Dustin Keller Visiting Patriots 4/30

[RayClay]

You have a distorted perspective.

The warts on the Pats would be much bigger if not for Tom Brady. Winning seasons make you believe the team is better than it actually is and close to getting back to greatness until reality pays you visit in the post season. Last seasons team would not have beaten the Seahawks. Anybody that believes they would is smoking crack. The 49ers would also b slap this Pats team.

Brady makes a bad OL look good. He makes underwhelming WRs actually look like keepers. He makes Josh McDaniels look like Charlie Weis some games. When the defense cant hold a lead, Brady can go back out and score more points so that you win the game.

Stop Brady and you stop the Pats cold. Every post season loss the offense has struggled mightily. The defense couldnt stop a nose bleed.

The Lombardi Patriots were never like that. They never used injuries as excuses. They were balanced in all 3 phases of football: offense, defense and special teams. The games were close because thats how the Pats were designed. At no point in the Super Bowl losses was I confident the Pats would prevail.

Wow, you make that Brady guy sound like he's good. ( mentions 2008 again)

 

[dales804]

Wow. I think I need to clarify what I was saying in my post that was responded to multiple times. When I said I'd trade all the non-championship accolades for a title, I didn't mean I'd take some crappy years in place of a SB. It was just me saying I am dying for another championship. The brutal losses have added up in recent years and it seems like the reasons are usually the same (injured TE, defense can't get off field, no pass rush, WRs beat up and can't get open).

I love the way this franchise is run and seldom disagree with the moves that are made. I know injuries and to some extent luck play a part in every season but it's clear to me they need to get someone to spell at DE and a TE that can play in place of Gronk for his inevitable time missed. Safety is also high on my list.

 

[supafly]

Many think as you do. The ownership of Washington does, and that of some other teams. The ownership and coaching staff of the patriots do not have this view.

Understanding that people have differing views on this subject (and just about every other one that we cover here), I would NOT want to trade a streak of losing seasons for a SB victory myself. I prefer to see highly competitive football deep into the month of January myself just about every year.

I've also heard the "I'd take Belichick and Brady retiring if it meant one more SB win." I couldn't possibly disagree more. I want at least one/both as long as possible, and I wouldn't trade that for anything--even one more SB win.

If we win it, that's a major bonus, but as Bob Kraft mentioned "I don't ever believe in selling your soul for a bowl of porridge."

 

[RayClay]

Wow. I think I need to clarify what I was saying in my post that was responded to multiple times. When I said I'd trade all the non-championship accolades for a title, I didn't mean I'd take some crappy years in place of a SB. It was just me saying I am dying for another championship. The brutal losses have added up in recent years and it seems like the reasons are usually the same (injured TE, defense can't get off field, no pass rush, WRs beat up and can't get open).

I love the way this franchise is run and seldom disagree with the moves that are made. I know injuries and to some extent luck play a part in every season but it's clear to me they need to get someone to spell at DE and a TE that can play in place of Gronk for his inevitable time missed. Safety is also high on my list.

In that case, count your blessings. At least 80% of teams rarely, if ever have a serious shot at a title. If they can get a real winner at one of the few positions we aren't strong at, they will. Otherwise, they need to minimize the chance of a high cost bust beause we're paying Revis 12 mil and we have the best TE in football already.

They've also got a top pass rusher and solid bookend in Ninko, so getting an Andre Carter (Will Smith) for a year is most likely IMO.

As far as safety goes, they've got four starting cornerbacks a nickleback a previous starter on two teams a decent looking 2nd year safety before they draft or finish FA. This is why BB and a few teams prosper. Whether they get a value at safety, they'll have tons of options with talented players and still have them if they have injuries.

BB does not throw players away. If he gets a part time safety and special teams player out of Chung at a cheap price, it's a coup IMO. Paying top dollar for an all star team at each position is a fool's errand.

They aren't going to replace Gronk, he's the best ever if healthy. They'll get a rook or a FA or two, but if Gronk is hurt, they won't be great at that position. If he's healthy, any pass catcher and decent tight end and Hooman is going to look like a murderer's row.

