CHFF: Pulse of the 2008 Pats

[Deus Irae]

Re: CHFFulse of the 2008 Pats

Unfortunately CHFF is Pats-centric and true to it's "cold, hard" name. When the Pats were dominant they wrote about their dominance. When the Pats were struggling they wrote about that. So over the past 4 years they've leaned more towards "Pats struggling". Keep in mind it's "struggling" relative to the SB-winning years.

1.) It's not all Patriots stuff, and it's still declining in quality

2.) Several of their recent Patriots posts have been either based upon slanting the data or just outright making crap up. Here's a perfect example from the post that started this thread:

And here in 2008, they became the best team in the Super Bowl Era that failed to reach the playoffs.


That’s a long list of negative superlatives in recent years.

How the hell is being 11-5 without Brady and being the best team in the Super Bowl era to fail to reach the playoffs supposed to be a negative superlative?

That's just shoddy writing to defend a poorly defended premise. I mean, the assertion about the defense post 2004 Super Bowl is just completely idiotic, and the writer has to know that.

In 2005, 3 of the top 5 draft picks were on defensive players. 6 out of 11 free agents signed were defensive players.

In 2007, both draft picks in the first 4 rounds that were actually used for drafting were used on defensive players. 5 of the 9 free agents signed were defensive players

In 2008, 4 of the top 5 draft picks were on defensive players. 4 of the 7 free agents signed were defensive players.

So, the only year one could point to a dearth of defensive players would be 2006, where they took 3 defensive players in the draft, but they were low in the draft. Of course, 4 of the 8 free agent signings were defensive players, including Junior Seau.

My problem with CHFF isn't that they aren't praising the Patriots, or that they make a claim that the Dynasty is on the back nine. My problem with CHFF is that they are doing precisely the kind of shoddy, "I'm a hack, but I have a job" work that they used to pummel Prisco for doing.

 

[PYPER]

In my eyes, the biggest difference is the secondary. When was the last time we've seen a Patriots DB deliver a knockout blow to an opposing WR. In 2003 (our best defensive year) that was a regular occurance. Wilson was a beast in his rookie year.

During the SB years, we were the most physical team in the league but we've lost that physicality.. We never seem to have big hits anymore.

Our DL is fine, we just need to keep investing day one picks on DB and LB.

 

[Fencer]

Re: CHFFulse of the 2008 Pats

What an intellectually dishonest line of crap that guy's selling.

Was our defense a liability this year? Yes. But it doesn't logically follow that the Pats haven't been putting enough effort or resources into it. Not all investments deliver returns at equal rates, after all.

Look, since Belichick took over, here's how our 1st round picks have gone:

Offense:
Dan Graham, TE (21st)
Ben Watson, TE (32st)
Logan Mankins, OT (32nd)
Laurence Maroney, RB (21st)

Richard Seymour, DE (7th)
Ty Warren, DE (13th)
Vince Wilfork (21st)
Brandon Merriweather (24th)
Jerod Mayo (10th)

Notice a trend? Any time the Pats have picked in the top half of the draft, they've gone defense. So the 5 picks to 4 split is even more favored towards the defensive end in terms of overall value.

Now, let's look at major FA acquisitions. The Pats gave up top market level contracts to Rosevelt Colvin in '03, and Adalius Thomas in '07. Can you name a single time the Pats paid out a big, long-term contract to an offensive FA? The closest we really came was Donte' Stallworth, but the Pats bailed on that before having to pay any serious bonus money.

What about trades, you ask. For the offense, the Pats traded 2nd rounds picks for Corey Dillon + Wes Welker, and a 4th round pick for Randy Moss, but also traded WR Deion Branch for a 1st round pick. On the defensive end, the Pats traded a 4th round player for Ted Washington, a 3rd round player for Duane Starks.

What stands out here isn't a disproportionate value of draft picks being invested in the offense so much as a RIDICULOUSLY high rate of returns on the offensive side. Wes Welker for a 2nd now is recognizable as a steal, and Randy Moss for a 4th was an absurdly lucky circumstance -- do you think if a disgruntled Ed Reed were available for a 4th and $3 million, that Belichick wouldn't have pulled the trigger on that one?

Meanwhile, the disproportionate rate of returns has also run the same way in terms of bargain-basement FA pickups. The Pats sign guys like Fernando Bryant, Monte Beisel, Chad Brown, Chad Scott, etc. and none of them work out. Meanwhile, Jabar Gaffney, Sammie Morris and now Lamont Jordan all seem to pan out rather well considering their low initial cost.

So before you go spouting off about some "unholy deal with the devil" about improving the offense at the expense of the defense, why don't you take the time to briefly go over the actual resources devoted to each, instead of just assuming that because the defense has made you unhappy, it must therefore have been neglected.

Those were my thoughts too.

In one small way you overstate the case, in that the Seymour and Warren picks were longer ago than the others. Also, the high 2nd that was Chad Jackson could perhaps be added to the ledger.

On the other hand, the majority of low 2nds and 3rds have been spent defensively (I think Kaczur and David Thomas are the only exceptions, if we don't go all the way back to Bethel Johnson).

 

[dtbrks]

I can't wait until next year when the Pats dominate the NFL again and we can all look back and laugh on all of these "experts" predicting the pats demise.

