Patriots without Pioli

[AzPatsFan]

2009
This was a great draft with many contributers. Personally, I considered BRACE as insurance against Wilfork not re-signing or Wilfork being injured. IMHO, the NT position is critical to Belichick, so we need a backup NT, even if he doesn't do anything else. I hoped that it wouldn't take the 40th pick, but Belichick saw the value and certainly did well using the later pick.

For me, CHUNG was the questionable pick at 34. There were lots of safeties later and we had (and have) two solid starting safeties without Chung. We could have had Laurinitis. We lost a year at ILB development. Obviously the injury to Mayo underlined the problem, but we would have been a better defense with Laurinitis. Laurinitis was ready to go. Perhaps Belichick thought that McKenzie was ready to start. Perhaps Chung will indeed start this year and be a future all-rpo. That isn't the issue. There were quality linebacker available and we drafted a safety when we had two staerting safeties for the foreseeable future.

2010
This was the best draft I have ever experienced since sarting to root rooting for the patriots in 1979.

CUNNINGHAM is questionable only because I had him rated lower than Dunlop, but Belichick surely know which FL prospect will likely fit better into the future of the patriots. I would likely have missed on both (or not), since I would have drafted Spikes at 53. I suspect that I might have gotten Cunningham at 62 and ended up with the same pair,

I am not as high on PRICE as you, but he was an OK addition. He was also deent value at a position of need.

======================

OUTSIDE LINEBACKER / PASSRUSH
This has been a clear problem since Thomas was injured. This was clearly the biggest need left by Pioli. So what has Belichick done? Belichick has chosen to bring in Banta-Cain, Crable, Burgess, Ninkovich and Cunningham. He also has chosen to retain special teamer Woods. Belichick has also chosen to dump Seymour and Green in favor of Lewis and G. Warren.

The bottom line here is that the OLB/DE positions were an issue that Pioli had when he left. Belichick needed to replace Vrabel. He also need to get something out of Thomas. Finally, he needed to develop or acquire future defensive ends. 2009 was a disaster in almost all these respects. Belichick just added to the problem by not drafting a linebacker in the early part of the 2009 draft. Apparently he was surprised that Bruschi was no longer a top talent (no one here was surprised at the need). Belichick also added to the need by trading Seymour. We can like trading for picks two years in the future or not; the reality is that the 2009 deense was harmed.

So, should we applaue Belichick for dumping Seymour without replacement, for getting no production or future out of Thomas, for not replacing Vrabel, and fpr not replacing Bruschi in 2009? Yes, it is a cause of celebration that we are building for a solid 2011 (if it happens) and a solid 2012. But the reality is that 2009 was a missed opportunity, 2009 was a year with the team happy to be in the playoffs.

In Defense of Belechick, he had a Super Bowl quality team from 2003 on. For several years he simply HAD to use the Draft to add to or polish the existing SB contender. One year he concentrated on getting a great veteran RB. Another year he drafted one, that didn't quite replace the older great veteran. So many ***** about a draft where he got no one except a future HOF WR (Moss) and a Pro bowl WR (Welker). Anytime you do that its a great Draft, as far as I am concerned.

Its what the ersatz March Super bowl heroes, in the Meadowland swamps, have done for more than half a decade.

No one wonders who or what the Patriots would have added to their Team with the stripped First round pick by the Jets and newcomer Gooden's need to establish his "Mountain Landis toughness". I wonder if that "missing player" might have been enough to put them over the top in 2008 or 2009. We will never know.

 

[Deus Irae]

What about a one win team with one draft - Miami in 08. Does that not count?

Where was Pennington drafted in '08, and how is a team "fixed" when it falls right back down to sub .500 the very next season?

 

[larryo]

Floyd Reese. He must have been salivating seeing all those picks and having the key components already in place. He's the man.

 

[mgteich]

I have always supported Belichick's drafts of the last decade. As I mentioned in my post, I think the last two were especially good. And obviously, I am not critical of the acquisition of players during the Super Bowl years.

