Adalius Thomas dissing the coach

The_Natural_83 said:

Your speaking in the past. Yes he was a key contributor to the Superbowl teams, so were other players that aren't here anymore. It's kind of funny how you respond to me, but when Pats1 says basically the same thing I am saying, you don't respond.

Click to expand...

Pats1 made a general statement about the defense "as is". You made a claim about Seymour in the passing game and compared him to Jarvis Green, who's been all but useless as far as sacking the QB in the past 2 seasons.

The_Natural_83 said:

It seems like since I've been overlooking this message board, you seem to try to duel everyone.

Click to expand...

Perception and reality are often not the same. However, since I'm not a homer, and I'm not constantly opposing what the team does, there will naturally be disagreements with one group or the other.

The_Natural_83 said:

Why is it that everytime the Patriots win, there is less chatter? It has nothing to do with being a "homer" its called being realistic. It is fine to disagree with management, but there is a reason why they make the management calls. They went with who they thought would put the team in the best position to win, whether it be this season or upcoming seasons.

Click to expand...

The management of most, if not all, of the teams in the league went with who they thought would put the team in the best position to win, too. 31 teams will fail to win the Super Bowl.

The_Natural_83 said:

In that trade it was obviously for the future.

Click to expand...

Yes, and it was at the expense of the present. It was a bad decision.

The_Natural_83 said:

Sorry, but I believe they have been successfull going on almost 10 years. They want to stock pile with draft picks and make the team better for the future obviously. Not bank everything for the next 2-3 years.

Click to expand...

They just drafted about a dozen players this year, and most of them are playing roles already, in their rookie seasons. Next year, they have a 1st round pick, 3 second round picks, a 4th round pick, a 6th round pick and a 7th round pick, and they already had plenty of picks in 2011. The notion that a 2011 pick was needed in order to stockpile for the draft is simply ridiculous.

2010 Patriots Draft Picks

The_Natural_83 said:

And for you to keep acting like Seymour was a great pass rusher is false. He was not known as that, and he never will be. He was a great player, but is on the decline now and Belicheck and other upper management saw that he no longer deserved the money he was recieving.

Click to expand...

New England is tied for 27th in the NFL in sack totals at the moment, ahead of only the Rams, Texans, Chiefs and Jaguars, and tied with, interestingly enough, the Jets. Again, Seymour currently has more sacks than the entire Patriots defensive line minus Mike Wright. He led the Patriots in sacks last season. I'm not "acting" like anything in regards to Seymour's pass rushing. I'm just pointing out the numbers.

Deus Irae said:

Moving Seymour has nothing to do with improving the defense any time soon. The draft pick doesn't even get used until 2011. It was a step back, and I refuse to believe that Belichick was too stupid to know that. He took a gamble on the players that were already here, and it was a bad idea to do so given all the circumstances.


As for "what does Willie know", the response is easy: "What do Rodney and Tedy know". Dueling ex-players? Come on, now.

Click to expand...

Playing with an eye towards the future is taking the long view. BB wasn't going to get value for Seymour in another season and he hadn't won with him in the last 4 let alone gotten value from him commensurate with his contract. He had an opportunity to get potentially tremendous value for him in trade this year. He took it in part because he liked what he saw in his youngsters and younger role players this season. He was offered the deal for but passed because Wilfork is worth more going forward(due to age, position, aversion to holding out...), can be tagged and traded in 2010 if not resigned, and that was simply not the case at all with Seymour).

Bill is the kind of guy who worries not only about who he has this year but who he will have next year and the year after and if their natural development is being potentially delayed or blocked alltogether due to the presence of a another asset with diminishing value. He hung on to as many of his savvy vets as he could for as long as he could, but they weren't getting it done or getting any younger and enough playmakers were not emerging at other positions so he began to move on to allow some to develop at those key positions.

Tedy could have remained as a backup and mentor, but he chose not to. Junior got that slot although Bill realizes he only has 5 of 6 games he predicted left in him and this wasn't a night he would have helped you. Had others been healthy he would have been inactive. Ditto Tedy were he still here since we played mostly nickle and dime D with 5 and 6 dbacks on the field all evening.

