A tale of a draft SQUANDERED....

[Deus Irae]

Again, if they were the teams most pressing needs you most likely would have seen it get addressed. Apparently it was your most pressing need, not the team's.

Not a single one of your answers was accurate. To be fair, the last thing you posted is unproven in either direction.

 

[Synovia]

Not a single one of your answers was accurate. To be fair, the last thing you posted is unproven in either direction.

Insisting on something doesn't make it true Deus. Your insistance carries no more weight than any other poster's.

You haven't made a single argument that disproves anything.

 

[Kontradiction]

So... let me get this straight, Synovia. You think that this was an absolutely perfect, flawless draft?

Tedy Bruschi is a TV personality. We need a run-stuffing DE presence? What the hell is Brace? What the hell is Love? They're run stuffers.

Kyle Love is a DT. Not a full time DE. And he's a back-up at best. Brace was all over the place last season and, as of right now based on what we know, shouldn't be counted on to be a full time starter. On top of that, I forgot to include that they should also be presences against the pass. We had a chance to draft a three down DE. We didn't. The Jets (the team that advanced further than we did in the playoffs two years in a row and embarrassed us in the process) DID do that.

No, the jets showed us what the problem is when you have no running game.

We had a 1,000 yard rusher last year and yet we have no running game? This argument was a failure before you even started it.

When you try to pass all the time against a very good secondary who can drop 7 in coverage and still either stop a run, or sack your QB. Nobody gets open against Revis on one side, and double coverage with Cromartie on the other. The key is to be able to run the ball when they do this, and force them out of Nickle/Dime. We couldn't do that.

What's funny is that we did it when we won 45-3, unless you want to say it was a fluke. The second time around, the Jets' corners got much more physical with our receivers and the result was that the passing game couldn't get open. Now, yes, I do think that we should have ran the ball more in that game. I was pretty vocal about faulting O'Brien for that. But let's not pretend that our woes in the passing game were only due to the faults of our running game and that alone. Everyone seems to recognize that need except for homer Patriots fans who see no fault in anything Belichick and Co. does.

Tate was a rookie. He looked great for a Rookie.

No he didn't. Anthony Armstrong looked great for a rookie. Dez Bryant looked great for a rookie. Mike Williams looked great for a rookie. Brandon Tate did not look "GREAT". He looked lost at times. His route running was poor at other times and his hands were lacking at other times. That's not the definition for looking "great" as a rookie.

Drops and poor chemistry are expected. Anyone you draft outside the top 10 or so isn't going to look any better than Tate did, unless you get really friggen lucky.

I just went off the top of my head and gave you two examples in my last point, so I'm not sure how this is supposed to make any sense.

What exactly is it we do along the O-Line? What exactly is it that makes Cannon a bad fit? We drafted some smaller O-Lineman because we wanted to go to Zone blocking. It was an absolute failure... now they're moving back to where they were: physical monsters.

1. Zone blocking wasn't an absolute failure.
2. The pick of Solder would seem to disagree with you last point.

In order to be a fit for what Dante has been doing on the O-Line, Cannon would need too lose some weight and pick up some quickness. Of course he can do that, but would his overall strength pay the price? I hope not, because we're going to need him going forward with Mankins' status up in the air and Stephen Neal riding off into the sunset.

And why do you think a pick at the end of the first round could contribute right away, when bellichick has said dozens of times that the OLB role is too complicated for a rookie, and that he prefers vets. Drafting new OLBs every year makes the problem WORSE, not better.

Jermaine Cunningham would seem to contend that the OLB role in this defense is not too complicated for a rookie.

 

[Synovia]

So... let me get this straight, Synovia. You think that this was an absolutely perfect, flawless draft?

Ahh, I see. You're going to start your argument off with a strawman. I figured you'd get a little in before you did that.

Kyle Love is a DT. Not a full time DE. And he's a back-up at best.

So you, esteemed NFL scout, already know what a 24 year old kid's ceiling as football player is? Could you tell me what franchise you work for? If you're this good of a player evaluator, you're surely getting paid for it, right?

Brace was all over the place last season and, as of right now based on what we know, shouldn't be counted on to be a full time starter. On top of that, I forgot to include that they should also be presences against the pass. We had a chance to draft a three down DE. We didn't. The Jets (the team that advanced further than we did in the playoffs two years in a row and embarrassed us in the process) DID do that.

Exactly what 3 down DE was going to be better than Brace? And how do you know? Is this because you're paid by the NFL to evaluate talent because you're so good at it, or is it because you have an absolutely uninformed oppinion based on some stuff you read on the internet by a whole bunch of other people who read some stuff on the internet?

Do you have any references from actual NFL scouts saying that Brace can't be a 3 down DE, or are you using your professional skills to determine that?

We had a 1,000 yard rusher last year and yet we have no running game? This argument was a failure before you even started it.

