Bodden says he wants market value

[spacecrime]

Informative article. I can't say I blame his "show me the money" attitude, but to go to a loser?

I don't understand it, either. The purpose of making money is to use is to have a happy life, for you and yours.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think I would enjoy life a lot more winning games than losing them.

Not that I would play for nothing, but really, will making 25 million dollars make me happier than making $20 million?

I think a lot of players suffer from severe self-esteem issues, and equate money with respect.

I just don't get the attitude of having to go work for the highest bidder. I should be able to CHOOSE who I want to work for, and not make it totally about money.

Derrick Mason did this. Bruschi. Others. To me, it is smart to control your own life, but I know most people will let themselves be controlled by who has the biggest checkbook.

If I were Bodden, after being 0-16, I would only sign with a perrrenial playoff contender.

 

[Deus Irae]

Bodden is a solid corner. Excellent technique and terrific recovery speed and instincts. We have to sign him. I expect to see Bodden and Butler next year.

I think Pees' passive defensive philosophy didn't put Bodden in the position to make alot of game changing plays, so this will mean his FA price tag won't be as lucrative as it could have been with a better DC . Hence I think we should thank Pees for possibly not pricing us out of retaining Bodden!

Signing Bodden is no. 2 priority behind Wilfork I think.

Please stop with the "passive defensive philosophy" stuff:

1. The Patriots sent five or more rushers 41.3 percent of the time. That ranked them as the seventh-most blitzing team in the NFL.

2. The league average for blitzing was 34.8 percent.

Patriots ranked 7th in NFL in blitzing - Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

The team played the schemes, and made the calls, it thought it needed to play in order to win.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

the pats should spend that $$ on a pass rush

 

[ausbacker]

Please stop with the "passive defensive philosophy" stuff:



Patriots ranked 7th in NFL in blitzing - Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

The team played the schemes, and made the calls, it thought it needed to play in order to win.

Deus, you should know better than most that sending blitzers and actually putting pressure on, sacking or forcing the quarterback into a bad decision is when it becomes effective. To my naked eye, our blitzing attack wasn't particularly effective. It consisted of Tully Banta-Cain and that was it.

 

[Miguel]

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Under the Cap: Top Ten Cornerbacks

may be of help.

 

[Kontradiction]

Deus, you should know better than most that sending blitzers and actually putting pressure on, sacking or forcing the quarterback into a bad decision is when it becomes effective. To my naked eye, our blitzing attack wasn't particularly effective. It consisted of Tully Banta-Cain and that was it.

Not really sure where you're going with this. Maybe you should go back and read it again. The poster he quoted was saying that Pees ran a "passive style of defense". Deus then posted the links stating that the Pats were in the top ten for most blitzes called in the league. So Pees, by definition, ran an aggressive style of defense. The fact that our guys couldn't get there says more about the personnel rather than the scheme.

 

[ausbacker]

Not really sure where you're going with this. Maybe you should go back and read it again. The poster he quoted was saying that Pees ran a "passive style of defense". Deus then posted the links stating that the Pats were in the top ten for most blitzes called in the league. So Pees, by definition, ran an aggressive style of defense. The fact that our guys couldn't get there says more about the personnel rather than the scheme.

I read it exactly. Calling blitzes from the Patriots all this season was hardly aggressive IMO. How often did we truly trouble or really disrupt a good passing team? By definition I agree, by execution I do not.

I don't think we were passive or aggressive. I think it was vanilla to be honest.

 

[emoney_33]

I read it exactly. Calling blitzes from the Patriots all this season was hardly aggressive IMO. How often did we truly trouble or really disrupt a good passing team? By definition I agree, by execution I do not.

I don't think we were passive or aggressive. I think it was vanilla to be honest.

I am so confused

 

[Kontradiction]

I read it exactly. Calling blitzes from the Patriots all this season was hardly aggressive IMO. How often did we truly trouble or really disrupt a good passing team? By definition I agree, by execution I do not.

I don't think we were passive or aggressive. I think it was vanilla to be honest.

Since the argument is coming from definition, then he is right. The defense was aggressive. By my eye, Pees tried everything he could in order to disrupt the flow of the offense. He tried everything from sending 6-7 guys all the way to the UFO defense. Nothing worked. The reason for this is because TBC was realistically the only guy we could depend on to get into the backfield. The argument and statement were in regards to whether or not Pees called an aggressive defense. Well, Pees DID call an aggressive defense. The numbers support that claim. Our defense didn't execute correctly. But, last I checked, Pees was not on the field "executing".

 

[ausbacker]

I am so confused

Look at a man, then look at a woman and which ever one appeals to you more then you have your answer.

 

[ausbacker]

Since the argument is coming from definition, then he is right. The defense was aggressive. By my eye, Pees tried everything he could in order to disrupt the flow of the offense. He tried everything from sending 6-7 guys all the way to the UFO defense. Nothing worked. The reason for this is because TBC was realistically the only guy we could depend on to get into the backfield. The argument and statement were in regards to whether or not Pees called an aggressive defense. Well, Pees DID call an aggressive defense. The numbers support that claim. Our defense didn't execute correctly. But, last I checked, Pees was not on the field "executing".

