2nd + 3rd = 5 years of poor defensive selections

[AzPatsFan]

You missed my point, the draft is a crap shoot, how many 2nd and 3rd rounder's become regulars? Also he's usually picking at the bottom of the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Cold hard football facts did a study and their conclusion was the Pats had the best draft this past decade.

Supposed Draftiks assume that observing failures somehow enhances them while listing his failures due to 1) ineptness, or 2) Other, due to any one of career ending injury, or lack of mental toughness, or greed in demanding more money than was available, or in the case of Butler, giving up too soon, reflects badly on GM Belichick.

It does not. Unless compared to other Team performances.

The only real measure is resultant wins and losses and no one else exceeds Bill Belichick, his scouts, his assistant coaches, and the Patriots. This is magnified because he never gets to pick among the Top Ten talents and most time not in the top 32.

So I say: "So What?"

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: 2nd + 3rd = 5 years of poor defensive selections

Gotta love the whining from people like Brady6 and Belichick010405. Seriously.

Some facts that you conveniently left out.
Tyrone McKenzie was tearing up mini camp until he tore his knee up. Freak accident. Yet you damn him because he didn't work out.

Collins, Ryan and Harmon have played in a total of TWO games. Yet you are already *****ing about them. You're little notice at the end was an afterthought to CYA. OH, btw, all 3 are playing on Special Teams units.

Patrick Chung was injured a good portion of last year. Prior to that, he was the starting Safety.

Your total aren't accurate. You only list solo tackles. You don't list assists.

Why not throw McCourty and Meriweather in there as well. Meriweather was cut and McCourty only has 5 tackles despite playing 2-3 times as much as Spikes.

Who is whining, I asked a question to my fellow PatsFans, which is what is the flaw with are draft strategy in the 2nd and 3rd round when drafting defensive players?

I didn't whine about anything I was outlining a real issue which I provided detailed evidence of, you completely overlooked that and instead degraded me on a public website by implying I was a whiner. That's BS and I do not appreciate it, if you're unclear about the intent of my posts why don't you ask me for clarification before jumping to an untrue conclusion.

I consistently show you and all posters for that matter the highest level of respect, there is no bonus points for making someone else look bad even if you disagree with them.

Also why would I throw McCourty and Merriweather into a post titled 2nd and 3rd round selections? You must have overlooked that in your immature attempt to perceive superiority over me. Not cool man, this post was not cool at all.

 

[Fencer]

... or in the case of Butler, giving up too soon, reflects badly on GM Belichick.

It does not.

Well, I think cutting a player is within the purview of a GM.

 

[Fencer]

Re: "Also he's usually picking at the bottom of the 2nd and 3rd rounds."

That isn't really accurate, because of all the trade picks.

 

[Sciz]

Who is whining, I asked a question to my fellow PatsFans, which is what is the flaw with are draft strategy in the 2nd and 3rd round when drafting defensive players?

Well for two things, scheme and injuries.

Butler was drafted when they were playing primarily zone coverage. He's got good feet and good hips, but I think was just a hair slow with the processing. He's a much better fit for what they want to do now on defense, but he never really got that chance because he didn't fit what they wanted to do then.

Same with Cunningham. He was drafted to be that big edge-setting 3-4 OLB. Then the Pats switch to a 4-3 and he never found a position where he fit.

Brace found a bit of a niche as a 3-4 LE after failing at NT (and Wilfork being re-signed to play there long term anyway), but he didn't really have a true position in the 4-3.

Both Cunningham and Brace had also had some injury concerns (including Brace's extremely severe elbow injury), but that injury group also includes Wheatley (wrist), Crable (general glass-ness), McKenzie (torn ACL), Dowling (general lower-body instability, mainly the hip), and Pat Chung (lots of little injuries). I think you need to be willing to take a reasonable amount of risks on injury concerns, but sometimes guys without any previous history fail due to injury. And for some reason, they've done a lot better job of hitting on the offensive injury concerns (Vollmer, Gronk) than the defensive ones.