I have been critical of Belichick's acquisition strategy toward linebackers ever since we failed to draft a linebacker in the 2002 draft. The highest draft pick used for a LB from 2000-2007 was a fifth on Claridge. After Bruschi's stroke in February, little was done. We started 2005 with a special teamer and a hasbeen as our starting ILB's. Belichick did strike gold in Vrabel. He spent big bucks on Colvin and Thomas, but there never seemed to a cohesive plan for the development or acquisition of linebackers.

By 2008, the cupboard was almost completely bare. Belichick seemed to get the message and started to buiild the linebacking corps with Mayo and got lucky with Guyton. The lienbacking group is by far our weakest unit. It has possibilities, But it seems that there are very stringent requirements for a successful linebacker under Belichick, and few meet the test.

The offense will be fine. The secondary will be very good indeed. The defensive line is fine. There is only one unit that stand in the way of 2011-2015 being a repeat of 2001-2005. That unit is the linebacking corps.

In Defense of Belechick, he had a Super Bowl quality team from 2003 on. For several years he simply HAD to use the Draft to add to or polish the existing SB contender. One year he concentrated on getting a great veteran RB. Another year he drafted one, that didn't quite replace the older great veteran. So many ***** about a draft where he got no one except a future HOF WR (Moss) and a Pro bowl WR (Welker). Anytime you do that its a great Draft, as far as I am concerned.

Its what the ersatz March Super bowl heroes, in the Meadowland swamps, have done for more than half a decade.

No one wonders who or what the Patriots would have added to their Team with the stripped First round pick by the Jets and newcomer Gooden's need to establish his "Mountain Landis toughness". I wonder if that "missing player" might have been enough to put them over the top in 2008 or 2009. We will never know.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Floyd Reese. He must have been salivating seeing all those picks and having the key components already in place. He's the man.

IIRC, Reese's primary responsibility has been contract negotiations, not drafting; I'm fairly sure the point man for the draft is Caserio, not Reese.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I agree that the florida players should make a huge difference, especially since they played a 3-4. however, how is it that spikes is going to be a Mike or middle LB? Won't he be a Will?

You've got to be kidding me. If you leave Mayo at the mike position, he will fail and look like a flop with the Pats. The reason the Pats drafted Spikes was because they needed a physical presence (which Mayo isn't) and allow Mayo to run around the field and make plays. While Spikes may not be calling the plays, I see him taking the Ted Johnson role and Mayo taking the Bruschi role.

 

[DaBruinz]

What about a one win team with one draft - Miami in 08. Does that not count?

Do you really believe that Miami was "fixed" after just one year???

 

[mgteich]

Mayo will NOT look like a flop in any case. Perhaps you believe that the DROY award was a joke. Mayo is a top inside linebacker wherever he plays. It is only posters and some mediots that think Mayo to be a flop.

Of course, Mayo would/will be helped if there is an upgrade over Guyton to play next to him. And yes, it would help if the new player were a mike and could call the plays.

And yes, I do indeed beleive that Spikes, or perhaps McKenzie, will be the starter instead of Guyton, either this year or next.

You've got to be kidding me. If you leave Mayo at the mike position, he will fail and look like a flop with the Pats. The reason the Pats drafted Spikes was because they needed a physical presence (which Mayo isn't) and allow Mayo to run around the field and make plays. While Spikes may not be calling the plays, I see him taking the Ted Johnson role and Mayo taking the Bruschi role.

 

[larryo]

IIRC, Reese's primary responsibility has been contract negotiations, not drafting; I'm fairly sure the point man for the draft is Caserio, not Reese.

Isn't one of the knocks on Reese regarding his time in Tenn. that he created cap problems with his signings? I'm really not sure but I thought I remember reading that on this forum.

Why a guy that has created cap problems would be brought in to handle contract negotiations is puzzling to me.

Didn't Tenn. draft 2 - 3 DROY while he was GM? Sounds like he may have a clue or two about the whole draft process.

 

[Kasmir]

Mayo will NOT look like a flop in any case. Perhaps you believe that the DROY award was a joke. Mayo is a top inside linebacker wherever he plays. It is only posters and some mediots that think Mayo to be a flop.