They can draft, or not draft an impact DT DE safety WR RB OL LB because they aren't desperate at any position IMO, then pickup a FA from cuts and have a very strong team. That's pretty impressive IMO.

 

[dales804]

In that case, count your blessings. At least 80% of teams rarely, if ever have a serious shot at a title. If they can get a real winner at one of the few positions we aren't strong at, they will. Otherwise, they need to minimize the chance of a high cost bust beause we're paying Revis 12 mil and we have the best TE in football already.

They've also got a top pass rusher and solid bookend in Ninko, so getting an Andre Carter (Will Smith) for a year is most likely IMO.

As far as safety goes, they've got four starting cornerbacks a nickleback a previous starter on two teams a decent looking 2nd year safety before they draft or finish FA. This is why BB and a few teams prosper. Whether they get a value at safety, they'll have tons of options with talented players and still have them if they have injuries.

BB does not throw players away. If he gets a part time safety and special teams player out of Chung at a cheap price, it's a coup IMO. Paying top dollar for an all star team at each position is a fool's errand.

They aren't going to replace Gronk, he's the best ever if healthy. They'll get a rook or a FA or two, but if Gronk is hurt, they won't be great at that position. If he's healthy, any pass catcher and decent tight end and Hooman is going to look like a murderer's row.

They can draft, or not draft an impact DT DE safety WR RB OL LB because they aren't desperate at any position IMO, then pickup a FA from cuts and have a very strong team. That's pretty impressive IMO.

I said they need someone who can play in place of Gronk. Obviously he's not going to be replicated. I know how great he is but he can't be relied upon. The depth chart at that position needs to be much stronger because there is absolutely no receiving threat there when Gronk is out. And I know what Ninko is to the team. But he and C. Jones played far too many snaps last year and clearly wore down at the end of the year. I said they need to get a sub-DE who can spell them.

And I don't think any signing of Chung would be looked at as a coup. The guy sucks.

 

[JMC00]

And I know what Ninko is to the team. But he and C. Jones played far too many snaps last year and clearly wore down at the end of the year. I said they need to get a sub-DE who can spell them.

Them playing as much as they did was not the problem people make it out to be. The problem was the non-exsistant play from the DTs.

 

[Kontradiction]

I said they need someone who can play in place of Gronk. Obviously he's not going to be replicated. I know how great he is but he can't be relied upon. The depth chart at that position needs to be much stronger because there is absolutely no receiving threat there when Gronk is out. And I know what Ninko is to the team. But he and C. Jones played far too many snaps last year and clearly wore down at the end of the year. I said they need to get a sub-DE who can spell them.

And I don't think any signing of Chung would be looked at as a coup. The guy sucks.

I would love to see the team draft Kelvin Benjamin in the 2nd and move him to TE. As a TE, he would be more talented than the other TE's in the draft and can play "move" up until Gronk gets injured again.

 

[Snake Eyes]

They aren't going to replace Gronk, he's the best ever if healthy.

He's frequently not healthy. The "replacement" doesn't need to be as good as Gronk (when healthy) he just needs to be an upgrade to what we have now when Gronk isn't.

 

[Ring 6]

Understanding that people have differing views on this subject (and just about every other one that we cover here), I would NOT want to trade a streak of losing seasons for a SB victory myself. I prefer to see highly competitive football deep into the month of January myself just about every year.

I've also heard the "I'd take Belichick and Brady retiring if it meant one more SB win." I couldn't possibly disagree more. I want at least one/both as long as possible, and I wouldn't trade that for anything--even one more SB win.

If we win it, that's a major bonus, but as Bob Kraft mentioned "I don't ever believe in selling your soul for a bowl of porridge."

Given the choice of winning the SB this year and having Brady and BB retire, or having both stay for 9 more years that are the same as the last 9 (05-13) I would take the SB win in a heartbeat.
I would also take SB wins surrounded by mediocre or even terrible seasons over a long string of getting close but not finishing the job.