Bill made some uncharacteristic situational mistakes last night but it's not a slam dunk going for it on 4th down from the 28 was one, or that having Seymour here would have changed his mind or altered the outcome of this game. Seymour was on the field the last
two times he put the game in their hands defending a lead with 2 minutes remaining in a crucial game and Bill's defense failed him. So were Tedy and Rodney. Willie was not but then Bill thought he'd covered that with AD...

Seymour had 2 sacks in week 1 and 2 in week 6. This is week 10. None of those sacks came against Denver or NY let alone Manning...

The Dynasty said:

You're talking like you know more than Belichick. I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he was trading Seymour. It was not a step back, it was a step forward for the future. The pick is going to improve the defense in 2 years. Its going to be a top 10 pick. I really dont understand your love for Seymour.

Click to expand...

1.) It was a step back. Whether the pick becomes a good player who can help the team make a step forward in the future has yet to be seen.

2.) You don't even know who will be chosen with the pick. Claiming that the pick will improve the defense is just silly under those circumstances. For all any of us know, the Patriots might draft a tight end with the pick.

The Dynasty said:

I really cannot take anything you say seriously after you said Belichicks decisions to go for it was "incredibly stupid".

Click to expand...

Ehh.... you made the claim that Seymour wouldn't help the depth on the defensive line. You taking me seriously has no importance after that comment.

The Dynasty said:

Would it have been "incredibly stupid" if Faulk gets a good spot and it's a 1st down? No, you probably would be saying Belichick is a genius and you would have not even mentioned the Seymour trade.

Click to expand...

The decision and the outcome are separate things. The decision was stupid. If the outcome had been a first down, it still would have been stupid. In fact, given that the outcome was a first down that was wrongly called short of the line, and that the team couldn't challenge it precisely because of the circumstances which made the decision stupid to begin with, it only serves to emphasize the stupidity of the decision.

The Dynasty said:

I dont agree with the decision to go for it, but I can definitely see his reasoning and a support him. I support the team and its coaches and players that are on the roster. I dont think about players we had that are now on the opposite coast.

Click to expand...

And, yet, you keep posting about Seymour and belittling what his potential impact would have been, even though the Seymour stuff was just tangental to the discussion and was originally just an unspoken part of a general "veterans" comment.

MoLewisrocks said:

Seymour had 2 sacks in week 1 and 2 in week 6. This is week 10. None of those sacks came against Denver or NY let alone Manning...

Click to expand...

So what? What teams were Green's sacks against?

Can the title of this thread be changed to "We win with Seymour" and change the OP to Deus Irae?

Originally Posted by Deus Irae
Moving Seymour has nothing to do with improving the defense any time soon. The draft pick doesn't even get used until 2011. It was a step back, and I refuse to believe that Belichick was too stupid to know that. He took a gamble on the players that were already here, and it was a bad idea to do so given all the circumstances.

Click to expand...

As fans we want the best players on the team NOW!. BB has to juggle being competetive now and staying competetive in the future. Im sure he knew it might hurt the team in the short term but he obviously feels it will help in the long term.

Wasn't a major complaint last year about how they couldn't rush the passer? And pretty much ever since the last superbowl victory? I'm pretty sure Seymour was the anchor on that defensive line, (when he wasn't hurt of course) who did not pressure the QB. IMO Belicheck has seen the NFL evolve from a "running" league where all the top teams could run the ball and play tough defense. Now the league is evolving to a passing league, and he didn't see Seymour being able to adapt to that change. (Look at the top teams, all passing jugarnauts.) Stockpiling these picks is going to either land a free agent pass rushing studby the way of trade, find one in the draft next offseason, or a possible top 10 stud in 2011. This is the same thing as the Lawyer Milloy trade. Everyone hated it, the Patriots got smacked in the first game of the season, everyone questioning the front office. Until this team falls back into mediocrity I believe in 95% of what the front office does, and so should every person on this site. No team besides the Steelers and Colts have been nearly as dominant this decade. No team responds better to injury. But when you have Warren, Green, TBC and Nikovich injured and coming out of the game, it does hurt the depth of the line and linebacking corp.

cmasspatsfan said:

As fans we want the best players on the team NOW!. BB has to juggle being competetive now and staying competetive in the future. Im sure he knew it might hurt the team in the short term but he obviously feels it will help in the long term.

Click to expand...