I fail to see where I've said Pees didn't call an aggressive defense? By definition yes, by player execution no. I thought I was passing comment on effective blitzing and then by my own definition calling the defensive philosophy vanilla to my naked eye.

Perhaps I should have elaborated that whilst the playcall by Pees was deemed aggressive, the execution by the players hardly made it an aggressive call.

 

[Kontradiction]

I fail to see where I've said Pees didn't call an aggressive defense? By definition yes, by player execution no. I thought I was passing comment on effective blitzing and then by my own definition calling the defensive philosophy vanilla to my naked eye.

Perhaps I should have elaborated that whilst the playcall by Pees was deemed aggressive, the execution by the players hardly made it an aggressive call.

Well, for reference sake, here is the original post in question...

Bodden is a solid corner. Excellent technique and terrific recovery speed and instincts. We have to sign him, CBs just aren't expendable like RBs and punters are. I expect to see Bodden and Butler next year.

I think Pees' passive defensive philosophy didn't put Bodden in the position to make alot of game changing plays, so this will mean his FA price tag won't be as lucrative as it could have been with a better DC . Hence I think we should thank Pees for possibly not pricing us out of retaining Bodden!

Signing Bodden is no. 2 priority behind Wilfork I think.

My whole point is that bringing up player execution here is kind of pointless, to be honest. Pees did call an aggressive defense. The player execution didn't really have anything to do with him, outside of a motivation factor (which I don't think there was). It's a completely separate subject, which is just one of the reasons why I made that thread the other day pointing out what talent can do for a mediocre coach. However, you do seem to agree that Pees defensive philosophy was aggressive so I'll just let it go.

 

[ausbacker]

Well, for reference sake, here is the original post in question...

My whole point is that bringing up player execution here is kind of pointless, to be honest. Pees did call an aggressive defense. The player execution didn't really have anything to do with him, outside of a motivation factor (which I don't think there was). It's a completely separate subject, which is just one of the reasons why I made that thread the other day pointing out what talent can do for a mediocre coach. However, you do seem to agree that Pees defensive philosophy was aggressive so I'll just let it go.

Yeah you have a fair point. I'm happy to agree with the comment that Pees by definition called an aggressive defense. We'll blame the rest on those useless 11 that couldn't execute it . I'm sure the rest we can cover elsewhere!

 

[Brady_12]

I'm sure I've read this before but it all comes down to pass rush. IMHO our secondary -- Willhite aside -- would have performed very well if there was anything resembling consistent pressure on the opposing QB...

Pay Wilfork, pay Bodden, get a pash rush (and improve the OL) through FA and draft, and maybe we're back to "elite" status.

Geez, it sounds so simple...

 

[billdog3484]

He should get the market value of a number two corner since that's, realistically, what Bodden is.

probly true, but if youre him, or his agent, you aint buying that

 

[RayClay]

Yup.

ProFootballFocus.com - By Position

Yes I would.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Pay the man or Draft a corner high, either way im happy.

 

[PatsChamp88]

He should get the market value of a number two corner since that's, realistically, what Bodden is. Still not sure why we let Hobbs (who was a #2 corner and one of the best return guys in the NFL before injury last season) go then decided to bring him in. However, Bodden is a solid corner. I would not pay him #1 corner money (as I expect Butler to improve into next season and earn a starting role), but I would pay him as a #2 corner. Will the team do that? We shall see. It all depends on what Bodden considers "market value" for his services...

"I'll just say that the Ellis Hobbs trade was not something that we anticipated," said Belichick. "It was just one of those things that, based on the way things went and where our team was and what the opportunity was with Philadelphia, we thought that was the best thing to do for our team."

The Patriots sent the fifth-rounders they acquired from Philadelphia to the Baltimore Ravens for a fourth-round pick (No. 123), which was used to select Penn State guard/center Rich Ohrnberger, and a sixth-round pick (No. 198), which they used to select long snapper Jake Ingram of Hawaii.

Yeah personally the trade still somewhat puzzles me as well but I suppose it was too good of a value to pass up. Hobbs ended up not contributing much for the Eagles and landed on IR with an injury however I think he would have contributed significantly more here. I really thought heading into the season with having Hobbs and Bodden with Hobbs still at kick returner would have helped because we were constantly rotating the second corner spot and toying with the kick returner spot. FYI without a new CBA Hobbs will be a RFA.

 

[RayClay]

Anybody that thinks BB was fine going into the season with Hobbs, but decided 2 fifth round picks was just too good to pass up, I've got some great swampfront property in Florida to sell you.

Great swimming when the alligators are napping.

 

[muzz]

Anybody that thinks BB was fine going into the season with Hobbs, but decided 2 fifth round picks was just too good to pass up, I've got some great swampfront property in Florida to sell you.

Great swimming when the alligators are napping.

No worries, The Gators there are like the Pats DL.........they'll never get to ya!