Tavon Wilson????

My Take...

1 ~ Fact: A Reach is, by definition, an instance of a team drafting a Prospect far before they should have.

2 ~ Fact: Because "far before they should have" is clearly a subjective term, the issue of whether or not Wilson was a Reach will forever and ever and ever be...a matter of Opinion.

And opinions are like A Holes: Everybody's got one...and most are full of schitte.

For Instance:

3 ~ Opinion: Calling Wilson a Reach at #48 is perfectly reasonable and perfectly supportable.

The Argument that just because The Greatest GM in the Game ~ who also happens to be The Greatest Coach in the Game ~ made that move precludes it from being a Reach is incredibly vapid: Coach Bill the Mad (Genius) has made plenty of mistakes: Only a Fool mistakes Ingenuity for Perfection.

4 ~ Opinion: Suggesting that Wilson was not a Reach at #48 is equally reasonable and supportable.

Just because a braying Jack@$$ like Mel Kiper, a dozen Draft Magazines, or a thousand other parrots who don't know what their talking about call it a Reach doesn't make it one.

And if 1000 geniuses call it a Reach, that doesn't conclusively make it one, either.

I personally, think it was a Reach, and an hideous one.

But Mad Bill made the Call, and he has long since earned The Benefit of the Doubt.

And that, Ladies and Laddies, makes me an huge Tavon Wilson fan.

1960Pats said:

Ooh! Ooh! ::::::raising hand:::::: I know the answer.

The Pats lost because they didn't run the ball.

Click to expand...

When it's that close, you can point to about 1000 Reasons.

But even in a "Passing League", a balanced Attack ~ one that demonstrates both the Capacity and the Will to run effectively ~ has a far better chance of bringing home the Lombardi than an imbalanced Attack...like, say, an Offense that is so predictably Pass-Oriented that it allows a certain New York team to tee off on us, when we had every Opportunity to run it down their throats??

I pray we can all agree on that much, at least.

Off The Grid said:

Yeah, like...WTF is UP with that??????

Click to expand...

Like Wow!!!! Really??!! Fer Sure!!

I think State has a crush on Moon Unit.

Triumph said:

Do you know why the Giants have beaten the Pats in the their last 2 Super Bowls?

The Giants have drafted better.

Click to expand...

I know one PatsFans poster that won't be posting the day after the Pats win their next SuperBowl. He'll have nothing to complain about.

Oh wait, he'll find something!

Triumph said:

Do you know why the Giants have beaten the Pats in the their last 2 Super Bowls?

The Giants have drafted better.

Click to expand...

Please demonstrate how the Giants have drafted better than the Patriots from 2008-2011.

Triumph said:

Do you know why the Giants have beaten the Pats in the their last 2 Super Bowls?

The Giants have drafted better.

Click to expand...

In the timeframe you refer to, the Giants have 49 victories. In that same timeframe, inspite of a season ending injury to the reigning MVP, the Patriots have 64 victories.

The reason the Giants have beaten the Patriots in the last two Super Bowls has nothing to do with drafting. They won those games b/c they executed better on the specific Sundays in question, and had a boatload of luck on their side.

The outcome of those games, which were both insanely close and both tipped by key plays that went in the Giants favor, cannot be tied to a conclusion on the roster building prowess of either team.

Triumph said:

Nothing but excuses.

See, other teams screwed up their draft pick so its OK. 2nd round Busts have cost this team Super Bowls.

Click to expand...

This is BS and unproveable.

Slappy said:

Injuries. Billy Yates is why they lost in 07. Gronk's injury is why in 11. Your desire to talk smack and rub stuff in peoples' faces has severely weakened your grasp on reality.

Click to expand...

Yates was not why the Pats lost in 07. There are a few reasons. One is that Neal went down. Another is that the rest of the OL had or was recovering from the FLU. Another reason is that the Pats didn't get the call they should have when Manning was "in the grasp".

Gronk's injury wasn't the only reason either. Lack of depth at TE. The poor WR play in general. Brady's mindfart in the endzone. Bill O'Brien's play-calling in the 2nd half. Numerous injuries on defense.

Triumph is wrong, but so are you.

DaBruinz said:

This is BS and unproveable.

Click to expand...

Not sure why folks keep entertaining this guy, he has an agenda and will stick to it no matter how many times proven wrong...

Reminds me of a guy who called one of the talk shows yesterday, who claimed that the reason that BB is so successful was because of Parcells.. Parcells had everything in place for him. Despite some very lymp dycked responses of the hosts (Gresch and Zo) he believed he was right and no one could or wanted to get in a word to counter his claim..

