It occurred to me...

[patfanken]

....while I was think about the Samuel situation, that the Pats, WITHOUT SAMUEL could line up 6 quality CBs this season (Hobbs, Gay, Scott, James, Wilson, Merriweather). Not outstanding, but very competent, veteran, smart guys, and pretty good 1 through 6. It could be as good as any CB group the Pats had during their superbowl runs, when only Ty Law was an elite CB, but the rest of the group were always very ordinary, especially in 2004.

In 2006 the Colts CBs were so mediocre that they watched BOTH of them leave and didn't blink an eye, thinking they upgraded with their back ups. In 2005, everyone knew that the Steelers CBs were their weak link, yet they were superbowl champs. (I'm not sure how great the TB CB's were, so they either support my contention, or they are the exception that proves the rule. )

BOTTOM LINE: Going back to 2001 just about EVERY team that has won the superbowl have had decent, but not spectacular CB play. So here is a question, do you really NEED to have 2 OUTSTANDING CBs to win a superbowl, or having 5 competent ones enough? History is showing that the latter is the answer, but what do you think????

 

[BB_dynasty]

I think we would be fine without him, just better with him.

 

[zippo59]

Are we better with Samuel?

Absolutely.

But unlike last year with Branch we are not in such a vulnerable in that we have pretty goos depth at CB whereas we hade none at WR.

 

[BB_dynasty]

Yea, We lost a lot at the WR position. We no longer had Givens or Branch, Brady's two favorite targets. And we end up with, well...yea. Now we have Gay, Scott, James, and others to fill in Samuel's gap that he leaves. He really overrates himself.

 

[363839]

I look at it this way. Is he better than Ty Law? Hell no.
Did the Pats win 2 Superbowls since Laws' departure. F*ck yeah!
I think Belichick will trade him before the season starts.
It will be for a 09 first round pick, too with possibly a 3rd for 08.
How we gonna pay three first round picks in one year?
I love it.

 

[zippo59]

I look at it this way. Is he better than Ty Law? Hell no.
Did the Pats win 2 Superbowls since Laws' departure. F*ck yeah!
I think Belichick will trade him before the season starts.
It will be for a 09 first round pick, too with possibly a 3rd for 08.
How we gonna pay three first round picks in one year?
I love it.

Not to nitpick, but we won one Superbowl without Ty Law, not two.

 

[BelichickFan]

I don't love all of those names but I think Belichick agrees with Ken. He knew there was an issue with Samuel, we all did, and knew that the current possible scenario could play itself out. He had chances in the draft to take viable CB at #28 and in the 3rd round but passed . . . and, unlike LB, he's taken several CB in the first 4 rounds before. He also could have been a little more aggressive in FA.

 

[363839]

Not to nitpick, but we won one Superbowl without Ty Law, not two.

I stand corrected with point still in tact.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

I want Samual on the team, but its not like the Branch situation of last yr... where we had some shoe sales men catching passes form Brady in camp...

 

[RayClay]

....while I was think about the Samuel situation, that the Pats, WITHOUT SAMUEL could line up 6 quality CBs this season (Hobbs, Gay, Scott, James, Wilson, Merriweather). Not outstanding, but very competent, veteran, smart guys, and pretty good 1 through 6. It could be as good as any CB group the Pats had during their superbowl runs, when only Ty Law was an elite CB, but the rest of the group were always very ordinary, especially in 2004.

In 2006 the Colts CBs were so mediocre that they watched BOTH of them leave and didn't blink an eye, thinking they upgraded with their back ups. In 2005, everyone knew that the Steelers CBs were their weak link, yet they were superbowl champs. (I'm not sure how great the TB CB's were, so they either support my contention, or they are the exception that proves the rule. )

BOTTOM LINE: Going back to 2001 just about EVERY team that has won the superbowl have had decent, but not spectacular CB play. So here is a question, do you really NEED to have 2 OUTSTANDING CBs to win a superbowl, or having 5 competent ones enough? History is showing that the latter is the answer, but what do you think????

Wow are you stretching. You have 2 safeties in there, one's a rookie and one's been invisible for two years.