After last year's performance, the jury has gone back out on Mayo, at least as far as I'm concerned. We all hope his mediocre play last year was primarily caused by his coming back too early from his injury, but it raised concerns nonetheless. During his DROY, he made lots of first-step mistakes and seemed to have trouble shedding blocks and playing through trash. He used his excellent speed to make lots of pursuit tackles, including during the 2nd Jets game where he probably won the DROY attention. But during that year, he never looked anything like as decisive and dominating as (say) Patrick Willis. I think we all assumed that that in his second year he'd play smarter, but despite the excuse of injury, I, for one, didn't see him diagnosing, reacting, and shedding like a top ILB.

Interestingly and surprisingly, ProFootball Focus had him rated as the 39th ranked ILB in both 2009 and 2008:
ProFootballFocus.com - By Position
ProFootballFocus.com - By Position

Perhaps playing out of position as a SAM is the problem; at the very least I think that it's now very unlikely that Mayo's game at ILB will ever be at the level of (say) a Patrick Willis. Let's all hope that the move to Will, the recovery from injury, and his cumulative experience will elevate his play this year. We'll see.

I'm sure that Mayo is starting-quality ILB in this league, but I'm not at all sure that he will ever be an elite one.

 

[patfanken]

I have always supported Belichick's drafts of the last decade. As I mentioned in my post, I think the last two were especially good. And obviously, I am not critical of the acquisition of players during the Super Bowl years.

I have been critical of Belichick's acquisition strategy toward linebackers ever since we failed to draft a linebacker in the 2002 draft. The highest draft pick used for a LB from 2000-2007 was a fifth on Claridge. After Bruschi's stroke in February, little was done. We started 2005 with a special teamer and a hasbeen as our starting ILB's. Belichick did strike gold in Vrabel. He spent big bucks on Colvin and Thomas, but there never seemed to a cohesive plan for the development or acquisition of linebackers.

By 2008, the cupboard was almost completely bare. Belichick seemed to get the message and started to buiild the linebacking corps with Mayo and got lucky with Guyton. The lienbacking group is by far our weakest unit. It has possibilities, But it seems that there are very stringent requirements for a successful linebacker under Belichick, and few meet the test.

The offense will be fine. The secondary will be very good indeed. The defensive line is fine. There is only one unit that stand in the way of 2011-2015 being a repeat of 2001-2005. That unit is the linebacking corps.

In fairness to BB, I think the issue of drafting LBs is the question of translating what they do in college environments with what they would do in the Pats system. First of all the number of college teams playing a 3-4 is rare now, and even rarer earlier in the past decade.

BB was caught in the quandary of trying to determine how a college athlete playing a DE position in college will translate those skills into an OLB in a Pats style 3-4. Its just a very risky thing to do. (see Vernon Gholston) Instead BB has chosen to look at lower rounds and FAs to find those athletes. Vrabel and Colvin are good examples of a guys who took 3-4 years to develop into a good OLBs. The good news was that it was OTHER teams who did the training.

Maybe the solution is to wait for other teams to develop this kind of player and grab them in FA. The alternative is to draft and develop them yourself, knowing that you you might only get a year or two of quality production from them before they become FA's. Does that make sense?????

 

[RobertWeathers]

Isn't one of the knocks on Reese regarding his time in Tenn. that he created cap problems with his signings? I'm really not sure but I thought I remember reading that on this forum.

Why a guy that has created cap problems would be brought in to handle contract negotiations is puzzling to me.

Didn't Tenn. draft 2 - 3 DROY while he was GM? Sounds like he may have a clue or two about the whole draft process.

I don't totally blame Reese for what went down TN. Like any GM he may have missed on some picks and had some contracts that seemed wise at the time backfire b/c of poor performance.

-He had a owner who tended to be a bit of a jock-sniffer with players like McNair, George, etc and gave out big contracts to older players.
-He had a coach who had almost equal power and had the owners ear.
-He felt that he had a great core group and loaded up for a SB run (1999-2003ish).

In his time at the Pats (lets say he handles contracts and adds input on the draft, FAs, etc., the overall body of work has been decent.

 

[Deus Irae]

Interestingly and surprisingly, ProFootball Focus had him rated

Your post becomes wasted right there. When you rely on PFF for ratings, you pretty much turn your argument into an opinion that's based upon horrible information.

 

[Kasmir]

Your post becomes wasted right there. When you rely on PFF for ratings, you pretty much turn your argument into an opinion that's based upon horrible information.