 

[DaBruinz]

Who is whining, I asked a question to my fellow PatsFans, which is what is the flaw with are draft strategy in the 2nd and 3rd round when drafting defensive players?

You sure have a funny way of going about asking a question. Usually, when you want to ask something like that, you put it in the title. You didn't do that. You threw all sorts of information out there (much of it only snippets), presented a theory and then, almost as an afterthought (much like your CYA statement) asked what others thought.

I didn't whine about anything I was outlining a real issue which I provided detailed evidence of, you completely overlooked that and instead degraded me on a public website by implying I was a whiner. That's BS and I do not appreciate it, if you're unclear about the intent of my posts why don't you ask me for clarification before jumping to an untrue conclusion.

You're OP was a whine. Sorry. In fact, you made a backhanded insult about Belichick with your claim that you "respect him" but them proceeded to make all these claims about players without giving the full story. Such as with Spikes and McKenzie.

You did not provide detailed evidence. What you provided were only snippets of information in a attempt to build a case to sway people to your opinion.

If I had degraded you, I would have called you a moron, idiot, or some other derogatory name. I did no such thing. If you feel degraded for having it pointed out that your post was a whine and for your not providing a fair assessment of the facts, then that is your own personal issue. Not mine.

The intent of your post was very clear and I didn't jump to an untrue conclusion. And from the other replies in the thread, I'm not the only one who felt this way.

I consistently show you and all posters for that matter the highest level of respect, there is no bonus points for making someone else look bad even if you disagree with them.

Also why would I throw McCourty and Merriweather into a post titled 2nd and 3rd round selections? You must have overlooked that in your immature attempt to perceive superiority over me. Not cool man, this post was not cool at all.

If you looked bad, it's because of how you presented yourself. Not from anything I did.

No. I threw them in to show that you were being unreasonable with your assessment of Spikes, Chung and others. Not to mention that you weren't presenting all the facts.

There was no attempt at superiority. What is not cool is you trying to blame someone else for point out the short-comings of your statements. What is not cool is you trying to say you were degraded when you weren't.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: 2nd + 3rd = 5 years of poor defensive selections

No, you didn't ask a question. Not in the title of this thread or in the OP. That is a blatant lie on your part. What you did was make statements about players and try to link it to a conclusion that was in your title.



You're OP was a whine. Sorry. In fact, you made a backhanded insult about Belichick with your claim that you "respect him" but them proceeded to make all these claims about players without giving the full story. Such as with Spikes and McKenzie.

You did not provide detailed evidence. What you provided were only snippets of information in a pathetic attempt to build a case to sway people to your opinion.

If I had degraded you, I would have called you a moron, idiot, or some other derogatory name. I did no such thing. If you feel degraded for having it pointed out that your post was a whine and for your not providing a fair assessment of the facts, then that is your own personal issue. Not mine.

The intent of your post was very clear and I didn't jump to an untrue conclusion. And from the other replies in the thread, I'm not the only one who felt this way.





If you looked bad, it's because of how you presented yourself. Not from anything I did.

No. I threw them in to show that you were being unreasonable with your assessment of Spikes, Chung and others. Not to mention that you weren't presenting all the facts.

There was no attempt at superiority. What is not cool is you lying about supposedly asking a question in this thread. What is not cool is you trying to blame someone else for point out the short-comings of your statements. What is not cool is you trying to say you were degraded when you weren't.

This is what I said word for word " It just seems like Belichick and his staff are missing something, what do you all think it is?"

Clearly that's a question.


Everything else you wrote was just a bunch of invalid crap, calling me a liar just shows every member on here that you have reading and comprehension difficulties, and you have no clue what my intent was, so troll elsewhere, because you'll just further embarress yourself if you continue in this discussion.

Honestly I don't have any interest in debating this or even speaking to you period, the fact is you're not worth my time or energy, have a good night.

