Consensus SB Favorites A Few Days Ago

[Deus Irae]

I used to respect your opinion Deus. I'm not so sure anymore.

1.) This trade clearly weakens the defensive line this season.

2.) The defensive line was the only part of the defense that wasn't a question mark going into the season.

3.) The team just drafted 12 players, including 4 in the second round. All of them have either made the team or the practice squad. Next season, the team has a first round pick and 3 more second round picks, along with a 4th, 6th and 7th. It already had all of its 2011 picks plus an additional 7th round pick from the Dave Thomas trade. Not having an extra #1 in 2011 was not going to be the end of the world or the end of BB's machinations.

4.) The pick is in 2011. Think about that. Everyone praising that pick seems to be missing something. Right after that draft, the CBA is over. That means that there's no contractual certainty for anyone taken in that draft. That means....

5.) 2010 is likely to see a huge influx of college players declaring early, which will likely leave 2011 as a very weak draft.

So, instead of:

Trading Seymour prior to this past draft and getting players from this draft
Keeping Seymour for one last run and then franchising and trading him this offseason
Keeping Seymour for one last run and then letting him walk
Keeping Seymour and then paying him next year in an uncapped year

the team worried about its pocket and pushed this whole thing out for 2 years.

For the sake of possible rookie contract savings in a CBA that could well be something other than what the Patriots anticipate, the team weakened itself for this year, for certain, and for next year had it just paid him the money.

Why on Earth would you respect my opinion if I DIDN'T have reservations about this trade?

 

[glm]

I find it hilarious when people say this was a bad decision when one game hasn't even been played yet.

 

[Ring 6]

1.) This trade clearly weakens the defensive line this season.

2.) The defensive line was the only part of the defense that wasn't a question mark going into the season.

3.) The team just drafted 12 players, including 4 in the second round. All of them have either made the team or the practice squad. Next season, the team has a first round pick and 3 more second round picks, along with a 4th, 6th and 7th. It already had all of its 2011 picks plus an additional 7th round pick from the Dave Thomas trade. Not having an extra #1 in 2011 was not going to be the end of the world or the end of BB's machinations.

4.) The pick is in 2011. Think about that. Everyone praising that pick seems to be missing something. Right after that draft, the CBA is over. That means that there's no contractual certainty for anyone taken in that draft. That means....

5.) 2010 is likely to see a huge influx of college players declaring early, which will likely leave 2011 as a very weak draft.

So, instead of:

Trading Seymour prior to this past draft and getting players from this draft
Keeping Seymour for one last run and then franchising and trading him this offseason
Keeping Seymour for one last run and then letting him walk
Keeping Seymour and then paying him next year in an uncapped year

the team worried about its pocket and pushed this whole thing out for 2 years.

For the sake of possible rookie contract savings in a CBA that could well be something other than what the Patriots anticipate, the team weakened itself for this year, for certain, and for next year had it just paid him the money.

Why on Earth would you respect my opinion if I DIDN'T have reservations about this trade?

This begs the question: Why then did Belichick make the trade?
You seem to have a strong opinion that what he did was wrong. What is your opinion on why he would have done it?

 

[Deus Irae]

Well there really isnt any point in discussing it then if you feel a decision can be judged good or bad without considering all of the consequences.

That wasn't your argument. Your argument was about "ulterior motives".

But you're right in saying that there's no point discussing it. We don't know all the motives involved in that situation and can only go by outcomes.

 

[Ring 6]

That wasn't your argument. Your argument was about "ulterior motives".

But you're right in saying that there's no point discussing it. We don't know all the motives involved in that situation and can only go by outcomes.

No. You said letting Graham go was a bad decision. I said the decision does not happen in a vaccuum, that there are other considerations, other players the money was spent on and ulterior motives to having that player on the roster, ie benefits gained by not signing him that would have been unavailable had he signed. You said you dont care about the ulterior motives, which clearly included the other player signed with the money.
Why woud there be a reason to discuss whether not signing player X was smart with someone who doesnt care to know who we signed instead in making that decision???????

 

[Deus Irae]

This begs the question: Why then did Belichick make the trade?
You seem to have a strong opinion that what he did was wrong. What is your opinion on why he would have done it?

Why? Money.

 

[Ring 6]

That wasn't your argument. Your argument was about "ulterior motives".

But you're right in saying that there's no point discussing it. We don't know all the motives involved in that situation and can only go by outcomes.

so 18-1 was a bad outcome?

 

[RussFrancis]

1.) This trade clearly weakens the defensive line this season.

2.) The defensive line was the only part of the defense that wasn't a question mark going into the season.

3.) The team just drafted 12 players, including 4 in the second round. All of them have either made the team or the practice squad. Next season, the team has a first round pick and 3 more second round picks, along with a 4th, 6th and 7th. It already had all of its 2011 picks plus an additional 7th round pick from the Dave Thomas trade. Not having an extra #1 in 2011 was not going to be the end of the world or the end of BB's machinations.

4.) The pick is in 2011. Think about that. Everyone praising that pick seems to be missing something. Right after that draft, the CBA is over. That means that there's no contractual certainty for anyone taken in that draft. That means....

5.) 2010 is likely to see a huge influx of college players declaring early, which will likely leave 2011 as a very weak draft.

So, instead of:

Trading Seymour prior to this past draft and getting players from this draft
Keeping Seymour for one last run and then franchising and trading him this offseason
Keeping Seymour for one last run and then letting him walk
Keeping Seymour and then paying him next year in an uncapped year

the team worried about its pocket and pushed this whole thing out for 2 years.

For the sake of possible rookie contract savings in a CBA that could well be something other than what the Patriots anticipate, the team weakened itself for this year, for certain, and for next year had it just paid him the money.

