Pioli's Last 2 Drafts have been Horrible! - Page 11 - New England Patriots Forums

***shmessy*** · 11-28-2007, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATippett56

No because he's so negative about this year's Patriots. Why can't some people sit back and enjoy this season as opposed to nitpick practically every player on the roster?

You want me to ban him because he's negative and doesn't agree with your opinion? You're kidding, right?

ATippett56 · 11-28-2007, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

You want me to ban him because he's negative and doesn't agree with your opinion? You're kidding, right?

I could care less whether NSA agrees with my opinion.

BlitzFritz · 11-28-2007, 07:20 AM

we dont need to ban him, but he sure acts like a troll -- not on this thread, but on others where he sounds like a colts fan. basically everything he says is negative -- no reason for banning tho

all in all, mr NSA - you have to look at the whole team -- FAs, draft, trades. pioli and belichick have been amazing depth

second who would you have meriweather starting in front of? who would you have chad jackson start in front of?

third, do you factor in that we run some of the most complex offenses and defenses in the league, based on visual identification and adjustments. if could take rooks longer to learn

***shmessy*** · 11-28-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATippett56

I could care less whether NSA agrees with my opinion.

OK, however you bolded "Because he's negative". So you want him banned because he's negative? Help me out here, I'm trying to understand your reasoning for wanting a poster to be banned.

Honestly, why don't you just blast him out of the water with the power of your argument? Demanding he be banned is kind of defeatist, isn't it? Bannings only occur if someone is breaking the rules of the board, not if they are "negative".

BTW, I have contacted Ian via PM last week regarding NSA's link and advertising of a gambling website - - now THAT could be an actionable thing. Have yet to hear back from Ian yet on that. It's the holiday season and Ian is in retail, so it may take a little while on it.

ATippett56 · 11-28-2007, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

OK, however you bolded "Because he's negative". So you want him banned because he's negative? Help me out here, I'm trying to understand your reasoning for wanting a poster to be banned.

I give up!

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Honestly, why don't you just blast him out of the water with the power of your argument?

Some people won't listen to reason.

SeanBruschi54 · 11-28-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

OK, however you bolded "Because he's negative". So you want him banned because he's negative? Help me out here, I'm trying to understand your reasoning for wanting a poster to be banned.

Honestly, why don't you just blast him out of the water with the power of your argument? Demanding he be banned is kind of defeatist, isn't it? Bannings only occur if someone is breaking the rules of the board, not if they are "negative".

BTW, I have contacted Ian via PM last week regarding NSA's link and advertising of a gambling website - - now THAT could be an actionable thing. Have yet to hear back from Ian yet on that. It's the holiday season and Ian is in retail, so it may take a little while on it.

I havent been in this convo much Shmessy but i agree with Tippett56 the guy is annoying and acts like a troll but i understand that you cant ban him but can you at least just watch his posts for future reference?

***ctpatsfan77*** · 11-28-2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by He Ban Me

Oh, sweet, thanks for that!

So,

1.) The contract that the LOST player signs with the NEW team plays a large role.
2.) If you pick up more FA's than you lose, then no go. Does this include UDFAs?? I assume not.
3.) I assume you are talking about players "released", you mean off season guys, like Stokely for Colts, I know we didn't/won't get anything for him.
4.) Limit makes sense too. 32 total for the entire draft? Do they give the worst teams preference (sounds like they don't). Are you saying it is solely based on contract signed by the lost player? Presumably, the bigger the contract, the more value lost, thus the better compensation.

This is interesting (point 2). From a Colts perspective, perhaps this is another reason (besides being burned by the Simon deal) for them to NOT sign FA's? Certainly, you don't get immediate help, but you can stockpile for the future.

At this point, I am going to assume we will receive picks for:

June
Harper
Rhodes
(Received a pick for Harper in the '07 draft, I forget the exact reason why)

If the Colts received a pick for Harper in '07, then there is zero chance of getting a comp pick for him in '08. As for comp picks being a reason not to sign a FA, it's not that much of a reason--remember, the best comp pick is no earlier than after the last pick in round 3.

The record of the team makes absolutely no difference in terms of comp picks for lost FAs; if you look at the order of the comp picks in last year's draft, you'll see it bears no relation to the order of the rest of the draft. [A team's record does matter for the last comp picks tacked on to round 7 if there aren't 32 qualifying FAs.]