 

[DaBruinz]

This is what I said word for word " It just seems like Belichick and his staff are missing something, what do you all think it is?"

Clearly that's a question.

And, had you actually re-read my post, you'd see that I editted it because I had relalized my MISTAKE. I had actually hit the post button before I had wanted to and immediately went back to re-word my post. It was done before you finished your hasty and ill-thought response.

Everything else you wrote was just a bunch of invalid crap, calling me a liar just shows every member on here that you have reading and comprehension difficulties, and you have no clue what my intent was, so troll elsewhere, because you'll just further embarress yourself if you continue in this discussion.

Honestly I don't have any interest in debating this or even speaking to you period, the fact is you're not worth my time or energy, have a good night.

Clearly you DO have an interest in debating me. Otherwise you wouldn't have edited your post. And everything else isn't crap. That's you showing your little temper tantrum. The fact that you were wrong about player stats isn't crap. It's fact.

Your claim that I have reading and comprehension issues is what is crap. But I am not surprised that someone as immature as yourself would say that.

I'm not trolling. That is you with this thread.

 

[DaBruinz]

Couple points in response to your post:

3. This is more of a question than a point; do you honestly see no negative effect on the offense as a result of Belichick repetitively investing resources (draft picks, trade assets and free agent spending) on the same positions for the last 5 years.

A few points in response to your 3rd of 2.
1) By including the 2008 draft year as you did, that is actually 6 years of drafts, not 5.

2) The Patriots had 23 picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds during those 6 years mentioned. 14 were defensive picks and 9 were offensive picks.

3) The Patriots have signed or traded for numerous offensive players since 2008. Those players include Chad Johnson, Joey Galloway, Donald Thomas, Michael Hoomanawanui, Michael Jenkins, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Brandon Bolden, Deion Branch, Jabar Gaffney, Donte Stallworth, Jake Ballard, Daniel Fells, Lamont Jordan and a slew of others.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: 2nd + 3rd = 5 years of poor defensive selections

And, had you actually re-read my post, you'd see that I editted it because I had relalized my MISTAKE.



Clearly you DO have an interest in debating me. Otherwise you wouldn't have edited your post. And everything else isn't crap. That's you showing your little temper tantrum.

Your claim that I have reading and comprehension issues is what is crap. But I am not surprised that someone as immature as yourself would say that.

I'm not trolling. That is you with this thread.

Gee thanks for taking out the references to me being a liar. You're way of base, and you know it rather than just manning up you're just going to spew nonsense to save face. Do your thing, as I said have a good night.

 

[DaBruinz]

Spikes is inconsistent, he can be an absolute stud when he is on but that isn't always the case. Just the same he is only 1 player on the list.

So, you immediately dismiss someone's point as not affecting your claims because he's "hit or miss". Sure doesn't seem like you are looking for a debate. Seems like you are looking to bulldoze your opinion over that of others.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: 2nd + 3rd = 5 years of poor defensive selections

A few points in response to your 3rd of 2.
1) By including the 2008 draft year as you did, that is actually 6 years of drafts, not 5.

2) The Patriots had 23 picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds during those 6 years mentioned. 14 were defensive picks and 9 were offensive picks.

3) The Patriots have signed or traded for numerous offensive players since 2008. Those players include Chad Johnson, Joey Galloway, Donald Thomas, Michael Hoomanawanui, Michael Jenkins, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Brandon Bolden, Deion Branch, Jabar Gaffney, Donte Stallworth, Jake Ballard, Daniel Fells, Lamont Jordan and a slew of others.

What is your point? So your assessment is that Belichick has done a good job drafting defensive players in the 2nd and 3rd rounds over the last 5 or 6 years?

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: 2nd + 3rd = 5 years of poor defensive selections

So, you immediately dismiss someone's point as not affecting your claims because he's "hit or miss". Sure doesn't seem like you are looking for a debate. Seems like you are looking to bulldoze your opinion over that of others.

