Idle thoughts...Setting the record straight

[Deus Irae]

It seems that like the political debates, all issues are black and white. No shades of gray allowed. Thats silly. By any measure the Pats had a great draft in 2009, and had several failures in Free Agency. Though a guy like Bodden worked out better than expected, doesn't he count?

Wait.... "By any measure..."? This is exactly what I'm talking about.

- No starters at the beginning of the year
- 1 starter at the end of the year, and that 1 largely because Kaczur struggled mightily
- Brace saw the field so rarely that he may still need directions to find it
- Chung was mostly terrible, especially in coverage. The next NFL player he successfully covers in the NFL will be just about the first.
-etc...

Now, I'm picking on those two players just to make the point about my response to you. You talked about myths and facts, yet you're posting a set of very rosy opinions as facts. That's not really different than someone on the other side posting negative opinions as facts

When you are dealing in NFL personell the fact is that you will have BOTH hits and misses.

I agree. That's precisely my point, really. The same truth applies to free agency and trades. The point of my post is precisely this. Even the best in the league are hovering somewhere near 50% or whatever it is. It's nowhere near 100% though. My point in noting this is that it's stupid for the homers to try slamming the door on discussion by pulling "BB!/Super Bowls!/You're not in the NFL" out of their asses under the assumption that being the best in a 50% league means the team should somehow be above question.

Its fine to question past drafts. Some have been very good. Some have been mixed, and like the 07 draft, some have been just bad. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER TEAM. I'm just thankful we haven't had the "monumental bust" a la Vernon Gholston. Though picks like Chad Jackson and Kevin OConnell were pretty bad....in 20 20 hindsight. But no worse than most other teams who have struck out in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

I'm among the most ardent defender of this team's drafting, in terms of success rate. My position is that the team has had plenty of hits, but mostly for singles, and almost no home runs, of late. Toss in missing picks along with players not making it on the Patriots because the team was stacked at certain positions, and it makes the drafts look far worse than they actually were.

BOTTOM LINE - Those who criticize should consider how RARE it is for a team to have 9 consecutive years of winning seasons. 7 consecutive years of winning 10 or more games. And of course those FOUR superbowl appearences. Somebody must have been doing SOMETHING right to keep the team playing at such a high level for SO many years. They must have gotten a few draft picks and FA picks right.

Actually, I don't really buy this much at all. Transcendent talent at QB can cover up a host of problems. We've seen it in Denver, Miami and elsewhere, and we saw a little of it in New England in 2009, even though we saw it inconsistently. I'm not saying that BB and company haven't generally done an excellent job, because I think they have. They sucked in 2009, though, and the team suffered as a result of it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Just think about some of the teams who have surfaced among the elite and vanished into obscurity. Have you forgotten that at the begining of this decade the Raiders were an elite NFL TEAM. Have you forgotten that the Bears made it to the superbowl....and haven't been to the playoffs since. Do you remember that the last time the Broncos won a playoff game it was in 2005 (vs the Pats). Most of you probably have forgotten that the Tampa Bay Bucs WON a superbowl and quickly became a bottom feeder battling the Lions for worst team in the league. How have the Pathers faired since that spectacular Superbowl in 2003????

All great dynastic teams have lynch pins. When the pins are pulled, the team fades. The only team that's ever defied this was the San Francisco 49ers, and they did so by finding a second lynch pin that was nearly as good as the first. Most teams don't reach dynastic status, because they find excellence for a much shorter period of time due to the transient alignment of high end talent in peak form. That's where teams like the Raider of the early 2000s come into play. They had a 3 year window of 12-4, 10-6 and 11-5, and that was it.

It is EXTREMELY hard to stay at the top of the NFL for an extended period like a decade, given the way the NFL is set up. Yet only the Pats, Eagles, Steelers and Colts out of 32 teams have managed at SOME level to maintain....and among those 4 teams, NO ONE has done it better than the Pats, no matter what Bill Pollian says.

Actually, the Colts have arguably done it better than the Patriots. From 1999 to 2009, the Colts have missed the playoffs only once, had fewer than 10 wins only once, and had 8 seasons of 12 wins or more. That's a more consistent team than the Patriots.

Where the Patriots have it over the Colts is in translating that regular season excellence to the post season. New England's had more lows, but New England's also had more highs.

So I guess what I'm saying is that its fair to criticize the Pats FO for real and perceived errors in judgement. BUT we should keep in mind that EVERY team makes those errors...ALL the time....including our guys in Foxboro.