***shmessy*** · 11-28-2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanBruschi54

I havent been in this convo much Shmessy but i agree with Tippett56 the guy is annoying and acts like a troll but i understand that you cant ban him but can you at least just watch his posts for future reference?

Most definitely.

Bannings can only be done for brreaking forum rules. Can't for "negativity" or, as ATippet put it because he "won't listen to reason."

As I mentioned, I have PM'ed Ian about the advertising of a gambling website that NSA does and am waiting for Ian's response.

But yes, your point is right on Sean, that poster is being watched very closely.

ATippett56 · 11-28-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by He Ban Me

At this point, I am going to assume we will receive picks for:

June
Harper
Rhodes
(Received a pick for Harper in the '07 draft, I forget the exact reason why)

thanks again.

Edit:

keep forgetting about Mike Doss. IIRC, we did NOT cut him, but he was signed by the Vikes

The Colts will receive compensatory pick consideration for Cato June, Nick Harper, and Dominic Rhodes. The Colts received a fourth round draft pick in 2007 from the New Orleans Saints for Jason David since the former Colts cornerback was a restricted free agent.

***cstjohn17*** · 11-28-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBruinz

You really should know more about the cap before you go stating that there will be less available cap space.

1) Miguel has said that the 2008 cap is probably going to be going UP since there is an excess of cap room around the league.
2) The Pats have some 3 million that they can push into next year to help cover NLTBE bonuses.
3) Off the top of my head, the Pats can free up 10 million by not picking up the options on Washington and Stallworth. Hell, they can re-do both contracts to spread the hit out over the last few years of the contract.
4) The Pats can free up more money by giving Colvin an extension and spreading out his money.
5) My guess is that the Pats will have some 20 million to work with. Which is what they had this year and they didn't use it all. And that is AFTER giving Ty Warren an extension. And signing Samuel to the Franchise Tender.

Gay won't command that much money. Neither will Paxton. It will be interesting to see what the Pats do with Wilson. I expect Moss to re-sign with the Pats for good money.

The real question will be at ILB and with Samuel. Bruschi may return for one more season, but I think that Seau might call it quits if he gets his ring. It will be interesting to see if the Pats draft someone or if they sweet talk Dansby into coming over to the dark side *lol*

Bears - 2 years ago, they were junk.
Colts - Regularly let people go and have lots of holes to fill year in and year out
Saints - See Bears
Patriots - have been at the top of the league for 5 years running now and 6 of 7. Over that time, they've accumulated talent from Free Agency and from previous drafts.

There are only 53 spots and 8 practice squad spots. When you go into the draft NOT NEEDING to draft players, you can take fliers on people like Oldenburg, Rogers, Lua and Richardson.

Also, lets not forget that the Pats tried to sneak Rogers onto their practice squad and the Cowboys picked him up off waivers.

I should really learn how to multi-part quote, it is pretty cool. But for now I will take a brute force approach. For the record I approve of the Patriots approach, the goal is to win not build 'the best young team in the league'. The Pats have walked the balance and usually erred on the side of having productive veterans as opposed to youthful backups. Next year by necessity a lot of positions will have to be handled by rookies or cheap veterans who are new to the system. As long as they have Brady and BB they are in the hunt.

1) Cap Space - There are a lot of ifs in those statements, if this is done and this is done and this is done.... I don't think the Patriots are hurting but they have two premier players who are UFAs (Moss & Samuel) and have several other key contributors, these players will have to be replaced. Likely by younger cheaper players.
2) ILB & CB - Yep, that is where the holes will be. I wish we had the next wave of players on our roster but we don't instead we have the deepest most talented team in the league, hard to complain.

The analogy for the 2008 Patriots is consistent with the 2007 Colts, in some cases (CB) the Colts were able to effectively replace players but in others (OLine) they were not. The overall depth of their team is not as good as it was in 2006 and there chances for a Superbowl are diminished but not eliminated. We will have to wait and see, if the Pats have a great draft like in 2003 then may be the favorites in 08, otherwise they are one of the 3-4 teams with a realistic shot. Hard to complain about being an elite team but winning the Superbowl this year is paramount.