One of your cornerbacks is as durable as those chairs they use in western movies, one is very short and probably better suited for nickle.

One is a decent big receiver cover, no good against any speed. A backup al the way.

The other is a castoff that hasn't even got a look yet.

This lineup is better than who?

 

[spacecrime]

This lineup is better than who?

Better and certainly deeper than 2001 backfield. By a lot.

 

[mgteich]

Is the situation much different than last year, when the patriots expected to sign Law and Branch, and we all thought that the front office surely knew exactly what there doing and had a Plan B? Little did we know that Plan B was to move the cap money into 2008. and play Gabriel and Mickens. No downgrade there: Branch and Law to Gabriel and Mickens.

This year, we have had chances to upgrade at corner as you noted. There may still be chances. Obviously, the front office has a Plan B. Selfishly, I hope it better than last year's Plan B.

I don't love all of those names but I think Belichick agrees with Ken. He knew there was an issue with Samuel, we all did, and knew that the current possible scenario could play itself out. He had chances in the draft to take viable CB at #28 and in the 3rd round but passed . . . and, unlike LB, he's taken several CB in the first 4 rounds before. He also could have been a little more aggressive in FA.

 

[RayClay]

Better and certainly deeper than 2001 backfield. By a lot.

I'd take a 2001 Terrell Buckley.

Ellis Hobbs and ? is better than Ty Law and Otis Smith?????

 

[Patjew]

Not to nitpick, but we won one Superbowl without Ty Law, not two.

Actually, Ty was on the team for all 3 SBs. He was hurt and didn't play in the last one.

Now THAT is nitpicking.

 

[Patjew]

I'd take a 2001 Terrell Buckley.

Ellis Hobbs and ? is better than Ty Law and Otis Smith?????

Milloy was good then, too. I loved that secondary.

 

[RayClay]

Milloy was good then, too. I loved that secondary.

Hey Patjew!!!

There's no doubt since the injury and insults from Ty BB has done a great job with two mid picks,(2+4) and a collection of role players. Yes, it was good enough one year, but hardly the strength of the team.

How soon we forget the horror stories, though. We lost Scott for a year and every other DB has seemed made of glass.

For every wonderful Artrell and versatile Chad Scott we had Duane Starks, Earthwind Moreland, Arturo Freeman, Eric Warfield, one great year of Poole, 2 washout years and Antonio Langham. OK, that's a stretch.

But the point is there's no guarantees depending on role players and We had a #1 in Samuel, even if he was raw to replace Ty Law.

Anybody think Hobbs is a #1 CB on any team in the NFL? I don't.

 

[spacecrime]

Anybody think Hobbs is a #1 CB on any team in the NFL? I don't.

He was the Pats #1 until he broke his wrist. He;ll make a far better #1 than Samuel. He is far ahead of where Samuel was after two years, even playing with a cast. Samuel is a good CB. Why is everyone making him out to be Champ Bailey. This is so like the sky is falling stuff we heard about Milloy and Washington and WMG etc etc.

I'd still take our secondary, front to back, ahead of 2001's.

Don't confuse the 2003 Law with the post 1998 Law. He played mediocre after his big contract. He did okay in 2001 and 2002, but it was 2003 and 2004 when he came back to pre-1998 performance.

Terrance Allen was our other main CB with Law. T-Buck and O.T.I.S played a bunch because we played a lot of nickle and dime packages and rarely rushed four men. One reason is that the safeties weren't very good. Starting safeties Milloy and Tebuckey were better against the run than the pass, and we had basically no backup safeties, unless you count Je'Rod Cherry, Antwan Harris and Matt Stevens.

In SB XVI, if you recall, we often only rushed two: Mitchell and Seymour with everyone else back, and rarely blitzed. We had severe secondary problems. People forget what a terrific season we had and how everything came together for us that year, but how little actual talent we had. It was truly a team and the definition of synergy: the whole was far greater than the sum of its parts.

It was 2003 and 2004 that our defense shone. People forget how vulnerable we were in 2001.