Why on Earth would you respect my opinion if I DIDN'T have reservations about this trade?

I think to some degree, we all have reservations. Whether we want to admit it or not. But why would any of us seriously doubt the logic of a team that's won more games and titles than any team this decade? I know, I know. We havent won a title in 4 years. Well, Seymour and Bru, and the rest of all of these 'aging' veterans was all part of that. And we should have won it a couple of years ago when we we're 18 and, ahem, one. But just a reminder, Richard Seymour had 1.5 sacks that season. One and a half. That 'aint much. And we're all basically gonna have reservations about this deal until we either win another Superbowl, or that pick turns out to be the next Richar Seymour. And if neither happens, then my own 'reservations' will have been confirmed. But Ive been a fan of this team for far too long to allow my own reservations of what this team does get in the way of a good time. Because basically, compared to the guys running the show, I dont know squat. Not many of us do.

 

[Deus Irae]

No. You said letting Graham go was a bad decision. I said the decision does not happen in a vaccuum, that there are other considerations, other players the money was spent on and ulterior motives to having that player on the roster, ie benefits gained by not signing him that would have been unavailable had he signed. You said you dont care about the ulterior motives, which clearly included the other player signed with the money.
Why woud there be a reason to discuss whether not signing player X was smart with someone who doesnt care to know who we signed instead in making that decision???????

Andy, I'm not going to play these games with you again:

Anyone who makes decisions, especially important ones, makes a lot that are incorrect.
But I think its wrong to criticze the fact that Graham wasnt resigned as a free agent as if it were a choice that had no ulterior motives, such as better use of the cap money.

I quoted you verbatim. Your response when I responded to that was to change your argument:

Well there really isnt any point in discussing it then if you feel a decision can be judged good or bad without considering all of the consequences.

I'm just not going to play the moving goalposts thing tonight.

 

[Ring 6]

Why? Money.

Can you expand on that answer? Money in what regard?
Isn't that an important consideration under the constraints of a salary cap?
Are you saying that he felt there was better use for the money, or implying that the organization will try to avoid paying money for players if not controlled by a cap?
What do you expect the reason for wanting to save the money was? To spend on other players?

 

[Deus Irae]

so 18-1 was a bad outcome?

When having Graham might well have been the difference between 18-1 and 19-0?

Yes.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, I'm not going to play these games with you again:



I quoted you verbatim. Your response when I responded to that was to change your argument:



I'm just not going to play the moving goalposts thing tonight.

Come on. I DEFINED ulterior motives, in the same sentence as other use of the cap money. That isnt changing my argument its rfraining from typing the exact same term over and over.

 

[shmessy]

Can you expand on that answer? Money in what regard?
Isn't that an important consideration under the constraints of a salary cap?

One would think so.

BB didn't "want" to cut Milloy either.

This isn't Major League Baseball.

At least this time, the Pats got something in return.

 

[Ring 6]

When having Graham might well have been the difference between 18-1 and 19-0?

Yes.

And not having the other players we acquired with that money may have meant 12-5.
Are you seriously saying that not signing Daniel Graham was negligent and cost us the SB?

 

[shmessy]

When having Graham might well have been the difference between 18-1 and 19-0?

Yes.

Or, having Graham, instead of Welker could have made them 13-4 and not even make it to the SB.

What's the point?

 

[Deus Irae]

I think to some degree, we all have reservations. Whether we want to admit it or not. But why would any of us seriously doubt the logic of a team that's won more games and titles than any team this decade? I know, I know. We havent won a title in 4 years. Well, Seymour and Bru, and the rest of all of these 'aging' veterans was all part of that. And we should have won it a couple of years ago when we we're 18 and, ahem, one. But just a reminder, Richard Seymour had 1.5 sacks that season. One and a half. That 'aint much.

Let's be fair now. Seymour missed about half the season, and the offense was the highest scoring offense in NFL history.

And we're all basically gonna have reservations about this deal until we either win another Superbowl, or that pick turns out to be the next Richar Seymour. And if neither happens, then my own 'reservations' will have been confirmed. But Ive been a fan of this team for far too long to allow my own reservations of what this team does get in the way of a good time. Because basically, compared to the guys running the show, I dont know squat. Not many of us do.

This is a perfectly rational approach. Sadly, too many people here are becoming part of a "Stepford" fanbase, where it's just got to be right because the Patriots are doing it.

 

[Deus Irae]

And not having the other players we acquired with that money may have meant 12-5.
Are you seriously saying that not signing Daniel Graham was negligent and cost us the SB?

Wait.... are you seriously claiming that this team, the one that found a way to clear 14 million dollars to franchise a second quarterback, couldn't have massaged the cap?


Really?

 

[shmessy]

Wait.... are you seriously claiming that this team, the one that found a way to clear 14 million dollars to franchise a second quarterback, couldn't have massaged the cap?


Really?

Tell me you're joking.

Were they able to keep that QB on the roster and obtain a Galloway, Simmons, Burgess, Fred Taylor, etc.

It's a 53 player roster. And there is a salary cap.

 

[Deus Irae]

Come on. I DEFINED ulterior motives, in the same sentence as other use of the cap money. That isnt changing my argument its rfraining from typing the exact same term over and over.

No, you didn't. You gave one example of an ulterior motive: "such as...". Andy, I'm not going to play the moving goalposts game.

If you want to be homer enough to pretend this deal is 100% awesome, you go for it. If you want to admit that it's not, feel free to pick your percentage of awesome. Live it and love it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Were they able to keep that QB on the roster?

Doesn't matter. However, I seem to recall a certain head coach saying that they would be able to do so. Are you calling him a liar or a fool?