I agree with this, 100%. Again, it's my point, and it's my gripe against the extreme homers. They ignore the bolded part in their zealous defense of the team. The same people who realize that you can love your wife/husband/S.O. and still see that they have faults lose that objectivity over a football team.

But given the results, even the most cynical of you have to admit that relative to the rest of the league. They must be making FEWER than you realize. Now isn't that FAIR?????

No. I expect that all teams actually make far MORE mistakes than most of us 'realize'. It's a testament to the high level of excellence at all levels (front office, coaching, players) from even the worst of NFL organizations that we don't see more of them impacting the games.


P.S. Great discussion points, Ken!

 

[Deus Irae]

I think the ILB's have been fine. I don't really see them as a major problem at all.

If you honestly think the ILBs have been fine, you weren't watching the Patriots playing football last season.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

If you honestly think the ILBs have been fine, you weren't watching the Patriots playing football last season.

I've been reading your recent posts and noticed you've changed your tune a little towards the Pats. It seemed as though you used defend the Pats a lot more than you do now. I also remember you used to argue with me a lot regarding the LB's and their defense in general. In fact, I think the Seymour trade did it for you. Am I wrong?

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

who was the last LB to make an int for the pats?

why do our current LB's have about 1/3 or even less of the passes defensed that the old ones did?

compared to past ILB's, these guys can't cover to save their lives

LB INT's/FF:
2009 - 0/6
2008 - 1/3
2007 - 5/10
2006 - 5/5
2005 - 2/6
2004 - 7/7
2003 - 7/13

For the people that read into stats, these numbers speak for themselves. I didn't need these stats to know how good the Pats were in '03 and '04. Aside from breakdown in the super bowl, I've never seen such a dominating defense as I did during the 2003 season. In fact, I've never seen a defense that was so tough to convert on 3rd downs. It was either incomplete, picked or the QB was sacked. That was an amazing year.

 

[Deus Irae]

I've been reading your recent posts and noticed you've changed your tune a little towards the Pats. It seemed as though you used defend the Pats a lot more than you do now. I also remember you used to argue with me a lot regarding the LB's and their defense in general. In fact, I think the Seymour trade did it for you. Am I wrong?

I look at everything issue by issue. I disagreed with you because you were wrong (my opinion, so let's not go down that road). I really haven't changed my tune, because it's the same it's always been: When the Patriots are right, I'll back them to the end. When they screw up, I'll call them on it.

Now, looking at the LBs is an excellent example:

Colving: hip injury, never the same, likely shortened his career
Bruschi: stroke
AdT: injuries in first 2 seasons, I have no idea what the hell happened last year
McKenzie: Blown out knee keeps him off the field
Seau: great addition who, naturally, aged
Vrabel: great player, probably shouldn't have been traded last year
Guyton: A UFDA find who's overmatched against the run, but is a quality find
Mayo: DROY, sophomore season lost to a knee sprain and, probably, too hasty a return
Crable: I didn't like the pick from the start, but 2 IR stints are tough to assign 'blame' to the team over

I went over this again and again with RayClay (back when he was sane and I didn't have him on ignore). The difference in the LB situation for the Patriots and Steelers this decade was largely just injury-related as opposed to talent or front office effort. Unfortunately, adjusting to the setbacks was a lot easier in the first part of this run, when the LB corps was 5-6 players deep. The general drying up of the free agent well has hampered this team's ability to amass high quality LB depth over the past 3-4 seasons.

Talking about the Seymour issue, though...

It was Burgess, Hobbs, Cassel/Vrabel, Seymour, Smith/Smith, and a laundry list of other poor decisions by Belichick that got me posting more negatively. 2009 was probably the worst year of Belichick's tenure with the team, in terms of him doing his job well. I expect that BB will be back to his old self moving forward. I expect, as a consequence of his improvement, to have a lot more to be positive about and a lot less to be negative about.

Lastly, it's good that you've noticed a change and are asking about why. The homers either completely ignore that most of my posts in earlier years were in defense of the team and players, or they don't bother to question their own opinions when someone who was once a strong supporter of BB began calling him out on move after move.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

......
BTW, I just personally feel that Belichick deserves my and every Pats' fan's benefit of the doubt and trust. We are talking about a failure of a year where the Pats had 10 wins and won the division. We complain about the failure of the last five years when the Pats won 4 division titles, never won less than 10 games in a season, went to two conference championships, went to one Super Bowl, and won 18 straight games in a season. We are just a spoiled bunch of fans.