This reminds of when I yell at my dog for ****ting on the floor and she follows me around with her head down looking for some type of attention.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: 2nd + 3rd = 5 years of poor defensive selections

So, you immediately dismiss someone's point as not affecting your claims because he's "hit or miss". Sure doesn't seem like you are looking for a debate. Seems like you are looking to bulldoze your opinion over that of others.

To answer your question though I didn't dismiss anything I actually agreed Spikes was the best defensive player taken in the 5 year period in the 2nd and 3rd.

 

[Brady6]

I don't want argue with you so if you disagree with my OP that's your right, and if I said anything to offend you I apologize, I let my emotions and lack of sleep get the best of me. I think it is best that we just agree to disagree on this topic.

 

[DaBruinz]

I was only actually referring to the defensive players taken in rounds 2 or 3 over the last 5 years, but it is sort of comical that not one poster has even answered the OP question, which is what do you think the problem is that causes Belichick to miss on these 2nd and 3rd round defensive picks? I am not saying Belichick is a bad GM or for that matter I am not labeling him in anyway, I am asking fellow members if they have any reasoning for the poor picks in these rounds during this timeframe.

No. You were referring to the 2nd and 3rd round players taken over the past 6 drafts. Furthermore, your claims that they were all misses when some of them have just started their career leaves a humongous amount to be desired. Hell, you have written them off already because they aren't getting defensive snaps as rookies. And your CYA statement is a half-hearted attempt to claim otherwise.

I do have make 1 point in response to what I perceive to be you saying it is not a problem because we’ve gone to super bowls, which is we have Tom Brady the best QB in the history of the NFL he covers up a lot of mistakes so if it is a problem someone who determines things solely on super bowl appearances is likely not to notice whether it is a problem or not.

Furthermore we have not won a super bowl in nearly a decade, and the 2 we’ve gone to in the last 5 years were on the right shoulder of Tom Brady and were lost because of the play of the defense when it came time to step up, so yes it is a problem, it’s a huge problem because Brady is getting us places and giving us opportunities and we’re unable to make the most of them opportunities.

It's clear you are one of those people who demand a SB every year regardless of reality. You don't realize that the age of free agency and parity has all but guaranteed that teams don't repeat. The Patriots winning 3 in 4 years is something that probably won't ever happen again. Heck, when you look at it, the only reason that the Steelers and Giants have 2 SB rings each is because of poor officiating that favored them.

I have news for you. The Patriots lost each of their last 2 SB because of the TEAM, not the defense per your claim. Hell, the Giants only won the 1st time because Mike Carrey blew the call. He even said so after the game. He said he should have whistled Manning down but didn't because he couldn't believe the Pats didn't bring him down.

The other SB against the Giants, the Pats lost because Brady took the safety and the receivers couldn't hold onto the damn ball. Or did you miss Welker, Branch and Hernandez all dropping passes on the final 2 drives that could have won the game for the Pats?

It's clear that you think that you have figured out the Pats problems. And, in your opinion, it's that they have been investing too many assets (draft picks, money, trades) in the defense. There are a few HUGE flaws with that theory.

1) You disregard that other teams improve
2) You don't bother to look at the assets the Pats have spent on the offense, either in terms of draft picks, cash, or trades during your stated time frame.
3) You evaluation of why the Pats have lost their last two SB appearances is flawed. Particularly since one of said 2 was PRIOR to the time period of the draft selections you are referring to.
4) You don't take into consideration things that are out of control of the players and coaches. Such as injuries.
5) You've already written off Wilson, Ryan, Collins, and Harmon because of your flawed expectations.

6) When a comparison is made about one of the players you say is a bust (Spikes) to another player on the team who many see as playing exceptionally well (McCourty) you ignore it because it blows up part of your argument.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: 2nd + 3rd = 5 years of poor defensive selections

No. You were referring to the 2nd and 3rd round players taken over the past 6 drafts. Furthermore, your claims that they were all misses when some of them have just started their career leaves a humongous amount to be desired. Hell, you have written them off already because they aren't getting defensive snaps as rookies. And your CYA statement is a half-hearted attempt to claim otherwise.