PFF is the only public domain source of such individual ratings as far as I know. I don't think Joyner makes his individual ratings available, and I believe he only rates the passing game anyway. I don't *rely* on PFF, indeed I have my own individual issues with some of their ratings, and their methodology is a bit opaque. But they *are* an objective source of individual ratings of players in non-skilled positions. So of course I think it interesting. But my remarks about Mayo's play are from my personal observations of having him seen him in every play of his NFL career, almost always in replay study (I prefer to watch the games that way).

As far as "wasted posts" are concerned, yours could always be improved by some deduction and adduction in support of your assertions and invective. Why is PFF "based upon horrible information"? Who else would say so, and why?

My impression is that most Pats fans dismiss PFF because they don't like its surprisingly low rating of Brady last year (10th ranked). I actually don't pay particular attention to PFF's skilled-position ratings, as there are plenty of alternative ratings available about such players. But PFF is an apparently unique source of data is with respect to the other positions. Where else would we find that Vollmer was the 5th rated OT in the league last year, or that Stephen Neal was the 2nd rated guard (and Mankins the 6th. Mankins was actually their top ranked guard in both 2007 and 2008)? I actually find that their ratings line up reasonably well with my own subjective observations.

I don't doubt that many here have superior knowledge about individual Patriot's players versus PFF. Some may even have done per play analysis. But I would be quite surprised if anyone posting here has done a league wide per player per play breakdown. If you're trying to rate or rank Patriot's players versus the league, you need a league-wide basis to do so. I would expect PFF's analysis to be of low quality compared to the proprietary analysis done by each NFL teams. But it has the virtue of offering public access to a lot of play analysis, and I have no reason to believe it is subjective. To me at least, I find it an interesting supplement to the typically highly subjective opinionation posted here. I similarly follow Football Outsiders rating quite closely. They're both provide quite an interesting contrast to collective opinions offered here, which I actually value even more highly, but for different reasons.

I find observations supported by objective or at least 3rd party opinions more interesting than those simply based on invective. You perhaps disagree.

 

[Deus Irae]

PFF is the only public domain source of such individual ratings as far as I know. I don't think Joyner makes his individual ratings available, and I believe he only rates the passing game anyway. I don't *rely* on PFF, indeed I have my own individual issues with some of their ratings, and their methodology is a bit opaque. But they *are* an objective source of individual ratings of players in non-skilled positions. So of course I think it interesting. But my remarks about Mayo's play are from my personal observations of having him seen him in every play of his NFL career, almost always in replay study (I prefer to watch the games that way).

Your remarks about Mayo were buttressed with the ratings from PFF. PFF can't do ratings worth a damn. They invented formulas out of the air, and those formulas suck. The site is ok for raw data, although it has errors there too, but using if for the ratings is just demonstrating an inability to assess information.

As far as "wasted posts" are concerned, yours could always be approved by some deduction and adduction in support of your assertions and invective. Why is PFF "based upon horrible information"? Who else would say so, and why?

The PFF discussion has been had on this board in other threads. You should feel free to look it up. You could also simply look at the results of said ratings.

Some easy examples, according to PFF:

Garrard > Brady
Kelly Washington > Moss
Vonnie Holliday = #3 DE in NFL
Hell...... Guyton > Mayo

My impression is that most Pats fans dismiss PFF because they don't like its surprisingly low rating of Brady last year (10th ranked). I actually don't pay particular attention to PFF's skilled-position ratings, as there are plenty of alternative ratings available about such players. But PFF is a unique source of data is with respect to the other positions. Where else would we find that Vollmer was the 5th rated OT in the league last year, or that Stephen Neal was the 2nd rated guard (and Mankins the 6th. Mankins was actually their top ranked guard in both 2007 and 2008)? I actually find that their ratings line up reasonably well with my own subjective observations.

Actually, most people here were excited about PFF. It was a few of us evil types who pointed out the flaws that ruined the fun for everyone. The hope is that PFF will work to improve the formulas and become a worthwhile place to go for analysis.

