Ty Law on ESPN: Pats made big mistake gutting team of SB veterans

[CheeseMonkeys]

I think it is funny that the Pats are doing two things wrong:

1. They are not keeping their veteran players

2. They are too old and should be getting younger

I thinks it's more so the fact that we got rid of players like Vrabel, Seymour and Samuel, who would have all been productive players last year as well as this year.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

Ty law had 3 chances to come back,,,, Did He ??? NO lets move on

 

[bigfandan]

Ty Law is the most decorated CB in NEP history and is by far the best big game playoff CB I have ever seen. His 3-int games against Manning in NE and KC are legendary.

NEP owe him a great debt of gratitute. Just BB not paying him does not mean we should slam him.

After asking Ty about team construction, did they get around to asking about how to fix that pesky oil spill in the Gulf?






PS I wonder if Ty has been able to feed his family the past couple of years. I really became concerned about their welfare during the Hungry Man Tour.

 

[IllegalContact]

I don't see it as a 'big' mistake

trading seymour was very reasonable, but it left a hole.

thomas clearly wasn't worth the money, but you can't say that the pats have anyone better to replace him with.

it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

the pats defense is clearly in transition. the biggest problem is that it neither has the athleticism of what you find on 1-gap 3-4 teams nor the intelligence of the pats 2-gap scheme that were here earlier in the decade.

it use to be that the talent they had here earlier covered the short-mid routes very well and managed to provide enough pressure on the QB that would keep the long game from being a viable option. it was also a scheme that created many opportunities to be created for the big play to be made. A very good player would regularly be unaccounted for and would make opposing offenses pay dearly.

simply being good against the run is not enough in today's NFL. a pass rush has become more important

 

[RayClay]

Getting younger isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. I would have preferred Vrabel and/or Willie over Burgess and/or A. Thomas, not to mention Seymour over Brace or Pryor. Seymour may be a me-first guy, but there's no way the defense lays (lies?) down like they did vs the Ravens if Seymour was out there.

I don't think it's a matter of one on one comparisons. Of course Seymour would have been much better than an alternative this year. the question is, would a long term contract be better than Oakland's one and all that money spent on some of the 24 players we drafted the last two.

As far as McGinest and Vrabel go, they'd lost their battle to father time. The problem there is, their replacement should have been being groomed a number of years ago IMO. That would have also prevented the A Thomas fiasco, possibly.

 

[Patjew]

I don't think it's a matter of one on one comparisons. Of course Seymour would have been much better than an alternative this year. the question is, would a long term contract be better than Oakland's one and all that money spent on some of the 24 players we drafted the last two.

As far as McGinest and Vrabel go, they'd lost their battle to father time. The problem there is, their replacement should have been being groomed a number of years ago IMO. That would have also prevented the A Thomas fiasco, possibly.

Can't really disagree with any of this. I just can't help but think that the team, as it was last year, would have been better with one of those guys on it.

 

[IllegalContact]

I don't think it's a matter of one on one comparisons. Of course Seymour would have been much better than an alternative this year. the question is, would a long term contract be better than Oakland's one and all that money spent on some of the 24 players we drafted the last two.

As far as McGinest and Vrabel go, they'd lost their battle to father time. The problem there is, their replacement should have been being groomed a number of years ago IMO. That would have also prevented the A Thomas fiasco, possibly.

actually, I am not sure if there would have been an A Thomas fiasco if seymour were still around. while by no means a shining star, Thomas did have his moments when Seymour was here. I think Seymour made every ROLB be more effective merely by the attention he drew.

 

[IllegalContact]

The Pats weren't going to win WITH those guys around, so it is better to either cut your losses(thomas), or parlay them into something for the future(seymour).

samuel would not help the pats now anyway, especially not for the $$$ he'd be consuming.

they were simply damned if you do/damned if you don't.

 

[RayClay]

actually, I am not sure if there would have been an A Thomas fiasco if seymour were still around. while by no means a shining star, Thomas did have his moments when Seymour was here. I think Seymour made every ROLB be more effective merely by the attention he drew.

By fiasco, I meant his attitude.

 

[lillestroom]

After asking Ty about team construction, did they get around to asking about how to fix that pesky oil spill in the Gulf?






PS I wonder if Ty has been able to feed his family the past couple of years. I really became concerned about their welfare during the Hungry Man Tour.

I believe that Ford have produced a car that runs entirely on water.

Unfortunately, it only works around the Gulf area.

 

[RayClay]

Can't really disagree with any of this. I just can't help but think that the team, as it was last year, would have been better with one of those guys on it.

I hope there's no question we would have been better with Seymour. Hell, we might have with McGinest and Vrabel, but that would have just been sad. You have to turn it over sometime.

Actually, with my sick sense of humor, I'm almost looking forward to the jumping off the ledge as the ton of relatively new players looks disorganized and makes mistakes. The we're dooooooooomed crowd will be out in full force. All the better when they come together and look like a hell of an athletic bunch.

I'm very optimistic, but new players and new to each other players will take some time. I think people are going to be surprised to see what young legs on defense look like too, it's been a while.