Some guys you cannot argue with, despite showing fact after fact.. they are right no matter how much intelligence you lay on him..

Would have liked to see some of these guys in the early 90's.. the bridges would have been full of them, all contemplating whether they should get wet or not.

Triumph said:

Yates? God help you. Evidently you missed Hobbs in coverage Burress.

The Giants drafted Cruz, Manningham and Nicks. You know, the guys who torched the NE secondary for 74 yards in 4 plays at the end of the game.

Dont you get that the Giants WRs were better than the DBs NE drafted?

Click to expand...

Hobbs gets too much blame for that Burress TD. Yes, he was covering him one on one, but that is because the Pats sent the house to get to Manning and didn't. When you leave a CB on an island like that, you need to get pressure on the QB and Manning had all the time in the world.

Also, Cruz was an undrafted free agent. Even the Giants didn't like him enough to draft him.

Also, the Manningham 34 yard catch on the last drive was perfect coverage. It was just a case of Manning throwing a perfect pass and Manningham catching it perfectly. You can't blame the secondary for that one.

Lastly, there were a number of different reasons why the Pats lost both those Super Bowls and you seem to want to focus only one the ones that suit your argument. There was no one reason why the Pats lost both Super Bowls and each one came down to any one of a handful of plays that if went differently the Pats would have won.

Triumph said:

Yates? God help you. Evidently you missed Hobbs in coverage Burress.

The Giants drafted Cruz, Manningham and Nicks. You know, the guys who torched the NE secondary for 74 yards in 4 plays at the end of the game.

Dont you get that the Giants WRs were better than the DBs NE drafted?

Click to expand...

And the Pats drafted Hernandez & Gronkowski.

If Gronk is healthy last February, who wins SB46?

DaBruinz said:

Yates was not why the Pats lost in 07. There are a few reasons. One is that Neal went down. Another is that the rest of the OL had or was recovering from the FLU. Another reason is that the Pats didn't get the call they should have when Manning was "in the grasp".

Gronk's injury wasn't the only reason either. Lack of depth at TE. The poor WR play in general. Brady's mindfart in the endzone. Bill O'Brien's play-calling in the 2nd half. Numerous injuries on defense.

Triumph is wrong, but so are you.

Click to expand...

Since you cited Neal going down as one of the reasons for the loss, either you didn't know Billy Yates was his backup or you have a completely twisted sense of logic. Had you actually watched the game and grasped what was occuring no the screenb you would know that if Billy Yates didn't do an amazing interpetation of a matador, the game would not have been close. Maybe you normally can grasp what transpires in a game and just had too many wine coolers that day. For future reference, Billy Yates a.k.a. "The Matador" was also the reason Cassel got creamed in 2008 until Neal came back. I feel a little guilty after pointing these simple facts out to you, but in reality, I didn't steal any candy and you are not a literal baby.

Rob0729 said:

Lastly, there were a number of different reasons why the Pats lost both those Super Bowls and you seem to want to focus only one the ones that suit your argument. There was no one reason why the Pats lost both Super Bowls and each one came down to any one of a handful of plays that if went differently the Pats would have won.

Click to expand...

Like recovering a single fumble by the Giants. Or a ref correctly calling the Patriot player down by contact when he recovers a fumble on the ground rather than let an opposing player rip the ball out of his hands.

Slappy said:

Since you cited Neal going down as one of the reasons for the loss, either you didn't know Billy Yates was his backup or you have a completely twisted sense of logic. Had you actually watched the game and grasped what was occuring no the screenb you would know that if Billy Yates didn't do an amazing interpetation of a matador, the game would not have been close. Maybe you normally can grasp what transpires in a game and just had too many wine coolers that day. For future reference, Billy Yates a.k.a. "The Matador" was also the reason Cassel got creamed in 2008 until Neal came back. I feel a little guilty after pointing these simple facts out to you, but in reality, I didn't steal any candy and you are not a literal baby.

Click to expand...

I can guarantee you that I watched that game (more than once) and understood what was happening on that screen. And I can tell you right now that Bill Yates was NOT the problem. This "matador" crap you are preaching is just that. Crap. Especially since Koppen, Mankins and Light all blew more protections than Yates did that game. Particularly on stunts, Mankins and Koppen got turned inside out.

For your reference, Yates wasn't the reason that "Cassel got creamed" in 2008. And please don't point to the sacks going from 3.8 to 2.5 as a major difference because it can be attributed to Cassel becoming more comfortable as the starter AND the easy schedule the Pats faced in the second half of the year. Arizona (19th yards, 28 scoring), Denver (29th yards, 30th scoring), Buffalo (14th yards, 14th scoring), Miami (15th yards, 9th scoring), St. Louis(28th yards, 31st scoring), Seattle (30th yards, 25th scoring), and Oakland (27th yards, 24th scoring) had average to horrible defenses.