Look, I've got the site bookmarked. I use it for the raw data. I'm just not fool enough to use if for rankings/evaluations, because it clearly doesn't have the formulas down anywhere near accurately enough yet. If you want to look to a formula site for help, I'd suggest starting with Football outsiders. They may not be 100% accurate either, but they've been working and reviewing their formulas for a lot longer, and they've clearly got better information as a result. Unfortunately, for the case at hand, they do not offer free statistics for linebackers or individual linemen. I don't pay for the site, so I don't know if they offer any on a 'pay' basis.

Not surprisingly, for example, Football Outsiders has Garrard ranked down around 19, which is much more in tune with the season he had, and has Brady, Manning, Rivers, Brees and Favre as the top 5 QBs in the league, which is pretty much dead on for last season, although one could quibble with the ordering of the 5.

It also has a cutoff for receptions, which avoids the sort of silliness that can lead to K. Washington > R. Moss.

Personally, I find observations supported by objective or at least 3rd party opinions more interesting than those simply based on invective. You perhaps disagree.

Faulty information is often worse than no information. Making a claim that something is based on invective does not make that claim correct, even if I believed the premise of your statement, which is pretty clearly not always going to be correct.

Also, from the site itself:

My firm belief is that we are between 98-100% accurate in terms of statistics and Player Participation 80-90% accurate in terms of grading.

ProFootballFocus.com - About

While I think the site is giving itself too much credit, even it acknowledges a 10%-20% error rate in its grading. You , apparently, find that to be quite acceptable.

 

[Kasmir]

Your remarks about Mayo were buttressed with the ratings from PFF. PFF can't do ratings worth a damn. They invented formulas out of the air, and those formulas suck. The site is ok for raw data, although it has errors there too, but using if for the ratings is just demonstrating an inability to assess information.

The PFF discussion has been had on this board in other threads. You should feel free to look it up. You could also simply look at the results of said ratings.

Some easy examples, according to PFF:

Garrard > Brady
Kelly Washington > Moss
Vonnie Holliday = #3 DE in NFL
Hell...... Guyton > Mayo



Actually, most people here were excited about PFF. It was a few of us evil types who pointed out the flaws that ruined the fun for everyone. The hope is that PFF will work to improve the formulas and become a worthwhile place to go for analysis.

Look, I've got the site bookmarked. I use it for the raw data. I'm just not fool enough to use if for rankings/evaluations, because it clearly doesn't have the formulas down anywhere near accurately enough yet. If you want to look to a formula site for help, I'd suggest starting with Football outsiders. They may not be 100% accurate either, but they've been working and reviewing their formulas for a lot longer, and they've clearly got better information as a result. Unfortunately, for the case at hand, they do not offer free statistics for linebackers or individual linemen. I don't pay for the site, so I don't know if they offer any on a 'pay' basis.

Not surprisingly, for example, Football Outsiders has Garrard ranked down around 19, which is much more in tune with the season he had, and has Brady, Manning, Rivers, Brees and Favre as the top 5 QBs in the league, which is pretty much dead on for last season, although one could quibble with the ordering of the 5.

It also has a cutoff for receptions, which avoids the sort of silliness that can lead to K. Washington > R. Moss.



Faulty information is often worse than no information. Making a claim that something is based on invective does not make that claim correct, even if I believed the premise of your statement, which is pretty clearly not always going to be correct.

Also, from the site itself:



ProFootballFocus.com - About

While I think the site is giving itself too much credit, even it acknowledges a 10%-20% error rate in its grading. You , apparently, find that to be quite acceptable.

Feel free to ignore my PFF adduction as you will. As I now repeat, my opinion of Mayo is based on fairly careful personal observation of every NFL play of his, regular season and pre-season. I brought up PFF because it's extremely difficult for a fan like me to objectively rate players vs the league based on personal observations because of the necessarily highly asymmetric nature of being a fan of a particular team. Disrespecting the work of those few who actually do such hard work and make it available to us is certainly easy to do but is rather foolish. And once again, you're too lazy to actually support your assertions. Sorry, your claims that somewhere someone agrees with you are uncompelling. Do your homework. It's not that hard.

As for PFF, what do you think a reasonable error rate should be? Your assumption appears to be that your subjective opinion is somehow more accurate merely because it lacks all precision.