Very well put......

NEP results for JUST the last 5 years (4 division titles, 2 AFCC appearances/1 win, 1 SB appearance, 10 wins each season) would be considered a rousing success by 95% of the other teams fans.

We patsfans are too spoiled if we expect a SB appearance every year. NEP are in contention for playoffs and division title EVERY year. A SB title depends upon a great many things not entirely in Belichick /FO control : injuries, team chemistry, referees calls, schedule, luck, the way the ball bounces, etc.

People who are not enjoyng watching every game of the career of one of the top 10 QB's in the HISTORY of the NFL - just don't get it. Not to mention one of the top HC in the history of NFL. And both on the same team.... What more do people want!

 

[maseehpat]

Excellent post!

Enlightening, a good read, and made me feel more confident while still realistic.

Great stuff, I really learned alot.

I wish more posts could be like this...

 

[Nikolai]

Solid post by the OP.

Some of the supposedly "objective" naysayers here would have considerably more credibility if they ever had even one positive thing to say from time-to-time.

I admit that I'm a little perplexed by the moves I've seen so far, but there is still a lot of wrangling to go on. One of the better drafts in recent memory is coming up and the Pats have a lot of trade bait to work deals on filling some of the holes with proven veterans. The uncapped year tells me that we might be seeing a few more guys coming available as the off-season progresses, so we'll see what happens. The draft offers potential, but I'm sure the FO knows you can only count on it so much.

Does the team have holes? Yep. I checked the schedule though and it appears we don't have any meaningful games coming up until September. We'll just have to wait and see. It's all silly speculation until events unfold. So, to some of you, put the cap back on your whiskey and sleeping pills, and try the valium instead.

 

[Coach42]

If you honestly think the ILBs have been fine, you weren't watching the Patriots playing football last season.

That's the best you got?

 

[patfanken]

Wait.... "By any measure..."? This is exactly what I'm talking about.

- No starters at the beginning of the year
- 1 starter at the end of the year, and that 1 largely because Kaczur struggled mightily
- Brace saw the field so rarely that he may still need directions to find it
- Chung was mostly terrible, especially in coverage. The next NFL player he successfully covers in the NFL will be just about the first.
-etc...

Now, I'm picking on those two players just to make the point about my response to you. You talked about myths and facts, yet you're posting a set of very rosy opinions as facts. That's not really different than someone on the other side posting negative opinions as facts



I agree. That's precisely my point, really. The same truth applies to free agency and trades. The point of my post is precisely this. Even the best in the league are hovering somewhere near 50% or whatever it is. It's nowhere near 100% though. My point in noting this is that it's stupid for the homers to try slamming the door on discussion by pulling "BB!/Super Bowls!/You're not in the NFL" out of their asses under the assumption that being the best in a 50% league means the team should somehow be above question.



I'm among the most ardent defender of this team's drafting, in terms of success rate. My position is that the team has had plenty of hits, but mostly for singles, and almost no home runs, of late. Toss in missing picks along with players not making it on the Patriots because the team was stacked at certain positions, and it makes the drafts look far worse than they actually were.



Actually, I don't really buy this much at all. Transcendent talent at QB can cover up a host of problems. We've seen it in Denver, Miami and elsewhere, and we saw a little of it in New England in 2009, even though we saw it inconsistently. I'm not saying that BB and company haven't generally done an excellent job, because I think they have. They sucked in 2009, though, and the team suffered as a result of it.

I think you are not being realistic in your complaints on the draft. Just because they didn't have any "day one" starts from rookies (not a given on a mature team) those 8 guys DID get a lot of play over the season including multiple starts by Volmer, Edelman, and Pryor.

I'd be more patient with Chung, since it is clear (at least to me) that playing safety in this defense is not one year learn. Besides he added value in that he was an excellent special teamer all year.

If you think Volmer was just a necessary replacement for a struggling Kascar, then you must have missed his effort vs Freeney when the Pats played the Colts. This kid is the real deal, and you know it.

Tate and McKenzie were injured for the better part of the year. I think most fans were excited about their POTENTIAL, though we will have to wait for the actual results. Injuries can't be anticipated when you are drafting. They were universally considered good picks, especially in the 3rd round.

