Re: La Canfora: Pats making late push for Bodden - Texans and Steelers in it
That he was much improved in year 2 compared to year 1 and I look forward to his continued development. He's not stout against the run but at the same time I don't think he's a big liability. He's also only going into year 3 of a complex defense that has proven it takes multiple years to fully grasp.
Reasonable assessment. Position is still upgradeable because ideally you want a 3-man rotation (i.e. Bruschi, Phifer, Johnson).
I agree, but would you say he was "needed" or was McGowan and Sanders serviceable/solid so that we weren't in desperate need of a rookie to perform at a high level?
I don't think that asking a 34th overall pick to perform at the level that McGowan or Sanders did last season is too much to ask. There were many early round picks that did last year.
I don't really call it anything, but he did play against the panthers (albeit didn't start). Bodden was the only lock as a starter last season. Butler had his ups and downs but Springs' veteran presence was needed more than a rookie's inexperienced talent.
Doesn't discount the fact that Butler was starting, had trouble, and was replaced. Don't see the end game to this argument though, let's drop it.
That's the thing, you continue to equate end-result with ability. The Colts NEEDED them to play, so they did. That is not to say the Patriots rookies were incapable of playing or starting in different circumstances.
Again, I think we've gone too far off course with this argument. I've lost what the point was.
Well you asked if we watched the same team and went on to say there were leadership and locker room problems. I am curious as how I could have watched for those problems. I rather accept that I have NO idea how the locker room really is/was than try to analyze it based on some media reports.
Many media members talked extensively about the problems that were there. Said media members are also connected to the players. How do you think Shalise got her report about the guys being late?
So you are of the opinion that it is superbowl win or utter failure?
Not utter failure, because I don't think 2005-06-07 were utter failures. It's just the general trend. Embarassing losses like the Saints, Ravens, and Dolphins games used to not happen.
OK I misinterpreted your quote of the word "good" earlier I guess.
I said they were not great but above average.
2008 is a mulligan, so yeah there was a drop from 2007 (and what should have been 2008) to 2009. This was due mainly to the loss of multiple veterans and a big reliance on youth and inexperience. As the inexperience gains experience, the team will improve.
I'm not going year-by-year with the analysis, just making a general observation of the past two years as a whole.
Of course it was pretty much impossible to go anywhere except down after 2007. I expect to finish better in 2010 than we did in 2009, and there is nothing that indicates I shouldn't expect that.
Until the Pats at least get their roster back up to a 2010 level, make a move to get it higher than that, and make their draft selections, I have a hard time how you come to that conclusion. Just seems like the same irrational wishful thinking that led us to disappointment the past two seasons.
The thing I just don't get is how most people on this board were railing about how much work the Pats needed to do this offseason to get back to be a championship-caliber team. That was the week after the Ravens loss, so early January. Two months later, in early March, no additional talent has been brought in yet the outlook is miraculously better. I just don't get it. It's like the combine, and this is something Pioli used to talk about. Players would be at a certain level at the end of the season, after they had played their last game in the college. Then, because of the underwear olympics, players' values would suddenly be all that much higher in March. Pioli couldn't understand it.