And how much of that was because of the Line? Danny Woodhead rushed for 5.6 ypc. Kevin Faulk rushed for

No he didn't. Anthony Armstrong looked great for a rookie. Dez Bryant looked great for a rookie. Mike Williams looked great for a rookie. Brandon Tate did not look "GREAT". He looked lost at times. His route running was poor at other times and his hands were lacking at other times. That's not the definition for looking "great" as a rookie.

Dez Bryand 45 Receptions 561 yds, 6 tds
Brandon Tate 24 Receptions, 432 yards, 3td.

Those aren't the same, but they're not all that far off. And Tate isn't getting himself in trouble by skipping meetings. Tate also wasn't a first rounder, or considered NFL ready.

1. Zone blocking wasn't an absolute failure.
2. The pick of Solder would seem to disagree with you last point.

In order to be a fit for what Dante has been doing on the O-Line, Cannon would need too lose some weight and pick up some quickness. Of course he can do that, but would his overall strength pay the price? I hope not, because we're going to need him going forward with Mankins' status up in the air and Stephen Neal riding off into the sunset.

Hold on, Solder, the 6'9 330 lb tackle they drafted doesn't fit my point that they're going back to bigger lineman?

Jermaine Cunningham would seem to contend that the OLB role in this defense is not too complicated for a rookie.

You mean the same Jermaine Cunningham you were saying a minute ago was useless last year? That we need to upgrade?

 

[Ring 6]

This was simply one of the worst drafts of the Belichick era.

If it was that bad, I will assume there is no need to exxagerate in what follows.

The needs were DE, OLB, OL, and WR.

RB was certainly a need as well, since the only player we know we will have is Woodhead.

We responded by drafting a good OT with our first pick. We then traded the second pick away when Wilkerson, a guy who would have been a great pick in our defense, was available.

Many posters, and evidently BB disagree with you on this player.

Instead he went to the Jets who seem to have strengthened their D-Line. With the first pick in the second round, we took an injury plagued CB that we absolutely did not need when there was a plethora of talent at the OLB position still available.

Here comes the exxagreation. Injured once is not plagued.
There surely was not a plethora of talent at OLB.

We then selected two RB's in a row when we only needed one and could have gotten quality in the third round. We didn't need Vereen, IMO. We have Woodhead for the purposes that he gives us. Ridley was a good pick, and it happened at the right time.

How do we need 1 when we lost 3, and a 4th is an RFA that we could lose?
Vereen is not a 3rd down back, in fact it appears he was the #1 RB on our board.

Mallett makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me unless they're planning on trading Brady a year before his contract is up. Even then it still woudln't make all that much sense.

How does drafting the highest rated QB on your board (in a draft where 4 QBs went in the Top 12) at 74 make no sense?

Cannon is not the type of OL that the Patriots use, so his pick doesn't make much sense at this point either.

Are you suggesting that BB doesnt know what type of OL he wants?

Smith is a good pick-up as a physical blocker to replace Algae Crumpler for the long term. The Markell Carter pick was good only because we needed to select an OLB somewhere. But I'm not sure what to make of him when we had open shots at guys like Brooks Reed.

Its that kind of thinking that causes draft mistakes. You just can't take players that aren't quality because you want to draft the position. BB has said exactly that dozens of times.

Hopefully Belichick proves me wrong here because, with that and the miss on Wilkerson, it looks like 2009 and 2010's problems will most likely become 2011's problems. Who knows? Maybe Belichick has some plans for free agency, whenever that occurs.

Would you agree that he considered this dynamic and felt your solution was not a good one? Or are you suggesting that he slept at the wheel?

Out of this entire draft, I only see two picks that I really like. Out of this entire draft, the Patriots only worked out three of the players they drafted. IMO, this is a poor, poor draft by Belichick at a period when he could have quickly re-built the team with a quality youth infusion to put around Brady the way he did last season. Instead, he seemed to have gotten fancy with the picks.

He out a LT and 2 RBs around Brady.
I'm not sure that adding more youth to a yuong and maturing defense is the soundest plan.
This is half the equation. We can't really know how he feels about the areas he didn't address until we see what he does in FA.

If OLB and G are addressed in FA (or if Light is resigned and one of the Ts is at G this year) is there really anything to complain about? And if so, doesn't experience at those positions make a lot of sense?

 

[Synovia]

Its that kind of thinking that causes draft mistakes. You just can't take players that aren't quality because you want to draft the position. BB has said exactly that dozens of times.

I just wanted to emphasise how correct this is.


You DO NOT draft for short term need. That's what the FA period is for. You draft for long term need, and you draft the best damn players you can get. Most of the guys you draft this year (outside the top 10, and some extremely lucky picks) aren't going to be better this year than what you already have on your roster.