 

[borg]

Over the past couple years...the D has been....awful on 3rd down, awful in the redzone, awful creating turnovers and the pass rush this year was anemic. The draft position of the Pats over the last few years has prevented them drafting a multi tooled speed rusher, so they went the high dollar free agent route with Colvin and Thomas, but FAs have mileage on their bones no matter their caliber. Just one time I would love the pats to be in position to get a Suggs like player (Willie was as close as they got). Have you noticed the stud DE/OLBs are all in the playoffs this year (except Ware). 10 of the top 12 sack leaders' teams are in the playoffs. The formula seems simple, get to the QB often and make the playoffs.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Dynasties that stand pat age into oblivion. The Patriots needed to rebuild or more accurately construct a Super bowl dominant Offense. That project was completed in 2007, when the Offense was rated as the #1 in the league. It only got stronger in 2008 and is still very young, while adding depth at RB, WR, OLine, oh and ALSO, QB.

Then Bill and Scott had to turn their attention to the Defense. It was the stronger unit and the historical source of their winning. It was also composed of older veterans, that just got too old. So they had farther to go and began really in the mid decade, but in earnest only in 2008. Major strides have been made. The only vacancies are at S, ILB, OLB and CB. And there may be even have realistic candidates for the OLB and CB on board, that merely need some experience.

But there will probably be 4-5 high draft picks allocated to address those limited concerns. The Defense is getting stronger and will march further up the list from number 10, that it already occupies in the midst of reconstruction.

In decline ? :disagreement:

No, but the pause for retooling is now over. The Patriots are constructing a Team which is a Juggernaut that is much stronger than any the Patriots have fielded. Watch out NFL. :beatingcoming:

 

[Kontradiction]

Eh, they see a struggling defense, I see a rebuilding one. Glass half/full, half/empty. The defensive side of the ball looked pretty decent at the beginning of the season before the injuries started taking their toll.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: CHFFulse of the 2008 Pats

Sadly, all the other teams in the NFL would give their right testicle just to have a 'failing' record like that, but here it's a sign of decay. I don't see a downward trend

first four years, 2001-2004 = 3 superbowl wins

next four years, 2005- 2008 = 0 superbowl wins

And you don't see a downward trend?

How about the Cowboys? I guess they're not on a downward trend from the mid-nineties either.

No one is saying the Pats can't compete and win more superbowls, but they will have to reverse the downward trend.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: CHFFulse of the 2008 Pats

first four years, 2001-2004 = 3 superbowl wins

next four years, 2005- 2008 = 0 superbowl wins

And you don't see a downward trend?

How about the Cowboys? I guess they're not on a downward trend from the mid-nineties either.

No one is saying the Pats can't compete and win more superbowls, but they will have to reverse the downward trend.

The longest winning streak in NFL history.

The first 16-0 regular season in NFL history.

Most points scored in a single regular season in NFL history.

That's only a downward trend to the ignorant or the foolish.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

It's a "negative superlative" to say best team not to make the playoffs. Get it?

The trouble is CHFF has a negative superlative confused with a superlative negative. For example, the Lions are the worst team ever. (Not to make the playoffs, mind you, just the worst team ever.)

The root of the problem is winning 3 super bowls in 4 years. From that point onward any time you don't win the super bowl, you're "on the back 9."

In all fairness I also take issue with (but with hope in my heart like to agree with) the guys who say "Hey no problem next year we get Brady back, we get Harrison back, we get AD back, everything's sunshine and unicorns and I'm belchin' rainbows and crappin' cupcakes."

Serious objective reality: We don't know Brady's progress. You guys will hate for me to say it, but for all we know he's done. For all we know he's a year out from playing. And for all we know he's on the field in superstar form on day 1. We just don't know.

But we turned up a legit NFL QB -- not Tom Brady, but a legit QB -- in the process. We drafted the DROY. Merriwether is coming along nicely... many other young players showed flashes.

What the Patriots are, is one of the better teams in football, but (ouch it hurts to say,) not the best. In one way we'll continue to have a lead over most of the league: this team is still superbly disciplined and focused, year in and year out. You just have to watch the jaw-flapping idiots of the league to realize that the Pats' culture instills a businesslike intensity in players. That's part of what has everybody from Moss to Mayo talking about what they can do to get better (not what bad call the ref made or what car they have or whatever.)

The Pats stand to be one of the better teams in football for a few more years at least, even in a worst-case scenario in which we enter the Cassel era.

There is one story people should be writing, and that's "Holy crap, you lose Brady you're supposed to collapse... you went 11-5 and dominated in crunch time? Ho-leee-crap."

If the equivalent happened to the Jags or the Bills or some nondescript team, that is what the story would be, and we would have a national pity party about them not making the playoffs.

But it's not. It's the Pats. So the easy angle on every story is "oh you did okay but why didn't you win the super bowl?"

At least now it's not followed by "Oh that's right because you didn't cheat" anymore.

pFnV

 

[richpats]

Serious objective reality: We don't know Brady's progress. You guys will hate for me to say it, but for all we know he's done. For all we know he's a year out from playing. And for all we know he's on the field in superstar form on day 1. We just don't know.

Thank you. I was grilled on another thread for suggesting he could retire. There is a lot of uncertainty about his knee, and the franchising of Cassel would just create more uncertainty. If we let Cassel walk then Brady and the Pats have 100% faith in his recovery for Week 1. But I don't see that happening.