Of course this helps us in the future. I dont see Oakland become good anytime soon. I fully expect that pick to be top 10 and given our recent track record with high picks (Seymour and Mayo) i have all the confidence in the world that we can land another impact player to the team

Adalius has to go. He's becoming a problem in the locker room. The guy contributes nothing on the field, and he's shooting his mouth off all the time? Go back to the Ravens.

LeonPowe said:

Adalius has to go. He's becoming a problem in the locker room. The guy contributes nothing on the field, and he's shooting his mouth off all the time? Go back to the Ravens.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding. Tubby Wrecks will snap him up before the Ravens.

MoLewisrocks said:

Playing with an eye towards the future is taking the long view. BB wasn't going to get value for Seymour in another season and he hadn't won with him in the last 4 let alone gotten value from him commensurate with his contract. He had an opportunity to get potentially tremendous value for him in trade this year. He took it in part because he liked what he saw in his youngsters and younger role players this season. He was offered the deal for but passed because Wilfork is worth more going forward(due to age, position, aversion to holding out...), can be tagged and traded in 2010 if not resigned, and that was simply not the case at all with Seymour).

Click to expand...

You make assumptions here, yet you berate others when they do the same thing. You have no idea what Seymour's value would have been next season, but it would likely have been at least a 3rd rounder even if he was just allowed to walk rather than doing a sign and trade, due to the compensation system. Also, I'm pretty sure that 16-0 would qualify as "winning" with Seymour, and that Seymour played well enough for the Patriots to win the Super Bowl that season, or are you now going to blame Seymour for Samuel's decision to leave his receiver in the Super Bowl?

MoLewisrocks said:

Bill is the kind of guy who worries not only about who he has this year but who he will have next year and the year after and if their natural development is being potentially delayed or blocked alltogether due to the presence of a another asset with diminishing value. He hung on to as many of his savvy vets as he could for as long as he could, but they weren't getting it done or getting any younger and enough playmakers were not emerging at other positions so he began to move on to allow some to develop at those key positions.

Click to expand...

Bill's the kind of guy who made a lot of decisions this offseason. Several of those decisions were bad ones. The Burgess deal and the Seymour deal are two of those bad decisions. As for the 'savvy vet' argument, he brought back Junior Seau and signed Joey Galloway. The "savvy vet" argument is a nonstarter.

MoLewisrocks said:

Tedy could have remained as a backup and mentor, but he chose not to. Junior got that slot although Bill realizes he only has 5 of 6 games he predicted left in him and this wasn't a night he would have helped you. Had others been healthy he would have been inactive. Ditto Tedy were he still here since we played mostly nickle and dime D with 5 and 6 dbacks on the field all evening.

Click to expand...

Unless you heard BB mention that he was going to make Seau inactive if other players had been healthy, you're making meaningless assumptions again. Also, Belichick didn't 'realize' that Seau couldn't help him last night, he assumed that he wouldn't fit in the game plan. That game plan apparently wasn't the winning plan. Either the players got worn down because Belichick didn't have them prepared enough for the game, or the plan and personnel simply weren't good enough.

MoLewisrocks said:

Bill made some uncharacteristic situational mistakes last night but it's not a slam dunk going for it on 4th down from the 28 was one, or that having Seymour here would have changed his mind or altered the outcome of this game. Seymour was on the field the last
two times he put the game in their hands defending a lead with 2 minutes remaining in a crucial game and Bill's defense failed him. So were Tedy and Rodney. Willie was not but then Bill thought he'd covered that with AD...

Click to expand...

Bill's been screwing up a lot ever since Pioli and McDaniels left the team. He certainly wasn't perfect even before that happened. It's nice that you are finally admitting to his making "some" mistakes, even if it's just about last night's game. As for the "last two times" thing, I addressed the Super Bowl earlier in this post.

Deus Irae said:

The decision and the outcome are separate things. The decision was stupid. If the outcome had been a first down, it still would have been stupid. In fact, given that the outcome was a first down that was wrongly called short of the line, and that the team couldn't challenge it precisely because of the circumstances which made the decision stupid to begin with, it only serves to emphasize the stupidity of the decision.

And, yet, you keep posting about Seymour and belittling what his potential impact would have been, even though the Seymour stuff was just tangental to the discussion and was originally just an unspoken part of a general "veterans" comment.