Do people really think that an OLB drafted at the top of the 2nd round is going to be better than the guy we drafted in the 2nd round last year, and has had a year in the weight room, and a year in the film room, and a year on the practice field?

If the best OLB left in the draft when you pick isn't worth that pick, you don't pick him with that pick. You either take the best player left, or you get out of that pick.

 

[Kontradiction]

Ahh, I see. You're going to start your argument off with a strawman. I figured you'd get a little in before you did that.

No, it was an honest question. You don't seem to dislike any of the picks and have been arguing for them vehemently. There is no misrepresentation of your position here. If there is, then what is it about the Patriots draft that you disliked?

Instead of answering my question, you try to call me out for a logical fallacy all the while committing a few yourself. As a matter of fact, you commit them throughout this entire post, starting with the next paragraph...

So you, esteemed NFL scout, already know what a 24 year old kid's ceiling as football player is? Could you tell me what franchise you work for? If you're this good of a player evaluator, you're surely getting paid for it, right?

For one, if NFL scouts and coaches were always right, then none of them would ever get fired. There have been plenty of bad drafts by even good NFL scouts and coaches. This is one of them. For another, Kyle Love is built as the prototypical NFL 3-4 DT. That's what he played in our defense as last year, and that's what he'll continue to play in our defense as. To try to make an argument that he's a prototypical NE DE is laughable. To try to call him a starter is absolutely hilarious.

Exactly what 3 down DE was going to be better than Brace?

Brace was drafted as a NT because the situation with Wilfork was in doubt. He was moved to DE because we badly needed another body there. With that information in mind, why do you not go after a DE that appears to be a perfect fit for your defense when you have the opportunity to do so?

And how do you know? Is this because you're paid by the NFL to evaluate talent because you're so good at it, or is it because you have an absolutely uninformed oppinion based on some stuff you read on the internet by a whole bunch of other people who read some stuff on the internet?

If this is the case, then there is no point in arguing about anything at all on this forum. If it's the case, then there is no point in you arguing with me. It doesn't take a professional NFL talent evaluator to see where our problems lied last year. Every competent team that had a running game was ripping off runs to the outside of our defense against the guys that you're trying so hard to defend in order to make it look like Belichick had a great draft. This time last year, I was in the exact same debate with people like you over whether or not Gerard Warren was the answer to our woes against the running game on the outside. How did that turn out? Because, last time I saw the Pats vaunted options at DE, Shonn Greene was breaking free for a back breaking TD run to the outside, then pretending to "put us to sleep" in the end zone. How did we address that issue this year? By bringing in an over the hill Marcus Stroud? Awesome. So instead of a youth movement to insure stability at the position for years to come, we drafted a couple of RB's and a glorified back-up to the guy who just won the MVP award. Good stuff.

Do you have any references from actual NFL scouts saying that Brace can't be a 3 down DE, or are you using your professional skills to determine that?

I'm going by what I and others saw last year with our own two eyes. What did you see last year that told you that Brace, who once again was drafted to play NT but was playing DE due to sheer need, could absolutely, positively be a three down DE?

And how much of that was because of the Line? Danny Woodhead rushed for 5.6 ypc. Kevin Faulk rushed for

The O-Line always has something to say about the running game. But that point was absolutely irrelevant to your original argument. Here's what you said before...

No, the jets showed us what the problem is when you have no running game.

Yet another logical fallacy for a guy that tried to call me out (unsuccessfully) for committing one. For a team with "no running game" we sure did do a pretty good job of churning out a 1,000 yard rusher.

Dez Bryand 45 Receptions 561 yds, 6 tds
Brandon Tate 24 Receptions, 432 yards, 3td.

Dez Bryant also missed a huge chunk of the season with injury.

Those aren't the same, but they're not all that far off. And Tate isn't getting himself in trouble by skipping meetings. Tate also wasn't a first rounder, or considered NFL ready.

This is irrelevant to the argument you were trying to make.

Hold on, Solder, the 6'9 330 lb tackle they drafted doesn't fit my point that they're going back to bigger lineman?

Nate Solder's height is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make. By the way, Solder is 6'8" 319 lbs. Not 6'9" 330. Compare his weight to Matt Light who is 6'4" 305. With the four inch difference, it doesn't appear as if the Pats are going back to trying to "draft big, physical monsters".

You mean the same Jermaine Cunningham you were saying a minute ago was useless last year? That we need to upgrade?

If you want to see a strawman, then this is it. Please quote where I said that Jermaine Cunningham was useless. Please quote where I said that any of the OLB's were useless. Saying that one OLB spot needs to be upgraded does NOT = all of the OLB's are useless.

In all, you're trying... but you're coming up lacking.

 

[Synovia]

No, it was an honest question. You don't seem to dislike any of the picks and have been arguing for them vehemently. There is no misrepresentation of your position here. If there is, then what is it about the Patriots draft that you disliked?

