Nordberg
Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,112
- Reaction score
- 302
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Well done, that's brilliant. Also highlights a philosophical difference between the Patriots & the Colts/Broncos in how they value those positions and approach the draft. With Belichick now just looking for one more Pats ring for the thumb, it's hard to argue with his philosophy.
Well done, that's brilliant. Also highlights a philosophical difference between the Patriots & the Colts/Broncos in how they value those positions and approach the draft. With Belichick now just looking for one more Pats ring for the thumb, it's hard to argue with his philosophy.
Would be helpful to rank by draft rank..
If I have time I'll make histogram of draft rank, and run the stats to see if significant difference. Unless one of you eager whippersnappers does it first.
If you made the data available in a link so I could just cut and paste that would be so swell... I could pull it from a spreadsheet into Matlab easily
please do it first I'm so damned busy right now
Agreed.....
But I do wonder what would have happened if BB made sure Brady had say a top 10 receiver for the majority of his career. I think they could have done that without changing the overall landscape too much. Pretty sure you would have had another Lombardi on the mantle if you had signed Branch in 06
Agreed.....
But I do wonder what would have happened if BB made sure Brady had say a top 10 receiver for the majority of his career. I think they could have done that without changing the overall landscape too much. Pretty sure you would have had another Lombardi on the mantle if you had signed Branch in 06
I recently got into a discussion with someone about the weapons argument between Brady and Manning. Focus is on talent & longevity. Can you say more with less?
The chart I posted is based on the top three targeted WR's & the top two TE's from seasons 2001 -2014 (leaving out Brady 2008 & Manning 2011)
If you made the data available in a link so I could just cut and paste that would be so swell... I could pull it from a spreadsheet into Matlab easily
please do it first I'm so damned busy right now
I think the success is an endorsement of the philosophy, not a way to say if we did it like other teams we would have done better.
I keep hearing people saying things like 'BB handicaps the GOAT by the talent he gives him". The argument being if you have the GOAT QB give him great receivers and watch out.
I think the converse is true. Brady is SO good that if you give him average receivers, he plays like the GOAT, so why waste resources on top level WRs at the expense of other areas when you know Brady can win with any group of WRs, so lets strengthen everything else.
How much better are you really going to make the team by using your resources to make it easier for Tom Brady. He does just fine without extraordinary help.
Another argument I've been making for years Granted you can't leave the cupboard barren, like in 2006 when even a league-average receiver probably would have led to another ring (and that secondary was ATROCIOUS...bad year for BB but Brady almost single-handedly dragged that team to a SB). But there's no need to go scorched earth on offense ala 2007 when you can merely be 'top 3' every year with castoff receivers and spend the money elsewhere.
The Belichick haters will say he should have given Brady more weapons. The Brady haters will say Belichick built a team around him that can win regardless of the offense. The Pats fans know Brady and Belichick are both GOATs simply because Brady didn't need real weapons to succeed, and because Belichick knew this, and took advantage of it to build a more complete team that can win in the Playoffs.
I'm not a Belichick hater.
Belichick should have given Brady more weapons.
Both of those statements are true, and they are not contradictory.
At what cost? I'll give you 2006, that was a disaster and a huge missed opportunity. From 2001 to 2014 (excluding 2008) the Patriots have had the top-5 scoring offense eight times (including the past five years), #1 overall three times, and really only fell outside the top-5 early in Brady's career and in 2009 (when, to be fair, they could have used a 3rd option behind Welker and Moss).
I don't see it. 2006 they need an entire WR corp. 2009 they needed a legit third option. Beyond that the offense has been fantastic and needed no help, if they missed out on a SB their deficiencies were in other areas (mostly the secondary).
I think the success is an endorsement of the philosophy, not a way to say if we did it like other teams we would have done better.
I keep hearing people saying things like 'BB handicaps the GOAT by the talent he gives him". The argument being if you have the GOAT QB give him great receivers and watch out.
No offense, but I really don't think you've thought through your question. You ask "At what cost?" Well, the cost of not doing it was 0 SB titles from 2005-2013. From 2005-2013, the Patriots had enough WRs in only 2 seasons. In 2007, they went 16-0 and were 3 minutes from becoming the first 19-0 team in NFL history. In 2008, Brady was on the shelf.
Only if you abandon the reality that added to one area detracts from another. There is a cap, and other limits on resources.I'm not a Belichick hater.
Belichick should have given Brady more weapons.
Both of those statements are true, and they are not contradictory.