Before last years's draft, I would have told you that the Pats should trade half of their picks into the future because there was no room on this roster for 8 rookies. Well there was. This past draft and the next 2 coming up are going to lay the foundation of the Pats going into Brady's retirement, in about 6 years

This has turned more into a good football discussion rather than rancorous rants. Like in most conflicts there are usually more areas where people agree than disagree. The problem is that some tend to focus on those smaller areas of disagreement and shut out any possibility that there is alternative opinion, that might be different, yet still be based on reasonable assumptions. In fact they deny the possibility that there can even be 2 differing opinions that are based on reasonable assumptions.

Clearly you and I don't fall into that category....I hope .

I'd love to go deeper into your lengthy reply, but work calls and I must answer. Perhaps later.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

That's the best you got?

the ILB's were poor in coverage....I think they pursue well and arepretty fair in manning up with someone, but the LB's (both inside and out) have next to zero instinctive capacity....there's confusion almost every time the opposing offense changed things up at the line.....

that siad, it was good to see later in the season that the coaches were letting the LB's move around, but there was no method to the madness, simply throwing the kitchen sink at trying to get to the QB....worked sometimes, but the coverage was still horrible

 

[Don_the_patfan]

While I agree that there is a lot of concern maybe more then is needed one cannot deny that there are holes on this team that need to be filled. I think the frustration with most fans is that we have quite a few holes at STARTING POSITIONS and thus the alarm with some fans.The draft in itself while great does NOT guarantee that:

#1- All of those 4 picks will be used especially with this team.
#2- That players picked will be all good players. Very unlikely.

There is no way you hit on all 4. It's the nature of the business and the unknown. Would any of us pick Brace where he was last year based on his 1st year production?



Agreed a definate hole.



Agreed with more then one here.



Whether we care or not that is considered a hole since you have no one worth putting on that field as it stand.



A young RB needs to be drafted as we have no one on the roster that is the
future RB of this team. Can you continue to go with what you have yes is that an improvement over last season NO.



He was a backup put in a starters role. Mike Wright is not a starter, Pryor and Brace who knows but at this point backups. A starter at DE is needed.

So we have: OLB,WR,DE,RB,TE. The premise that we have holes stand true. Whether one may not like the way certain fans are screaming at the top of their lungs that in the end is an individual preference.

With all of that said very good post as always patsfanken.

P.S. By the way I love how the pats have signed their own players and am looking for more

After all the back and forth holes at starting positions still remain. How do you fill the holes at the STARTING positions at: OLB, WR(#2,#4)DE,RB,TE? One can make the argument that RB is not a STARTER need but that position needs to be addressed sooner or later.

I certainly do not have the answer to the above based on what is available out there in terms of free agents. And if the answer is draft what makes us think that those draft picks will help right away?

I am all for changing my mind on this. But I have yet to hear a concrete plan from the resident experts. So anybody..

P.S. And I dont want to think this is a negative post as I love how the pats took care of their own however issues still remain and cannot be ignored. So far they have the squad from last year. No additions have been made.

 

[signbabybrady]

errr....ok

so the DL is as talented......right
so the secondary is as talented....check

you know, you really don't know what you are talking about, do you???

See you kind of make my point about lumping the championship teams together because it isn't that far fetched to think that this dline is as good if not better than 01 and this secondary looks like it is as good if not better than the 04 secondary that had Troy Brown in it.

So like I said those teams had some flaws too that people don't like to admit because they have trumped up those teams in their minds.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

See you kind of make my point about lumping the championship teams together because it isn't that far fetched to think that this dline is as good if not better than 01 and this secondary looks like it is as good if not better than the 04 secondary that had Troy Brown in it.

So like I said those teams had some flaws too that people don't like to admit because they have trumped up those teams in their minds.

not at all.....while the current DL may be better than the '01 version, the LB's and DB's were not, so the 2001 defense was more talented......and no.....the current secondary is not better than the 2004 unit.....not with both harrison and wilson playing at a pro bowl level......

 

[signbabybrady]

not at all.....while the current DL may be better than the '01 version, the LB's and DB's were not, so the 2001 defense was more talented......and no.....the current secondary is not better than the 2004 unit.....not with both harrison and wilson playing at a pro bowl level...... .

And this offense should be better than the 01 offense. (QB- push, RB group is better now, WR tough one to call pretty close, TE- whatever we get should be close Wiggins was key in the playoffs but not much during the season, OL better.