I dislike quite a few of the picks. I'm just bright enough to realize that NFL GMs are probably better at evaluating talent than I am. That, and they have WAY MORE INFORMATION than I do.

Instead of answering my question, you try to call me out for a logical fallacy all the while committing a few yourself. As a matter of fact, you commit them throughout this entire post, starting with the next paragraph...



For one, if NFL scouts and coaches were always right, then none of them would ever get fired.

Oh, ho. ANOTHER STRAWMAN. :bricks:

NFL GMs make mistakes all the time. I'm just not arrogant enough to believe (like you do) that you know more about these players than a professional scouting department.

There have been plenty of bad drafts by even good NFL scouts and coaches. This is one of them. For another, Kyle Love is built as the prototypical NFL 3-4 DT. That's what he played in our defense as last year, and that's what he'll continue to play in our defense as. To try to make an argument that he's a prototypical NE DE is laughable. To try to call him a starter is absolutely hilarious.

OH, ho. The second strawman. Where did I claim Kyle Love is a prototypical DE?

How do you know hes not the starter though? Have you asked BB? Neither you or I THINK hes going to be the starter, but in reality, we're both completely ignorant. We don't have any access to the team, we're not there in the meetings. We're not there on the practice field.

Brace was drafted as a NT because the situation with Wilfork was in doubt. He was moved to DE because we badly needed another body there. With that information in mind, why do you not go after a DE that appears to be a perfect fit for your defense when you have the opportunity to do so?

You forgot something there: He appears to be a perfect fit TO YOU. Let me repeat that: TO YOU. To you (and me) who have absolutely no qualifications, no skills in NFL talent evaluation, no access to coaches tape, no access to interviews, physicals, or scouts oppinions.

IE, it appears a perfect fit to those of us who are absolutely ignorant.

If this is the case, then there is no point in arguing about anything at all on this forum. If it's the case, then there is no point in you arguing with me. It doesn't take a professional NFL talent evaluator to see where our problems lied last year. Every competent team that had a running game was ripping off runs to the outside of our defense against the guys that you're trying so hard to defend in order to make it look like Belichick had a great draft.

STRAWMAN 3. You're gonna set a record for claiming I said things I didn't.

I have not defended a single player. What I have said, over and over again, is that you have no idea what Bill Belichick thinks of these players, and whether he views them as long term solutions. Its entirely possible he thinks they all suck, but didn't see any one better. Its also possible he thinks Brace/Deadrick/Love/Pryor/The pizza delivery guy is going to take a step forward and be a real contributor.

For you to claim otherwise is patently absurd. They're young players. We HAVE NO IDEA whether they're going to turn into anything.

This time last year, I was in the exact same debate with people like you over whether or not Gerard Warren was the answer to our woes against the running game on the outside. How did that turn out?

Oh, awesome. Now you're asking me to defend more strawmen. Awesome. Its like a bad zombie movie, they just keep coming and coming.

So instead of a youth movement to insure stability at the position for years to come, we drafted a couple of RB's and a glorified back-up to the guy who just won the MVP award. Good stuff.

Part of a youth movement is you have to let the guys you draft develope. They've drafted a whole bunch of DL over the last couple years.

I'm going by what I and others saw last year with our own two eyes. What did you see last year that told you that Brace, who once again was drafted to play NT but was playing DE due to sheer need, could absolutely, positively be a three down DE?

I'm not gonna count this one, because its really the same as Strawman 1. I never claimed Brace was a 3-down DE. What I DID CLAIM, is that you have no ******* idea whether Bill Belichick thinks he can be, and if BB does think this, then what you think doesn't matter.

The O-Line always has something to say about the running game. But that point was absolutely irrelevant to your original argument. Here's what you said before...

No, the jets showed us what the problem is when you have no running game.

Yet another logical fallacy for a guy that tried to call me out (unsuccessfully) for committing one. For a team with "no running game" we sure did do a pretty good job of churning out a 1,000 yard rusher.

And a 1000 yard rusher is important how? What exactly does having a guy who rushes for 1000 yards get you? A plaque? Maybe a game ball? The Buffalo Bills had a guy rush for 950 yards. They won 4 games.

This is irrelevant to the argument you were trying to make.

Oh, so now you're not even going to bother putting up a strawman. You're not even going to tell me what argument you're saying I'm making. Awesome.

Nate Solder's height is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make. By the way, Solder is 6'8" 319 lbs. Not 6'9" 330. Compare his weight to Matt Light who is 6'4" 305. With the four inch difference, it doesn't appear as if the Pats are going back to trying to "draft big, physical monsters".

Are you really arguing that a 6'9 319lb OT isn't a big physical monster?