Click to expand...

You can not defend that if they got the 1st down that you would have made a thread or posted that it was a stupid decision. I cant figure you out...like do you like Belichick? You seem to have a lot of problems with his decisions. Were you this critcial when we won the 3 SB's, maybe that we should have won by more than 3 points or something?

You said we would have done better with "veterans" that we let go. Well Bruschi and Harrison retired so we cant control them. Vrabel wouldnt have done anything. Seymour probably wouldnt have done anything either. You keep saying he would provided depth to our DL. What you dont understand is if Green and Warren are active theres your depth right there. Depth that is on our actual roster.

I can't wait 'til this team is holding the trophy up in February and your celebrating with your Superbowl Champions hat and exclaiming how great of a coach Belicheck is. The defense will be fine, and hopefully the team is healthy by playoff time.

The Dynasty said:

You said we would have done better with "veterans" that we let go. Well Bruschi and Harrison retired so we cant control them. Vrabel wouldnt have done anything. Seymour probably wouldnt have done anything either. You keep saying he would provided depth to our DL. What you dont understand is if Green and Warren are active theres your depth right there. Depth that is on our actual roster.

Click to expand...

correct, most of the vets that left would not have helped much last night. Deus just can't stop crabbing about Seymour. Its his opinion, and he's entitled to it, but its a broken record.

Deus Irae said:

What has Green "proven" in the past couple of seasons? According to NFL.com, he's registered 2 sacks in his last 21 games (It's 19 games according to Pro-Football-Reference.com).

The D-Line has gone from a strength to a problem. Seymour wasn't the reason that Deltha O'Neal sucked, but he was a major reason that the team's defensive line was among the league's very best for much of the decade.

This season's 'starting' D-linemen trio of Wilfork, Warren and Green, have a combined ONE sack. Thank goodness for Mike Wright and his 4 sacks, or Seymour would have more sacks this season than the entire Patriots D-line combined.

Click to expand...

Because Richard was healthy for a change and Jarvis was battling an injury as well as backing him up last season he only had 2 sacks. Of course in 2007 when Richard was on PUP Jarvis had 4 sacks in the first 9 weeks of the season too...here. Finished the season with 6.5. After posting 7.5 the prior season. 14 sacks over two seasons, not bad for a career backup to a $10M man. Especially considering in the two seasons that preceded that Richard totaled 9 sacks. Of course Bill has always held that sacks are over rated and pressure on the QB more significant. This year sacks sometimes seem to cost us more than they gain, too.

The Dynasty said:

You can not defend that if they got the 1st down that you would have made a thread or posted that it was a stupid decision.

Click to expand...

I didn't make a thread that it was a stupid decision even though they didn't get a first. However, given my posting history, I think most people here will tell you that I'd have no problem calling the decision stupid even if the team had won the game.

The Dynasty said:

I cant figure you out...like do you like Belichick? You seem to have a lot of problems with his decisions. Were you this critcial when we won the 3 SB's, maybe that we should have won by more than 3 points or something?

Click to expand...

Belichick is the best coach in the game. When I think he's no longer making any mistakes, I promise to stop pointing out that I think he's making mistakes. Until then, I'll point them out when I'm talking sports. His decisions this season have been uneven, at best, in my opinion, and I've commented on them. That's what sports message boards are for.

The Dynasty said:

You said we would have done better with "veterans" that we let go. Well Bruschi and Harrison retired so we cant control them. Vrabel wouldnt have done anything. Seymour probably wouldnt have done anything either. You keep saying he would provided depth to our DL. What you dont understand is if Green and Warren are active theres your depth right there. Depth that is on our actual roster.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not what I said, regarding the veterans, although the idea is close enough that I can understand the confusion. I made a comment about the veterans with specific regards to last night's game, in response to someone basically giving Thomas the "Well bye" treatment.

It's one thing to get rid of veterans who can no longer get the job done at all, and retired players that retire of their own accord are outside the scope of the coach's power. It's another to get rid of those veterans who can still play, though. Vrabel would probably be this team's second best linebacker, and having him would have allowed the team to keep using the 3-4 with more effectiveness. Your dismissal of Seymour is something I simply don't buy into. Seymour, Mayo and Wilfork would have been the team's 3 best defensive players, in one order or another.