Cherry picking datapoints is notoriously absurd. Even your (Brady, 2009) vs (Garrard, 2009) drilled cherry is foolish. Try actually taking a look. They rate Garrard's rushing contribution very highly, which may be arguable but isn't irrational. If you just look at their passing-only ratings, they would appear to correlate pretty well with NFL QB ratings (for what that's worth), even for Garrard. And I will repeat: I don't think PFF is particularly useful for skilled position ratings, there are lots of alternatives for that.

My biggest beef with PFF is not their methodology, although it's obviously quirky (as I said, and you disregard). It's that they attempt to *rank* players in the face of so much uncertainty. Most ranking systems are bogus because of the difficulty of separating special cause from system cause. Football is no different. However, significant *ratings* could be usefully extracted from data such as PFF's. Too bad they don't do so, but the broad outlines are clear.

As a mentor of mine once pointed out, people enjoy subjective speculation, and correspondingly tend to ignore what objective data is actually available to an almost reckless degree. I've learned to be almost contemptuous of invectious "pundits" like you. Sorry.

 

[Deus Irae]

Feel free to ignore my PFF adduction as you will. As I now repeat, my opinion of Mayo is based on fairly careful personal observation of every NFL play of his, regular season and pre-season. I brought up PFF because it's extremely difficult for a fan like me to objectively rate players vs the league based on personal observations because of the necessarily highly asymmetric nature of being a fan of a particular team. Disrespecting the work of those few who actually do such hard work and make it available to us is certainly easy to do but is rather foolish. And once again, you're too lazy to actually support your assertions. Sorry, your claims that somewhere someone agrees with you are uncompelling. Do your homework. It's not that hard.

Actually, I supported my assertions. You know this, of course, if you read my post, because I quoted the site admitting to a 10%-20% error rate in my post.

As for my "claims" of others agreeing, I don't feel the need to pull up the other threads. My points were backed up by the site itself. You know.... 'homework'.

As for PFF, what do you think a reasonable error rate should be? Your assumption appears to be that your subjective opinion is somehow more accurate merely because it lacks all precision.

When the site itself is admitting to a potential 1-in-5 rate of error for ratings, I don't find that reasonable. If you wish to claim that it is, that's really just something that goes to your credibility on any future subject.

Cherry picking datapoints is notoriously absurd. Even your (Brady, 2009) vs (Garrard, 2009) drilled cherry is foolish. Try actually taking a look. They rate Garrard's rushing contribution very highly, which may be arguable but isn't irrational. If you just look at their passing-only ratings, they would appear to correlate pretty well with NFL QB ratings (for what that's worth), even for Garrard. And I will repeat: I don't think PFF is particularly useful for skilled position ratings, there are lots of alternatives for that.

Of course, I wasn't "cherry picking datapoints". I was noting obvious examples of screw ups. It's pretty tough to answer:

Why is PFF "based upon horrible information"?

without showing examples of what's meant and fleshing out the "why". Again, of course, you already know that, and made your post anyway, which shows a complete lack of confidence in your position. That's not surprising, given this next part of your post

My biggest beef with PFF is not their methodology, although it's obviously quirky (as I said, and you disregard). It's that they attempt to *rank* players in the face of so much uncertainty. Most ranking systems are bogus because of the difficulty of separating special cause from system cause. Football is no different. However, significant *ratings* could be usefully extracted from data such as PFF's. Too bad they don't do so, but the broad outlines are clear.

As you can see here, you are agreeing with what I was saying (even while defending the 'methodology' without explaining what methodology you are defending). As I noted:

When you rely on PFF for ratings, you pretty much turn your argument into an opinion that's based upon horrible information.

Look, I've got the site bookmarked. I use it for the raw data. I'm just not fool enough to use if for rankings/evaluations, because it clearly doesn't have the formulas down anywhere near accurately enough yet. If you want to look to a formula site for help, I'd suggest starting with Football outsiders. They may not be 100% accurate either, but they've been working and reviewing their formulas for a lot longer, and they've clearly got better information as a result.

You're arguing something you don't even disagree with me about.

As a mentor of mine once pointed out, people enjoy subjective speculation, and correspondingly tend to ignore what objective data is actually available to an almost reckless degree. I've learned to be almost contemptuous of invectious "pundits" like you. Sorry.