If you want to see a strawman, then this is it. Please quote where I said that Jermaine Cunningham was useless. Please quote where I said that any of the OLB's were useless. Saying that one OLB spot needs to be upgraded does NOT = all of the OLB's are useless.

Why do we need to upgrade them (and you're making the huge assumption that a rookie would be an upgrade over anybody) if they're not useless?

 

[The Scrizz]

Not a single one of your answers was accurate. To be fair, the last thing you posted is unproven in either direction.

Wow you sure showed me genius.

Let's look at my answers.

Light is a FA, we don't know if he'll be with the team and is 34 years old. True, true, and true.

My second answer was in response to a stupid, sarcastic strawman so is pretty much impossible to be inaccurate. I did my best considering the drivel I was working with.

My third answer was simply that you keep stating that DE/OLB was the single biggest need. Since you are incapable of proving this, I think my addition of "in your opinion" was warranted and accurate.

And my last answer is not unproven unless you want to provide me with the long list of superstar QB's who won Superbowls in their late 30's. I can help with the research for you on that one. The answer is 4. Unitas, Staubach, Plunkett and Elway. Elway and Staubach did it at 37, Elway again at 38. of course both of Elway's pretty much consisted of handing the ball to Davis and watching his O-Line cut-block guys. But if you're so sure that Brady can play well until he's 40 then I must be inaccurate.

Do you actually know what the word accurate means? Because we've already deduced that you don't know the difference between fact and opinion

 

[Deus Irae]

Wow you sure showed me genius.

Let's look at my answers.

Light is a FA, we don't know if he'll be with the team and is 34 years old. True, true, and true.

Light's 33, and, Yes, Belichick IS, in fact, charged with knowing the future, at least to an extent. That's part of what GMs need to do.

My second answer was in response to a stupid, sarcastic strawman so is pretty much impossible to be inaccurate. I did my best considering the drivel I was working with.

No, it was just absolute garbage on your part. My point was pretty simple. The same people telling others to shut up about criticizing BB because BB knows best are the ones saying that CB was a need. Well, how the hell can CB possibly be a need when the all-but-infallible Bill Belichick has drafted the position?

Since 2007:

Richardson
Wilhite
Wheatley
Butler
McCourty

PLUS the signing of Bodden.

In addition, Belichick claimed that he had received phone calls regarding the pick, and it was reported that the Raiders were trying to work out a trade for the pick. So, the possibility of trading down, for "value", was there too.

Using the Homer logic, there's simply no way in hell that CB was a need. Instead, the team drafted a CB for the 6th time in 5 years, and used a top 2 round pick for the 4th year in a row.

My third answer was simply that you keep stating that DE/OLB was the single biggest need. Since you are incapable of proving this, I think my addition of "in your opinion" was warranted and accurate.

No, you made other arguments. "OLB take forever to develop in this system" and "which is why most of our good ones have come from FA".

Well, Colvin developed in the system despite a hip injury and Thomas develop before his injury, and both did it the first season they were healthy and available. Additionally, Cunningham clearly made improvements over the course of last year. So much for taking forever.

As for the "most of out good ones have come from FA", that ignores the obvious reason: Belichick hasn't been drafting the position.

So, again, you were inaccurate.

And my last answer is not unproven unless you want to provide me with the long list of superstar QB's who won Superbowls in their late 30's. I can help with the research for you on that one. The answer is 4. Unitas, Staubach, Plunkett and Elway. Elway and Staubach did it at 37, Elway again at 38. of course both of Elway's pretty much consisted of handing the ball to Davis and watching his O-Line cut-block guys. But if you're so sure that Brady can play well until he's 40 then I must be inaccurate.

Your 4th comment was incorrect because I don't believe what you used as your snarky claim "How many rookies does a 14-2 need? I know the answer is 1, as long as it's a "pass rusher"". The QB comment was a bit stupid because it ignores so many components as to be useless, but I've been saying DE AND OLB, and I haven't been focused solely on pass rusher. In other words, you just didn't know what you were talking about.

Do you actually know what the word accurate means? Because we've already deduced that you don't know the difference between fact and opinion

Obviously I know what the word means. Obviously you need a refresher course on its meaning. And obviously you fail to understand that "in my opinion" is understood in an OPINION post.

 

[Synovia]

Obviously I know what the term word means. Obviously you need a refresher course on its meaning. And obviously you fail to understand that "opinion" is understood in an OPINION post.

It stops being an "opinion post" when you keep calling things fact Deus.

 

[Ring 6]

Light's 33, and, Yes, Belichick IS, in fact, charged with knowing the future, at least to an extent. That's part of what GMs need to do.

But you want him to not only know the future but know the future you are wishing for.
You are out of your mind if you think a GM would bank on a FA coming back, particularly one that is very involved in the union* during a labor dispute.
You apparently want his to be negligent so you can pretend LT isnt a need.