If you feel guilty, it should be because you've put up a horrible argument that's not backed up by facts and you tried to pass it off as such..

DaBruinz said:

I can guarantee you that I watched that game (more than once) and understood what was happening on that screen. And I can tell you right now that Bill Yates was NOT the problem. This "matador" crap you are preaching is just that. Crap. Especially since Koppen, Mankins and Light all blew more protections than Yates did that game. Particularly on stunts, Mankins and Koppen got turned inside out.

For your reference, Yates wasn't the reason that "Cassel got creamed" in 2008. And please don't point to the sacks going from 3.8 to 2.5 as a major difference because it can be attributed to Cassel becoming more comfortable as the starter AND the easy schedule the Pats faced in the second half of the year. Arizona (19th yards, 28 scoring), Denver (29th yards, 30th scoring), Buffalo (14th yards, 14th scoring), Miami (15th yards, 9th scoring), St. Louis(28th yards, 31st scoring), Seattle (30th yards, 25th scoring), and Oakland (27th yards, 24th scoring) had average to horrible defenses.

If you feel guilty, it should be because you've put up a horrible argument that's not backed up by facts and you tried to pass it off as such..

Click to expand...

Are you honestly saying Neal going out was a bigreason for the loss, yet the play of his replacement had nothing to do with it?
Thats pretty much textbook inability to admit you are wrong.

DaBruinz said:

I can guarantee you that I watched that game (more than once) and understood what was happening on that screen. And I can tell you right now that Bill Yates was NOT the problem. This "matador" crap you are preaching is just that. Crap. Especially since Koppen, Mankins and Light all blew more protections than Yates did that game. Particularly on stunts, Mankins and Koppen got turned inside out.

For your reference, Yates wasn't the reason that "Cassel got creamed" in 2008. And please don't point to the sacks going from 3.8 to 2.5 as a major difference because it can be attributed to Cassel becoming more comfortable as the starter AND the easy schedule the Pats faced in the second half of the year. Arizona (19th yards, 28 scoring), Denver (29th yards, 30th scoring), Buffalo (14th yards, 14th scoring), Miami (15th yards, 9th scoring), St. Louis(28th yards, 31st scoring), Seattle (30th yards, 25th scoring), and Oakland (27th yards, 24th scoring) had average to horrible defenses.

If you feel guilty, it should be because you've put up a horrible argument that's not backed up by facts and you tried to pass it off as such..

Click to expand...

The name Billy Yates is burned into the consciousness of all knowledgable Pats fans. You still haven't reconciled your Neal going down factor with Yates not being a factor.... Although I truly did not get any candy, I may indeed have been wrong about that very last part.

While we're on the subject, weren't the Pats also short-handed at TE, thus making it harder to keep extra blockers in?

AndyJohnson said:

Are you honestly saying Neal going out was a bigreason for the loss, yet the play of his replacement had nothing to do with it?
Thats pretty much textbook inability to admit you are wrong.

Click to expand...

That's rich coming from you.. The guy who has never admitted to being wrong in his life.

Neal going out didn't cause Koppen to miss a stunt that led directly to a Brady sack.

Yates being in there didn't cause Koppen to miss a stunt that led directly to a Brady sack.

Neal going out hurt the RUN game, but not the passing game, which is what Slappy was claiming. Sorry that neither you nor he can't reconcile the difference. It's typical..

Slappy said:

The name Billy Yates is burned into the consciousness of all knowledgable Pats fans. You still haven't reconciled your Neal going down factor with Yates not being a factor.... Although I truly did not get any candy, I may indeed have been wrong about that very last part.

Click to expand...

No. The name Billy Yates is burned into the minds of the clueless who don't realize that Yates being in there had nothing to do with the sacks of Brady. It had nothing to do with Koppen blowing his assignment and failing to pick up a stunt. It had nothing to do with Mankins blowing his assignment and failing to pick up a stunt.

Your whole "Yates" argument is supported by nothing. You've not provided anything to support your claim which is only that Yates hurt the passing game..

You and Andy keep telling yourselves otherwise..

Sciz said:

While we're on the subject, weren't the Pats also short-handed at TE, thus making it harder to keep extra blockers in?

Click to expand...

In 2007? Yep. Kyle Brady was worthless and they didn't dress a 3rd TE for the game.