MoLewisrocks said:

Because Richard was healthy for a change and Jarvis was battling an injury as well as backing him up last season he only had 2 sacks. Of course in 2007 when Richard was on PUP Jarvis had 4 sacks in the first 9 weeks of the season too...here. Finished the season with 6.5. After posting 7.5 the prior season. 14 sacks over two seasons, not bad for a career backup to a $10M man. Especially considering in the two seasons that preceded that Richard totaled 9 sacks. Of course Bill has always held that sacks are over rated and pressure on the QB more significant. This year sacks sometimes seem to cost us more than they gain, too.

Click to expand...

If we're going to play the "he's hurt" game, let's point out that Seymour got hurt playing fullback for the Patriots instead of D-line, and it took multiple seasons for his leg to get right again. Defending Jarvis with "battling an injury" while denigrating Seymour with "healthy for a change" and belittling his sack totals during his injured years is just a weak argument.

Green's been starting this season, with a lot of 4 man lines and fewer double teams on the defensive linemen, and a team trying to get more pressure using that 4 man line. Zero sacks. Seymour gets double teamed a damned sight more than does Green, and he pretty much always has.

Deus Irae said:

You make assumptions here, yet you berate others when they do the same thing. You have no idea what Seymour's value would have been next season, but it would likely have been at least a 3rd rounder even if he was just allowed to walk rather than doing a sign and trade, due to the compensation system. Also, I'm pretty sure that 16-0 would qualify as "winning" with Seymour, and that Seymour played well enough for the Patriots to win the Super Bowl that season, or are you now going to blame Seymour for Samuel's decision to leave his receiver in the Super Bowl?

Pot and kettle we are, DI. Seymour was not going to be tagged by this team in 2010 ergo he had no value guaranteed. He might net a 2011 3rd round comp pick about 95 spots later than the Oakland #1 provided we didn't end up signing an offsetting FA in a potentially uncapped season... Winning in the context it's thrown around here is championships. Seymour couldn't sack Eli although he had a bead on him a couple of times...

Bill's the kind of guy who made a lot of decisions this offseason. Several of those decisions were bad ones. The Burgess deal and the Seymour deal are two of those bad decisions. As for the 'savvy vet' argument, he brought back Junior Seau and signed Joey Galloway. The "savvy vet" argument is a nonstarter.

Bill isn't arrogant enough to assume they will all pan out. Burgess is improving of late. Seau will provide value at some point, one way or another. The savvy vets he hung onto as long as he could were his core defensive playmakers who as is the natural order aged out.

Unless you heard BB mention that he was going to make Seau inactive if other players had been healthy, you're making meaningless assumptions again. Also, Belichick didn't 'realize' that Seau couldn't help him last night, he assumed that he wouldn't fit in the game plan. That game plan apparently wasn't the winning plan. Either the players got worn down because Belichick didn't have them prepared enough for the game, or the plan and personnel simply weren't good enough.

I love it, you now assume Junior didn't fit the game plan but chastise me for assuming if Warren and Green were available be would not have been an inactive...


Bill's been screwing up a lot ever since Pioli and McDaniels left the team. He certainly wasn't perfect even before that happened. It's nice that you are finally admitting to his making "some" mistakes, even if it's just about last night's game. As for the "last two times" thing, I addressed the Super Bowl earlier in this post.

Click to expand...

Bill screwed up even when Pioli and McDaniels were here. They have also screwed up both here and since they left. However, our draft appears to have improved somewhat...so that's a positive...I've always acknowledged that Bill makes mistakes, he just makes a lot less than most other HC's and he's a damn site more consistently successful in the regular and post season than any of his presently employed peers...and since I'm not into being an ass or assuming I intuitively know better than he does just for argument sake that's good enough for me.

According to Football Reference, this year Vrabel has 33 tackles and 1 sack. Mayo has 39 tackles and a sack, but missed a few games. Guyton has 47 tackles. TBC has 28 tackles and 3 sacks. So you saying that Vrabel would be the 2nd best LB on this team is a misconception. He would be the 4th.

Its not even worth debating with you anymore. You have a deep passion for the Patriots and your opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. We're never going to agree.