No, it was just absolute garbage on your part. My point was pretty simple. The same people telling others to shut up about criticizing BB because BB knows best are the ones saying that CB was a need. Well, how the hell can CB possibly be a need when the all-but-infallible Bill Belichick has drafted the position?

Since 2007:

Richardson
Wilhite
Wheatley
Butler
McCourty

PLUS the signing of Bodden.

Please show all the comments that say BB has never made a pick that turned out bad.
You create the infallible strawman then use it to argue against other strawmen. Quite a feat.

In addition, Belichick claimed that he had received phone calls regarding the pick, and it was reported that the Raiders were trying to work out a trade for the pick. So, the possibility of trading down, for "value", was there too.

So? He picked who he wanted. He had almost 24 hours to trade, or to pick someone else, and he choose Dowling. I think he is pretty certain that was best for his team.

Using the Homer logic, there's simply no way in hell that CB was a need. Instead, the team drafted a CB for the 6th time in 5 years, and used a top 2 round pick for the 4th year in a row.

So now he is supposed to decide where needs are by looking at the round players were drafted in instead of how they actually train, practice and play?
BB is trying to win football games, not a silly argument with Deus Irae.

 

[The Scrizz]

Light's 33, and, Yes, Belichick IS, in fact, charged with knowing the future, at least to an extent. That's part of what GMs need to do.



No, it was just absolute garbage on your part. My point was pretty simple. The same people telling others to shut up about criticizing BB because BB knows best are the ones saying that CB was a need. Well, how the hell can CB possibly be a need when the all-but-infallible Bill Belichick has drafted the position?

Since 2007:

Richardson
Wilhite
Wheatley
Butler
McCourty

PLUS the signing of Bodden.

In addition, Belichick claimed that he had received phone calls regarding the pick, and it was reported that the Raiders were trying to work out a trade for the pick. So, the possibility of trading down, for "value", was there too.

Using the Homer logic, there's simply no way in hell that CB was a need. Instead, the team drafted a CB for the 6th time in 5 years, and used a top 2 round pick for the 4th year in a row.

You must be trying to be obtuse here. Has anybody said that Belichick always picks the right player? Or that some players don't develop because of injuries or other factors? No. The argument is that the leader of the team assuredly knows what his team needs more than some random internet poster.

By your own logic we should never have to add another DE because, to use your time frame, since 2007, he has added:
Kareem Brown
Ron Brace
Myron Pryor
Daryl Richard
Brandon Deaderick
Plus the signings of Warren, Stroud, Damion Lewis,

All despite already having spent first rounders on Ty warren, Seymour, etc.

Given what we know about what the broncos got to move down (a 4th, and a 5th), plus Buffalo selecting a CB right after us, it is very likely that Belichick didn't think there was ENOUGH value to move down.



No, you made other arguments. "OLB take forever to develop in this system" and "which is why most of our good ones have come from FA".

Well, Colvin developed in the system despite a hip injury and Thomas develop before his injury, and both did it the first season they were healthy and available. Additionally, Cunningham clearly made improvements over the course of last year. So much for taking forever.

As for the "most of out good ones have come from FA", that ignores the obvious reason: Belichick hasn't been drafting the position.

So, again, you were inaccurate.

Thomas was already a 3-4 OLB in case you hadn't heard and the fact that Colvin had been in the league for years probably gave them a better idea of what he was capable of then trying to figure out whether a college player who has never done it before can do it.

Obviously you are deliberately misrepresenting my point which was that rookie OLB typically take forever to develop in this system because you are making my point by using FA as an example.

Also, the fact that Cunningham is the only top 2-round OLB conversion that Bill has done and he developed as quickly as he did may tell you that he knows what he's looking for and when he passes on crap like Brooks Reed he knows what he's doing.



Your 4th comment was incorrect because I don't believe what you used as your snarky claim "How many rookies does a 14-2 need? I know the answer is 1, as long as it's a "pass rusher"". The QB comment was a bit stupid because it ignores so many components as to be useless, but I've been saying DE AND OLB, and I haven't been focused solely on pass rusher. In other words, you just didn't know what you were talking about.

My snark was in response to your utter lack of reasoning. You again ignore all of the facts about QB's once they hit 35 and choose to focus on the fact that you are mad because they didn't take a front 7 player which, you, not Belichick, sees as their biggest weakness. There is a good chance we will need Mallet in the near future, believe it or not.

Obviously I know what the word means. Obviously you need a refresher course on its meaning. And obviously you fail to understand that "in my opinion" is understood in an OPINION post.

LOL, now it's an opinion post, but I'm inaccurate because I disagree with your "facts". Way to keep jerking that football Lucy.

 

[Observer]

So because so of his picks haven't panned out he should ignore the area where he made those picks? That sounds like your argument. Nobody has said he is infallible.