It's clear you are one of those people who demand a SB every year regardless of reality. You don't realize that the age of free agency and parity has all but guaranteed that teams don't repeat. The Patriots winning 3 in 4 years is something that probably won't ever happen again. Heck, when you look at it, the only reason that the Steelers and Giants have 2 SB rings each is because of poor officiating that favored them.

I have news for you. The Patriots lost each of their last 2 SB because of the TEAM, not the defense per your claim. Hell, the Giants only won the 1st time because Mike Carrey blew the call. He even said so after the game. He said he should have whistled Manning down but didn't because he couldn't believe the Pats didn't bring him down.

The other SB against the Giants, the Pats lost because Brady took the safety and the receivers couldn't hold onto the damn ball. Or did you miss Welker, Branch and Hernandez all dropping passes on the final 2 drives that could have won the game for the Pats?

It's clear that you think that you have figured out the Pats problems. And, in your opinion, it's that they have been investing too many assets (draft picks, money, trades) in the defense. There are a few HUGE flaws with that theory.

1) You disregard that other teams improve
2) You don't bother to look at the assets the Pats have spent on the offense, either in terms of draft picks, cash, or trades during your stated time frame.
3) You evaluation of why the Pats have lost their last two SB appearances is flawed. Particularly since one of said 2 was PRIOR to the time period of the draft selections you are referring to.
4) You don't take into consideration things that are out of control of the players and coaches. Such as injuries.
5) You've already written off Wilson, Ryan, Collins, and Harmon because of your flawed expectations.

6) When a comparison is made about one of the players you say is a bust (Spikes) to another player on the team who many see as playing exceptionally well (McCourty) you ignore it because it blows up part of your argument.

Ok well I'm going go sleep now, you work hard and you maybe able to quote all 1900+ posts I've made in here to date :sly:

Good night DB

 

[DaBruinz]

What is your point? So your assessment is that Belichick has done a good job drafting defensive players in the 2nd and 3rd rounds over the last 5 or 6 years?

And you say I'm the one with the reading and comprehending problem...

Did you even READ your post to Goheels2002?

You are claiming that BB has spent more assets (money, draft picks, trades) on the defense than he has the offense over the past 6 years, but you are only showing ONE SIDE of the Comparison. You aren't showing the other side. You aren't showing that he added Gronkowski, Vollmer, Mallett, Ridley and Vereen during the draft during the 2nd and 3rd rounds during the years in question. Never mind all the different free agent wide receivers and tight ends we've seen. Hell, the fact you are limiting the discussion to just the 2nd and 3rd rounds means you are leaving out assets like Hernandez (prior to this year), Edelman, and Dennard.

My point is that you've made a clear attempt to give a finite focus to your theory when, in reality, you just can't do that because assets on both sides of the ball come from different places, not just 2nd and 3rd round picks. And that you writing off players such as Collins, Ryan, Harmon and Wilson because of your irrational expectations only detracts from your theory.

 

[DaBruinz]

Gee thanks for taking out the references to me being a liar. You're way of base, and you know it rather than just manning up you're just going to spew nonsense to save face. Do your thing, as I said have a good night.

I admitted to making a mistake. I'm human. If you can't accept that, then you are the issue.

As for everything else, I'm dead on and you've proven that.

 

[Fencer]

You are claiming that BB has spent more assets (money, draft picks, trades) on the defense than he has the offense over the past 6 years, but you are only showing ONE SIDE of the Comparison.

With one very major exception, I think that's a true claim. Used draft picks were documented elsewhere in the thread; trade picks narrow the gap but not so much as to change the conclusion.

The exception is money spent on re-signing our own players. The extensions for Brady, Gronk, Hernandez, Mankins and Vollmer dwarf the extensions on the defensive side of the ball.

The above would all be even more true had Welker and his agent not screwed up.