Maybe you can you argue the two safeties were playing good enough to make that group better than the current you can't argue that this secondary as whole is pretty close to that one and if Butler turns into to what we hope than this one is better as a whole.

There is also one key factor in this argument that gets ignored this team is not a finished product and still is pretty close talent wise at any position other than LB.

 

[emoney_33]

Well in reality that is the ONLY stat that counts, because points are what determines who win or loses the games. You want to go back to "the good old days" Days like in 2001 when the Pats were the 27th ranked defense, yet managed to be in the top 10 in scoring D...

It's a dependent stat that is the only one that "counts" towards win/loss but at the same time is a very limited analysis tool.

Or in 2003 when they improved to be the 24th ranked D, yet were in the top 5 in scoring D (IIRC).

There are far better stats to use than simply yardage or points. The same statistics can be used to show the 2003 defense was absolutely great and the 2009 defense was average and -extremely- inconsistent.

It's a mistake to use the simplistic statistics to assist in analyzing things.

 

[mgteich]

Let's review again.

Vollmer, Butler, Edelman and Ingram seem like a pretty good start to production from a draft, with strong possibilities from Pryor, Tate and McKenzie). We overpaid for Chung, but he is a reasonable special teamer. It seems likely that we busted on Ohrnberger and Brace, but we'll see; perhaps one or both will be contribute as a backup.
==========================================================

Wait.... "By any measure..."? This is exactly what I'm talking about.

- No starters at the beginning of the year
- 1 starter at the end of the year, and that 1 largely because Kaczur struggled mightily
- Brace saw the field so rarely that he may still need directions to find it
- Chung was mostly terrible, especially in coverage. The next NFL player he successfully covers in the NFL will be just about the first.
-etc...

Now, I'm picking on those two players just to make the point about my response to you. You talked about myths and facts, yet you're posting a set of very rosy opinions as facts. That's not really different than someone on the other side posting negative opinions as facts



I agree. That's precisely my point, really. The same truth applies to free agency and trades. The point of my post is precisely this. Even the best in the league are hovering somewhere near 50% or whatever it is. It's nowhere near 100% though. My point in noting this is that it's stupid for the homers to try slamming the door on discussion by pulling "BB!/Super Bowls!/You're not in the NFL" out of their asses under the assumption that being the best in a 50% league means the team should somehow be above question.



I'm among the most ardent defender of this team's drafting, in terms of success rate. My position is that the team has had plenty of hits, but mostly for singles, and almost no home runs, of late. Toss in missing picks along with players not making it on the Patriots because the team was stacked at certain positions, and it makes the drafts look far worse than they actually were.



Actually, I don't really buy this much at all. Transcendent talent at QB can cover up a host of problems. We've seen it in Denver, Miami and elsewhere, and we saw a little of it in New England in 2009, even though we saw it inconsistently. I'm not saying that BB and company haven't generally done an excellent job, because I think they have. They sucked in 2009, though, and the team suffered as a result of it.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

And this offense should be better than the 01 offense. (QB- push, RB group is better now, WR tough one to call pretty close, TE- whatever we get should be close Wiggins was key in the playoffs but not much during the season, OL better.


Maybe you can you argue the two safeties were playing good enough to make that group better than the current you can't argue that this secondary as whole is pretty close to that one and if Butler turns into to what we hope than this one is better as a whole.

There is also one key factor in this argument that gets ignored this team is not a finished product and still is pretty close talent wise at any position other than LB.

how can you say the RB group is better than '01? there's nobody as dependable an Antowain Smith was that year......

you have alot of 'if' in there.......those don't count because its not what you have now.

as for this team not being a finished product, will it be finished by the time moss,light,warren,koppen,brady,taylor,faulk,morris are all washed up? the offense ain't exactly spring chickens.

its funny how you pick and choose certain factors from different years and combine them together to make a point......

this team is not anywhere near the 2003/2004 teams.....its a joke to say it is.

the 2010 version is close to the 2001 version except the 2010 version simply cannot touch the 2001 version in terms of LB's.....the had backups that were better than the LB's the pats have as starters now...the rest of the roster might be a push

you're see what you want to see more than reality

 

[emoney_33]

And this offense should be better than the 01 offense. (QB- push, RB group is better now, WR tough one to call pretty close, TE- whatever we get should be close Wiggins was key in the playoffs but not much during the season, OL better.

FWIW, the QB in 2010 is a LOT better than the QB in 2001, not a push.