 

[eom]

Can't really disagree with any of this. I just can't help but think that the team, as it was last year, would have been better with one of those guys on it.

yeah, maybe -- maybe not.

as for vrabel, I don't think any of us have all the facts on that, so it's pointless to speculate.

they most likely would have been better with seymour, but that's generally the case when you trade a guy for picks --- should you never trade a player for picks, pay them whatever they ask and hang onto them until they retire?
I think danny ainge has said that one of the celtics' mistakes was hanging onto the bird era guys past the point that they had any trade value -- and that's coming from a guy who was on the team.
you could make the case that the last couple years of that era was better with those old timers on it, but what if they had traded them all for first round picks -- would subsequent years have panned out better?

yeah, they'd probably be better with samuel, just like the jets are better with revis -- so should the jets pay him 20m/yr?

everything is a trade off, and it's pretty unfair to look back at what happened factually and compare it with what happened in your imagination.
I can just as well use my imagination to say the patriots will win 3 consecutive superbowls from 2012-2014 because of all the moves they've been making, and if that's the case, was it really better to hang on to seymour, et al?

 

[Deus Irae]

I hope there's no question we would have been better with Seymour. Hell, we might have with McGinest and Vrabel, but that would have just been sad. You have to turn it over sometime.

Actually, with my sick sense of humor, I'm almost looking forward to the jumping off the ledge as the ton of relatively new players looks disorganized and makes mistakes. The we're dooooooooomed crowd will be out in full force. All the better when they come together and look like a hell of an athletic bunch.

I'm very optimistic, but new players and new to each other players will take some time. I think people are going to be surprised to see what young legs on defense look like too, it's been a while.

We've seen young legs on defense pretty much every year of the Belichick era post-2002. The problem hasn't been finding decent/good young talent, because BB's been able to do quite a bit of that. The problem's been finding top talent replacements for aging/traded top talent.

The "elite" talent from the best defensive team(s):

Harrison
Vrabel
Seymour
Washington
Bruschi
Law

Not one of them has been replaced with an equal talent player or upgrade. (Wilfork is an excellent player, and has been a more than adequate replacement. He's just not Ted Washington). When you look at the other players, you have some good players replacing good players, but there are no elite players stepping in to help equal out the lost talent.

 

[Patjew]

I wasnt really referring to Seymour. Thats a different case. I more so meant holding on to an old guy or two for character purposes Obviously I would have rather had young studs the past couple yrs instead of Vrabel or Willie. Instead what we got were mid-aged stiffs that were neutral or negative in the locker room. I think it is fair to question see things.

Anyway, the root of the problem was not rebuilding the LB corps soon enough a la Bird's Celtics, but there was some bad luck thrown in both of those cases.

yeah, maybe -- maybe not.

as for vrabel, I don't think any of us have all the facts on that, so it's pointless to speculate.

they most likely would have been better with seymour, but that's generally the case when you trade a guy for picks --- should you never trade a player for picks, pay them whatever they ask and hang onto them until they retire?
I think danny ainge has said that one of the celtics' mistakes was hanging onto the bird era guys past the point that they had any trade value -- and that's coming from a guy who was on the team.
you could make the case that the last couple years of that era was better with those old timers on it, but what if they had traded them all for first round picks -- would subsequent years have panned out better?

yeah, they'd probably be better with samuel, just like the jets are better with revis -- so should the jets pay him 20m/yr?

everything is a trade off, and it's pretty unfair to look back at what happened factually and compare it with what happened in your imagination.
I can just as well use my imagination to say the patriots will win 3 consecutive superbowls from 2012-2014 because of all the moves they've been making, and if that's the case, was it really better to hang on to seymour, et al?

 

[TheComeback]

You have to let these veterans go at some point. It's not like they can stay on the roster forever. They'll either retire or eventually lose their athleticism to age.

Still, letting them go all at once probably isn't the best way to do it.

 

[capetide]

Can't really disagree with any of this. I just can't help but think that the team, as it was last year, would have been better with one of those guys on it.

I saw enough of Vrabel 2 years ago to realize that he was struggling to contribute and his play in KC last year did nothing to change that opinion. Seymour was always a 'me first' guy (and would be gone now with no 1st round pick if retained last year). McGinest was a beast in his day too, but c'mon, why not bring back Andre Tippett? Was a better player and probably a better locker room guy. People here often want to contruct teams as if the NFL was a game of Madden 2010. BB decided it was time to move on and at least 9 times out of 10, IMO, he has made sound judgments.

 

[Triumph]

ESPN is like Donald Trump. They bait you into saying things you really dont wanna say, and before you know it, BOOM, "Youre fired!".

HAHAHA

Funny Russ.

 

[fair catch fryar]

I don't think it's a matter of one on one comparisons. Of course Seymour would have been much better than an alternative this year. the question is, would a long term contract be better than Oakland's one and all that money spent on some of the 24 players we drafted the last two.

As far as McGinest and Vrabel go, they'd lost their battle to father time. The problem there is, their replacement should have been being groomed a number of years ago IMO. That would have also prevented the A Thomas fiasco, possibly.

I was a Seymour fan, but I'm holding my judgment on the move til I see what the Pats ultimately net for him. One bad year on defense without him might result in a great player yet to be named that will be around for a few more years while Brady's window is still open.

 

[mgcolby]

Ty Law is the most decorated CB in NEP history and is by far the best big game playoff CB I have ever seen. His 3-int games against Manning in NE and KC are legendary.

NEP owe him a great debt of gratitute.Just BB not paying him does not mean we should slam him.

You need a history lesson! He would have made more money by accepting NE's "slap in the face" offer than he did by hitting the FA market like he did.

Apparently BB wasn't the only one who didn't pay him!

 

[eagle eye]

The whole world knows that the Patriots D was lacking leadership last year. I think thats a big reason why Damione Lewis was brought in.

We also adressed this in the draft, leadership was a common demoninator in most of our early picks. I am happy that we are all set in the leadership department for the upcoming season and for the future.