And when you realize that Troy Brown was our No. 1 WR, with fresh-from-the-AFL David Patten No.2, and Fred (future XFL) Coleman No.3, and Jimmy (who?) Farris and Chalres (bust) Johnson nos 4 and 5, and our TE's were Rod Rutledge (who block but not catch) and Jerrmaine Wiggins (who could catch but not block), it makes that first superbowl so magical.

 

[RayClay]

He was the Pats #1 until he broke his wrist. He;ll make a far better #1 than Samuel. He is far ahead of where Samuel was after two years, even playing with a cast. Samuel is a good CB. Why is everyone making him out to be Champ Bailey. This is so like the sky is falling stuff we heard about Milloy and Washington and WMG etc etc.

I'd still take our secondary, front to back, ahead of 2001's.

Don't confuse the 2003 Law with the post 1998 Law. He played mediocre after his big contract. He did okay in 2001 and 2002, but it was 2003 and 2004 when he came back to pre-1998 performance.

Terrance Allen was our other main CB with Law. T-Buck and O.T.I.S played a bunch because we played a lot of nickle and dime packages and rarely rushed four men. One reason is that the safeties weren't very good. Starting safeties Milloy and Tebuckey were better against the run than the pass, and we had basically no backup safeties, unless you count Je'Rod Cherry, Antwan Harris and Matt Stevens.

In SB XVI, if you recall, we often only rushed two: Mitchell and Seymour with everyone else back, and rarely blitzed. We had severe secondary problems. People forget what a terrific season we had and how everything came together for us that year, but how little actual talent we had. It was truly a team and the definition of synergy: the whole was far greater than the sum of its parts.

It was 2003 and 2004 that our defense shone. People forget how vulnerable we were in 2001.

And when you realize that Troy Brown was our No. 1 WR, with fresh-from-the-AFL David Patten No.2, and Fred (future XFL) Coleman No.3, and Jimmy (who?) Farris and Chalres (bust) Johnson nos 4 and 5, and our TE's were Rod Rutledge (who block but not catch) and Jerrmaine Wiggins (who could catch but not block), it makes that first superbowl so magical.

Terrance Shaw and Antwan Harris, (safety). I agree we have better depth, but Samuel is a much better CB than Hobbs.

He's turning down seven + million, because he's rated oneof the top cornerbacks in the NFL.

I think he's overrated now, but he was underrated his whole career.

Hobbs is a marginal starter and more suited to nickle.

 

[patfanken]

Hey guys...you missed the point of the thread. This isn't about whether this unit without Samuel is better or worse than the other championship team's; its about the fact that the last 6 superbowl champs won DESPITE not having great CB groups.

Is it a trend?

Does the predominence of 2 deep safeties NOW make the SAFETY position the new dominant position in the secondary?

Do you now draft the best safety over the best CB?

its questions like that and more, is what I thought the discussion would be about.

 

[RayClay]

Hey guys...you missed the point of the thread. This isn't about whether this unit without Samuel is better or worse than the other championship team's; its about the fact that the last 6 superbowl champs won DESPITE not having great CB groups.
Is it a trend?

Does the predominence of 2 deep safeties NOW make the SAFETY position the new dominant position in the secondary?

Do you now draft the best safety over the best CB?

its questions like that and more, is what I thought the discussion would be about.

I will agree in a way, but I have a problem with the premise so I can't say it's a trend.

Certainly BB hasn't had Ty Law and has emphasized role players and depth.

Nevertheless, Samuel is a very good corner, overrated or not and I was very happy with the group of Law, Otis and Buckley.

Buckley was a former first rounder and a ballhawk and the three of them together formed a formidable group IMO.

IMO Samuel's loss to this secondary will be similar to Adalius addition to the LB. He is the one top CB we have.

I'm not saying give him whatever he wants, I'm saying maybe they should have drafted a corner higher than the 6th, (?)

I assumed they had a bead on Samuel for that reason. I don't think he's sitting til week ten and if he does, screw him, it's time to make a stand.

Yeah, they've won key games with some no names, but I've seen some godawful secondary play in the last few years too.

Let's not plan based on selective memory.