I'll put it another way:

I would rather repeat 1993-2001 than 2005-2103.

 

[Sicilian]

Given the choice of winning the SB this year and having Brady and BB retire, or having both stay for 9 more years that are the same as the last 9 (05-13) I would take the SB win in a heartbeat.
I would also take SB wins surrounded by mediocre or even terrible seasons over a long string of getting close but not finishing the job.

I'll put it another way:

I would rather repeat 1993-2001 than 2005-2103.

It's always an interesting (and highly subjective) debate, but I think it's easy in hindsight to say you'd rather have the super bowl win than a series of runner-ups. In reality, the debate is, over a 10 year period would you rather have:

A) a 90% chance to win a super bowl in one of the years but a 10% chance the other 9?

or

B) a 20% chance to win every year.

Numbers are for theoretics only of course. But in the example above, mathematically, you have a better chance to win multiple super bowls in option B, alongside the bonus of deeper runs on average for more entertainment. In option A, you'll have more years with little hope, but you'll at least always have that one year where, barring disaster, you should win.

I don't think there's a wrong answer, it's all a matter of personal preference. I like option B myself, though I think it's only possible with the right coach/QB combination. Once Brady and BB retire, I'm probably going to prefer option A unless they get extremely lucky with successors.

 

[Ring 6]

It's always an interesting (and highly subjective) debate, but I think it's easy in hindsight to say you'd rather have the super bowl win than a series of runner-ups. In reality, the debate is, over a 10 year period would you rather have:

A) a 90% chance to win a super bowl in one of the years but a 10% chance the other 9?

or

B) a 20% chance to win every year.

Numbers are for theoretics only of course. But in the example above, mathematically, you have a better chance to win multiple super bowls in option B, alongside the bonus of deeper runs on average for more entertainment. In option A, you'll have more years with little hope, but you'll at least always have that one year where, barring disaster, you should win.

I don't think there's a wrong answer, it's all a matter of personal preference. I like option B myself, though I think it's only possible with the right coach/QB combination. Once Brady and BB retire, I'm probably going to prefer option A unless they get extremely lucky with successors.

Thats not what I am talking about.
I am talking about the actual result. Of course if B results in more SB wins I'd rather have that.
But in the end, B had a zero % chance of winning SBs.

What is sounds like you mean is that you would assume the teams we put on the field from 05-13 would have won more SBs than the ones we put on the field from 93-01, but that is actually wrong.

 

[Sicilian]

Thats not what I am talking about.
I am talking about the actual result. Of course if B results in more SB wins I'd rather have that.
But in the end, B had a zero % chance of winning SBs.

What is sounds like you mean is that you would assume the teams we put on the field from 05-13 would have won more SBs than the ones we put on the field from 93-01, but that is actually wrong.

I think I may have mis-read the intentions of your post, so that was probably my fault. I was responding as though we were discussing the prospect of future years, where you're talking about preferred results. I will always take a championship over no championships, if we're strictly looking at results after the fact.

 

[Ring 6]

I think I may have mis-read the intentions of your post, so that was probably my fault. I was responding as though we were discussing the prospect of future years, where you're talking about preferred results. I will always take a championship over no championships, if we're strictly looking at results after the fact.

We agree

 

[supafly]

I don't think there's a wrong answer, it's all a matter of personal preference. I like option B myself, though I think it's only possible with the right coach/QB combination. Once Brady and BB retire, I'm probably going to prefer option A unless they get extremely lucky with successors.

Yes, there's definitely not a "wrong" answer, just a matter of personal preference.

There are many here who would be happier with a SB win this year, followed by a long streak of losing seasons. Personally, I am not one of them, so that's all I was pointing out. I like having a legitimate shot just about every season.

I think the biggest difference between the 3 SB winning teams from '01 to '04 and the 2 SB losing teams in '07 and '11 were just some unfortunate breaks. We had a lesser defense of course, but also a stronger offense. Unfortunately, that stronger offense wasn't on display in those 2 games, but both teams still had the lead in the last few min of both games. We just didn't get any breaks. Actually, we got the opposite with several bad breaks. It happens, as lousy as it still seems.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'll take the Giants (2 SBs, several missed playoffs) rather than the Bills (4 trips, 0 wins).