FALSE.

I am a new poster but I have been reading this forum for several years now.

People might not claim directly that BB is infallible but plenty take it as a given that his moves are above questioning. In other words - his choices are not questionable, i.e. they are infallible.

Any time someone here questions anything that BB does, they swarm in and try to "argue" why he was right and there was no better alternative. The "argument" goes as follows:

1. BB is a genius. Look at his track record. (Insert how many championships he has won, how we are contenders every year, etc.). Do you think you know more than he does?

Example:

"It means that someone who forgot more than you know about it says he does."

"He appears to be a perfect fit TO YOU. Let me repeat that: TO YOU. To you (and me) who have absolutely no qualifications, no skills in NFL talent evaluation, no access to coaches tape, no access to interviews, physicals, or scouts oppinions. "

2. Does not matter what other choices you think could have been made. Since BB made the choice, that must have been the right one. What? You dare disagree? See point 1.

Examples:

"I trust in BB. if he didn't see a difference making pass rusher at their pick slot then I'll assume he knows more then I do and let the chips fall as they may."

"Again, if they were the teams most pressing needs you most likely would have seen it get addressed. "

"Are you suggesting that BB doesnt know what type of OL he wants?"


Clearly the "argument" is that since BB who is a genius drafted the guy then the pick has to be a good one. That is not an argument at all. That is a definition - you are basically defining a good pick as one that BB makes. BB's Midas touch automatically turns Markell Carter into the perfect choice at that position - clearly there was no one better or he wouldn't have taken him, right?

If that is the argument then there is no point in filling pages and pages of the board here. You might as well sit at home in front of the TV and clap your hands at everything like a wind-up monkey toy. At least some of the people have arguments for why certain players were better than others based on their evaluation of what makes the team better and why. Unlike some people who just say because it was BB's choice hence that makes the team better, and all sorts of ludicrous claims come out not only about the present but about the future as well.

Example:

The statement:
"Kyle Love is a DT. Not a full time DE. And he's a back-up at best. "
Leads to the response:
"So you, esteemed NFL scout, already know what a 24 year old kid's ceiling as football player is? "

Wow... at least develop your own thoughts about why the players are good or bad for a change. We have already seen what BB thinks is the best, you don't have to repeat it ad infinitum...

 

[The Scrizz]

Maybe you should stick to observing. There is a difference between having the common sense to realize that Belichick knows more about football in general and his team and team needs specifically than ANY poster on this board and being able to recognize mistakes that he has made.

Find me anyone who thinks that the Duane Starks move was a good one. Or Derrick Burgess. One person, and I'll concede the point. People recognize the errors he has made all the time and aren't shy about pointing them out. Perhaps you use the same dictionary as the God of Wrath. Look up infallible and get back to me.

Here's the thing though. His successes so far outweigh his failures that it is insane for ANY poster or media member, including draft 'experts' to sit here on the day of the draft and claim that they know better than he what this team needs.

It's delusional arrogance. Because no matter how much you want to be right when you write up your little mock draft, it is in fact true that you nor anyone else here has the knowledge that Belichick has. Give me a single good reason to put more weight into the opinion of any member of this forum over the guy who runs the most successful team of the last decade. You can't because it makes no logical sense.

I'm sorry if it hurts the feelings of anybody who posts here but perhaps expressing surprise at a pick or discussing what reasons BB might have for passing on a guy would generate a useful discussion as opposed to the tired whining of how crappy our draft was and how could BB be so stupid as to pass up this guy I loved because I read about him on the internet and saw some youtube clips of him.

If you've been here for any amount of time I'm sure you've read all the hysterical *****ing when people don't get the pick they wanted. It's laughable and that's why they get smacked down by the cold hard truth that they don't know 1/1,000 as much as Bill Belichick.

 

[Observer]

Find me anyone who thinks that the Duane Starks move was a good one. Or Derrick Burgess. One person, and I'll concede the point.

Really?
"How dope is this? Burgess definitely has the pass rushing ability as his back to back double digit sack campaigns would point out. Assuming the Pats didn't give up too much, this is a great move for the Pats."

"Very good move.. this team is getting deeper.. the additions of Galloway, Taylor and the TE's make this team scary deep.."

"Its funny how people overstate and bemoan any issues (we can never stop anyone on 3rd down, red zone defense sucks, qbas have all day to throw) then undervalue the problem when it gets addressed.
I'll take 20 pass rushes and no run defending from him if they are 20 effective pass rushes, because that will keep points of the board, and the defense off the field.
We didn;t trade a 3rd round pick for an entire defense, just a piece of it."

The point is not about if someone is right or not. All the above quotes were taken from around the time that Burgess was acquired. You yourself just said BB was wrong on Burgess but at the time of the acquisition many thought he made a great move. Similarly, those that said that some of the draft picks taken a couple of days ago do not make the team better may be proven to be right in the future.