Again, from PFF itself:

Many people say that as soon as you start grading then you bring subjectivity into your work and obviously, to some degree, that's true. However there's also subjectivity around whether a play was a QB run for negative yardage or a sack, if an assist on a tackle should be awarded and if a catch was dropped or not. Sure, you can come up with a set of rules to determine which is which, but in the end, at the borderline between one and the other, it's always subjective; it comes down to a judgment call. The real trick of grading is to define a clear enough set of rules, for each type of play, which the vast majority of the time the answer just falls out of.

ProFootballFocus.com - About

As commercials used to point out all the time, reading is fundamental. Your failure to actually read what I'd posted (or, perhaps, your inability to read for comprehension?) led you to continue to argue against me, when your own argument demonstrated you to be in agreement with me, and to acknowledge the resultant problems with your initial post, even as you refused to acknowledge them specifically. You then fell back on a complete load of drivel with the "objective" argument you attempted to bash me with. Next time, try to read and think before going knee-jerk.

 

[poor aidsy]

BB seems to be doing fine without Scott.....The next year or two when these picks blossom will be fun.....Pats retooling on the fly while keeping up their winning ways. Next year having 4 early picks will be the cherry on the top...


Poor AFCE

YOUTH AND DEPTH!!!! I tell ya..... YOUTH AND DEPTH!!!


just like you said about the additions of Maroney, Jackson and every other bust whiff since 2006

 

[BlueThunder]

YOUTH AND DEPTH!!!! I tell ya..... YOUTH AND DEPTH!!!


just like you said about the additions of Maroney, Jackson and every other bust whiff since 2006

Another jetfan Pwned......:rocker:

I get banned from the JI circlejerk and this guy folllows me here......PATHETIC

Hope you had a great 4th S-h-i-t-sgreen

 

[Ring 6]

After last year's performance, the jury has gone back out on Mayo, at least as far as I'm concerned. We all hope his mediocre play last year was primarily caused by his coming back too early from his injury, but it raised concerns nonetheless. During his DROY, he made lots of first-step mistakes and seemed to have trouble shedding blocks and playing through trash. He used his excellent speed to make lots of pursuit tackles, including during the 2nd Jets game where he probably won the DROY attention. But during that year, he never looked anything like as decisive and dominating as (say) Patrick Willis. I think we all assumed that that in his second year he'd play smarter, but despite the excuse of injury, I, for one, didn't see him diagnosing, reacting, and shedding like a top ILB.

Interestingly and surprisingly, ProFootball Focus had him rated as the 39th ranked ILB in both 2009 and 2008:
ProFootballFocus.com - By Position
ProFootballFocus.com - By Position

Perhaps playing out of position as a SAM is the problem; at the very least I think that it's now very unlikely that Mayo's game at ILB will ever be at the level of (say) a Patrick Willis. Let's all hope that the move to Will, the recovery from injury, and his cumulative experience will elevate his play this year. We'll see.

I'm sure that Mayo is starting-quality ILB in this league, but I'm not at all sure that he will ever be an elite one.

You do realize that Willis is assigned entirely different responsibliities than Mayo, don't you.
If you are expecting Mayo to read, react and execute his play the way a MLB in a system that asks him to read the play and run to the ball, he will suck in your eyes even if he is the greatest LB to ever play the game.
Mayo's responsibility in the run game is control the gaps on either side of the G he is lined up across from. That is entirely different than what you seem to be saying you want to see him do.
Here are some examples.
If the play is run in either gap between the C and T areas, Mayo must step up, establish the los, and be responsbile for both sides of the G. This typical means he is engaging the G and playing off of the block.
If the play goes away, Mayo job is NOT to read and chase. It is to step up into the G area FIRST and play cutback or counter.
If the play is an onside 'stretch' play, Mayo is not reading where the cut may be and chasing to the sideline, he is stepping up to his area then flowing after he knows the play did not come to or cutback to his area,

You are confusing a MLB in a one gap system who is told he is responsible for every inch of the field, sideline to sideline, to a guy who is first responsible for the area from C to T and then AFTER discharging those responsibilities can he read and chase.
IT is night and day.