Every. Damn. Time.

 

[supafly]

I'll take the Giants (2 SBs, several missed playoffs) rather than the Bills (4 trips, 0 wins).


Every. Damn. Time.

Sure, although I think that's a clearer cut example than what some may have suggested earlier. If that's the scenario, than I would also take it as well.

What I wouldn't want is one SB this year in exchange for a longer streak of losing seasons, which is what I understood (right or wrong) the question to be. I may have misunderstood the proposal though, although I believe that others have brought it up that way in other threads at times in the past.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sure, although I think that's a clearer cut example than what some may have suggested earlier. If that's the scenario, than I would also take it as well.

What I wouldn't want is one SB this year in exchange for a longer streak of losing seasons, which is what I understood (right or wrong) the question to be. I may have misunderstood the proposal though, although I believe that others have brought it up that way in other threads at times in the past.

Give Brady a SB win this year
Let Brady retire
Let BB retire
Let the Patriots be sub .500 for 5-6 straight years
Let the Jets win the division for those 5-6 years

I'd be happier with that than I would be watching Brady coming up short for another five years. It's not even close. I find the idea of Brady being "competitve" and never winning another ring to be absolutely repellent.

 

[supafly]

Give Brady a SB win this year
Let Brady retire
Let BB retire
Let the Patriots be sub .500 for 5-6 straight years
Let the Jets win the division for those 5-6 years

I'd be happier with that than I would be watching Brady coming up short for another five years. It's not even close. I find the idea of Brady being "competitve" and never winning another ring to be absolutely repellent.

I agree that I obviously want to see TFB win another ring before he's done, but I'm hoping the two don't have to go hand in hand.

 

[RayClay]

I said they need someone who can play in place of Gronk. Obviously he's not going to be replicated. I know how great he is but he can't be relied upon. The depth chart at that position needs to be much stronger because there is absolutely no receiving threat there when Gronk is out. And I know what Ninko is to the team. But he and C. Jones played far too many snaps last year and clearly wore down at the end of the year. I said they need to get a sub-DE who can spell them.

And I don't think any signing of Chung would be looked at as a coup. The guy sucks.

The idea that you can just go into the draft and get an immediate impact starter at any position is foolish. They will draft and pick up free agents, but there aren't but a handful of TEs in the league that are impact players on their own teams, much less expecting that of unknown rookies. We traded up to the mid first for Daniel Graham and spent another first on Ben Watson, without getting a real double threat impact TE, much less a Gronk.

You are convinced that they can get all pros at every position yearly and money is no object. Nothing i say will dissuade you.

However, if you want to study BBs history, you'll find that he (and other top F.O.s) separate themselves not by identifying stars, but by identifying affordable role players that allow them to keep under the cap and thrive despite injuries.

If it was all about splashy 1st round picks and high priced free agents, wouldn't the Redskins, Jet, Browns etc. rule the league for years?

Of course, when you have a 1st rounder, you need to hit and lots of teams miss a lot. Maroney was a bust, but this article gives Pats high grades, especially for where they pick.

http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap2...s-for-first-32-draft-slots-over-last-10-years

In an NFL.com piece, Chris Brockman goes through each first-round draft slot and picks the best prospect selected in the last 10 years, and the worst. New England's Logan Mankins (2005) is selected as the best 32nd pick, while Vince Wilfork gets the nod at No. 21 and Jerod Mayo at 10.

 

[RayClay]

Give Brady a SB win this year
Let Brady retire
Let BB retire
Let the Patriots be sub .500 for 5-6 straight years
Let the Jets win the division for those 5-6 years

I'd be happier with that than I would be watching Brady coming up short for another five years. It's not even close. I find the idea of Brady being "competitve" and never winning another ring to be absolutely repellent.

Heck, if I knew we could just give him a title, I would have done it a long time ago.