dryheat44

I respect your opinion. It's simply that this is the third thread where I've had this debate, and I choose not to participate in the "He had 10 INTs last year which would have led our team, so he'd be our best cornerback" argument again. It's not personal. Your opinion, and others who share it, is certainly a valid one. I tend to view INT numbers as almost worthless when evaluating CBs in anything other than fantasy football. For me, it's 1) How many times does your man catch the ball or would have without interfering, 2) How much help do you need, and 3) What can you do in run support. I find Ty to be excellent in the last category, but sorely lacking in the first two. Some people believe that INTs are a good measure of coverage ability.

These people usually are the same ones that say Ray Lewis is the best LB in the game because he's made the Pro Bowl the last seven years. Valid opinion, but I disagree with it.

__________________
When it's third and 10, you can have the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -- R.I.P. Max McGee

Brownfan80

Until Ellis Hobbs stepped in our CBs were almost never close enough to get a PI call, so all I take from Law's penalties is "at least he was closer to the WR than 8 yards behind!"

I'm being partially tongue in cheek, but anyone that thinks that the play of our secondary last season couldn't stand some improvement simply wasn't watching. Ty Law is on his way down, but he's still higher than any CB we've got.

Ellis Hobbs has great potential, but he's not there yet and he's only one guy. Asante turned into Duane Starks for much of the season after Starks was benched/injured/whatever (he had a few Sportscenter big hits, sure, but in general last season his coverage was awful). Gay and Scott are question marks because of their injuries and lack of experience in our system and Hank Poteat has nothing but his Bongos. Who knows what Eric Warfield brings to the table.

If we sign Law it's a huge upgrade for us. He's got tons of experience in our system and his skills, while declining, are still higher than any other CB on our roster at the present time.

BradyManny

We've always relied heavily on veterans. If we don't sign Ty Law, I think we have a good secondary. Hobbs, Samuels, Warfield and Gay make a pretty good and deep combination. I think Hobbs could become a #1 oneday, he seems to have all the skills. Samuels seems like he's topped out as a very solid #2 guy. But as for next year, I do think we basically have 4 number twos, which a lot of people say doesn't matter, and while I still think we could win the Super Bowl with four number twos, a number one (which I still believe Ty is) can't hurt.

Look at what we got out of Rodney, we've never been afraid of age (in either direction, of course). Everyone would move one back on the depth chart, meaning either Asante or Hobbs at nickle looks pretty damn nice.

Bobs My Uncle

Exactamundo.

And, for the benefit of dryheat44 , the fact that Law can also pick off QB's with the best of em, is an added bonus.

spacecrime

Adding TO would improve the talent level. Javon Walker, Sean Taylor, Pacman Jones. None would inprove the team.

Dan Snyder is about collecting talented players. BBSP is about building a team

Not saying that Law would not be a good addition, just that there are more important criteria to the Pats than mere talent.

Bobs My Uncle

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Law is a known commodity to BB and the Pats brass. They know intimately well what Law can and can't do for team chemistry. If BB felt that Law couldn't help his team win then he'd not be bringing him in for a physical.

spacecrime

Ty Law WAS a great CB. He is no longer. It is telling that your best image of Ty comes from the 2003 season, his last good year.

All he can do now is free lance on defense, gambling for INTs, giving up htge big play gladly and the game if it will get him one more INT.

People who judge by stats love him.

I do enjoy your reasoning, though: Anyone who disagrees with my opinion is a fool. Pretty impressive logic, there. Too bad another guy also unable to back up his assertions already used this in this thread.

PaulNEPats

All I know is, the last couple years that we've supposedly been set at CB, we've had catastrophic injuries each time. It just goes to show you can never have enough depth in the secondary. If we can get Ty Law at a decent price, then by all means they should go for it.

spacecrime

Bill Belichick and Scott Pioli make a good living doing that.

spacecrime

I'm not comparing anything to anything.

You said,

Frankly, if the goal is to improve the talent level on the team, I'm perplexed why anyone wouldn't want to see Law back playing for the Pats

and my reply is that your premise is wrong. Sorry if I mis-stated. I was trying not to be blunt.

The goal is not to improve the talent level on the team. The goal is to build a better team.

My example was that Dan Snyder belives the two are the same. Snyder has shown that merely improving the talent level is pointless.

I also gave examples of players, like TO, whose acquisition would improve the talent level on the Patriots, but would not improve the Patriots as a team.

I did not and do not compare Snyder to BB/SP, or Law to TO.

Just giving examples of why improving the talent level on a team is the wrong goal.