravens offense.
Not that I by into numbers and not that I agree or disagree with what I am about to say but the logic is simple.
5th defense
9th offense
Well the league is geared toward offense so the 9th best offense might be as close or closer to the best offense than the 5th best defense might be to the number one defense.
If you don't like that logic try this one. Again I dont neccessarily agree but it is logic that works.
Say we got our 5th best ranking by being really good in one phase say Passing and than say the ravens got their 9th best ranking by being really good in one phase say running than we could each ligitmately have attained our ranking and still one would not match up well vs the other.
But the real simple answer is and as much as I hate to agree with Dues the simple answer is that numbers are useless without context. The truth is I wouldnt have thought we were a number 5 defense anymore than I would have thought the ravens to be a number 9 offense but also neither was to far off.
__________________
"We go down to New Orleans, and ain't anybody give us a chance? Nobody! And what did we say to them?"
Not that I by into numbers and not that I agree or disagree with what I am about to say but the logic is simple.
5th defense
9th offense
Well the league is geared toward offense so the 9th best offense might be as close or closer to the best offense than the 5th best defense might be to the number one defense.
If you don't like that logic try this one. Again I dont neccessarily agree but it is logic that works.
Say we got our 5th best ranking by being really good in one phase say Passing and than say the ravens got their 9th best ranking by being really good in one phase say running than we could each ligitmately have attained our ranking and still one would not match up well vs the other.
But the real simple answer is and as much as I hate to agree with Dues the simple answer is that numbers are useless without context. The truth is I wouldnt have thought we were a number 5 defense anymore than I would have thought the ravens to be a number 9 offense but also neither was to far off.
Deus and I cleared it up. Deus and I both agreed that the Pats were not a top 5 defense and it was simply a counter to my argument about "draft statistics". However, we don't agree on the comparison.
Last edited by HEY BRO! WHAT UP?; 05-17-2010 at 04:03 PM..
I misunderstood Ray Clay because I thought he was talking about drafts since 2000.
I was. You understood completely.
You could easily count the picks of Pittsburgh linebackers compared to the Patriots in the Belichick era and compare, but I believe I started with 2000. does it matter? Are more linebackers going to show up as being drafted by the Patriots?
I brought nothing up, I merely regurgitated an old chart i did years ago that is historical in response to this statement. The first (semi) Belichick draft was 2000, not 1999, so that's irrelevant unless, we want to compare Bucko Kilroy's drafts to Pitts too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus Irae
As I've pointed out before, the Patriots and Steelers have taken a similar approach to the linebacker position in terms of the draft. The major difference between the two groups has been health.
It's not similar at all. High picks and low picks are only similar in that they are both picks.
You could easily count the picks of Pittsburgh linebackers compared to the Patriots in the Belichick era and compare. does it matter? Are more linebackers going to show up as being drafted by the Patriots?
I brought nothing up, I merely regurgitated an old chart i did years ago that is historical in response to this statement. The first (semi) Belichick draft was 2000, not 1999, so that's irrelevant.
It's not similar at all. High picks and low picks are only similar in that they are both picks.
Deus keeps going back to health as the key to why the Pats LB's have fallen apart. However, that probably has nothing to do your argument and certainly not my argument. Regardless of whether they were healthy or not, they were close to 30 and they were slowing down. 2004 was a perfect example of the team not having many needs yet threw away a pick on a TE because of his athletic ability when the Pats already drafted their starting TE two years prior. In 2004, LB was their primary weakness by default because they were the oldest. I remember many people on this board pissed off when the Pats passed on Dansby for Watson.
Last edited by HEY BRO! WHAT UP?; 05-17-2010 at 04:19 PM..
I get what you're claiming on this issue. You're just wrong. One would think that having seen Vrabel, Colvin, Pfifer, Cox, Seau, et al... would have helped you to figure it out. Sadly, that seems not to be the case.
He did admit it. What he's doing here is attempting to put a different spin on it. Porter was drafted in the 3rd round, back in 1999. Gildon was a 3rd round pick from way back in 1994. Larry Foote was a 4th round pick, not some top 10 selection. Harrison was undrafted. Farrior was a free agent. The big focus on the position in the draft for Pittsburgh came in 2007, not during the earlier part of the decade. In fact, the one "high" pick they spent earlier in the decade (2003 2nd rounder) during the time I'm talking about was wasted on Alonzo Jackson, and even if you want to go back a bit further, Kendrell Bell (2001 2nd rounder) was a rookie wonder who had only one good season after that.
Larry Foote was listed as a 4th in my chart. What is your point?
Deus keeps going back to health as the key to why the Pats LB's have fallen apart. However, that probably has nothing to do your argument and certainly not my argument.
Not probably, definitely has nothing to do with my argument.
I only argued Pittsburgh spent more valuable picks on linebackers in the BB era. Not my fault if the argument seems absurd.
Don't know what your talking about with the LB's listed above because they weren't drafted by the Pats. Because the team was strong at so many positions from 2003-2004 LB became their weakest link by default. Heck, people wanted Dansby in the 2004 draft.
How many times does it have to be noted that the draft is not the only way to improve your team? How many times do you people need to be shown a list of players brought in for the position before you'll stop with the nonsense about positions being ignored?
Criticize the team when it's deserved, but quit making crap up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HEY BRO! WHAT UP?
I misunderstood Ray Clay because I thought he was talking about drafts since 2000.
Ray's got a woody over linebackers, and he has had it for years. That's been fine but, like you and so many others, he's been unable to differentiate between failing to completely and permanently fix a problem, and ignoring the problem. It took him a long time to even accept the impact of the injury discrepancy between the two teams being compared.
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
Not probably, definitely has nothing to do with my argument.
I only argued Pittsburgh spent more valuable picks on linebackers in the BB era. Not my fault if the argument seems absurd.
That's not what you argued. Are you seriously going to keep pulling this crap? You jumped into the discussion between myself and HeyBro!, several posts before making any point about your "more valuable picks" assertion, which remains a useless argument.
Frankly, it's pathetic, and it's why I put you on ignore before. If you're going to keep doing it, let me know, and I'll put you on it again rather than waste my time.
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
How many times does it have to be noted that the draft is not the only way to improve your team? How many times do you people need to be shown a list of players brought in for the position before you'll stop with the nonsense about positions being ignored?
Criticize the team when it's deserved, but quit making crap up.
Oh boy, your list of FA's were awful. Aside from Colvin and Thomas, the Pats signed players that were backups at best in the NFL. The cutoff is 2003 by the way.
Unfortunately Thomas didn't work out but did okay his first season and in my opinion should've been the super bowl MVP had he finished off Manning. Thomas's career went downhill after 2008. Colvin on the other hand bounced back nicely after such a bad injury he suffered. Of course you can improve your team through FA but again, the other FA's you mentioned in a list earlier were complete garbage.
Last edited by HEY BRO! WHAT UP?; 05-17-2010 at 04:50 PM..
Re: Crable is ready,is he able?
Linear Mode