The point is that it is just not a valid argument to simply dismiss contrary opinion by saying that BB knows better. It would be a lot more enlightening to argue from the foundation of your own opinion about the strengths and weaknesses of the team and the merits and demerits of the available players as you see them. What BB thought was the best, we just saw already. That part is done, we cannot change it; come fall we will all be cheering for the same players whether we preferred them today or not. That does not mean that we should not talk about whether things could have been done better based on our own understanding of the team and the players.

 

[supafly]

Really?
"How dope is this? Burgess definitely has the pass rushing ability as his back to back double digit sack campaigns would point out. Assuming the Pats didn't give up too much, this is a great move for the Pats."

"Very good move.. this team is getting deeper.. the additions of Galloway, Taylor and the TE's make this team scary deep.."

"Its funny how people overstate and bemoan any issues (we can never stop anyone on 3rd down, red zone defense sucks, qbas have all day to throw) then undervalue the problem when it gets addressed.
I'll take 20 pass rushes and no run defending from him if they are 20 effective pass rushes, because that will keep points of the board, and the defense off the field.
We didn;t trade a 3rd round pick for an entire defense, just a piece of it."

The point is not about if someone is right or not. All the above quotes were taken from around the time that Burgess was acquired. You yourself just said BB was wrong on Burgess but at the time of the acquisition many thought he made a great move. Similarly, those that said that some of the draft picks taken a couple of days ago do not make the team better may be proven to be right in the future.

The point is that it is just not a valid argument to simply dismiss contrary opinion by saying that BB knows better. It would be a lot more enlightening to argue from the foundation of your own opinion about the strengths and weaknesses of the team and the merits and demerits of the available players as you see them. What BB thought was the best, we just saw already. That part is done, we cannot change it; come fall we will all be cheering for the same players whether we preferred them today or not. That does not mean that we should not talk about whether things could have been done better based on our own understanding of the team and the players.

I personally have no problem whatsoever with your thoughts and opinions regarding Belichick--hey it is a free country right???

My main argument is that right, wrong, or indifferent, he has provided us with many, many great Sunday afternoons where there's an extremely high percentage of winning. Couple that with putting us into playoff contention almost every single year, and you obviously have someone who knows what they're doing. (And I didn't even bring up the SB's)

I do not think he can 'do no wrong,' etc..I simply think that he knows what he wants for the team, and does a better job at it than most of the other 31 coaches and front offices.

Of course we all realize that he's human, and that he makes mistakes too, but at the end of the day I wouldn't ever want anyone else. I seriously DO trust him and his football judgment, it's not ball washing.

 

[Synovia]

Really?
"How dope is this? Burgess definitely has the pass rushing ability as his back to back double digit sack campaigns would point out. Assuming the Pats didn't give up too much, this is a great move for the Pats."

"Very good move.. this team is getting deeper.. the additions of Galloway, Taylor and the TE's make this team scary deep.."

"Its funny how people overstate and bemoan any issues (we can never stop anyone on 3rd down, red zone defense sucks, qbas have all day to throw) then undervalue the problem when it gets addressed.
I'll take 20 pass rushes and no run defending from him if they are 20 effective pass rushes, because that will keep points of the board, and the defense off the field.
We didn;t trade a 3rd round pick for an entire defense, just a piece of it."

The point is not about if someone is right or not. All the above quotes were taken from around the time that Burgess was acquired. You yourself just said BB was wrong on Burgess but at the time of the acquisition many thought he made a great move. Similarly, those that said that some of the draft picks taken a couple of days ago do not make the team better may be proven to be right in the future.
.

You missed the point. Find someone who STILL thinks the Burgess move worked out well, and you'll have someone who thinks BB is infallible.


None of us can see the future.

 

[The Scrizz]

You missed the point. Find someone who STILL thinks the Burgess move worked out well, and you'll have someone who thinks BB is infallible.


None of us can see the future.

Thank you. My whole point was about giving him the benefit of the doubt at the time of the move.

It's not hard to understand. We give him the benefit of the doubt now, reserving the right to crap all over the move later.

Of course Observer ignored the question that he couldn't twist the meaning of.

Give me a single good reason to put more weight into the opinion of any member of this forum over the guy who runs the most successful team of the last decade.

 

[Shelterdog]

You missed the point. Find someone who STILL thinks the Burgess move worked out well, and you'll have someone who thinks BB is infallible.

None of us can see the future.

The only possible defense of the Burgess move at this point is that BB knowingly overpaid to maintain the Davis connection (e.g. Al said "give me the third of I never trade with you again).

It's a weird deal because every other deal with the Raiders was so obviously a steal for the Pats and in that one deal we pretty clearly overpaid for an ok but agin player.