O'Connell and Hodel released, Pats down to 75

[realtime]

1.) It's not a fact, it's an opinion. The phrase "a lot" precludes it from being fact, since "a lot" is not a specific thing.

2.) I'm 100% positive that I was referring to more than just yourself. That's where such wording as "You people" and "large chunk" come into play.

As for giving you a break, give us one. Calling players who's careers are derailed by injury "clunkers" is just ridiculous.

Thanks for the condescending response. Despite referring to "you people" and "large chunk" you only cited my post, so you'll excuse me if I thought you were referring only to me.

We can certainly disagree about whether players who have been injured are deserving of the title "clunkers". I think they most certainly are. Players get injured all the time in the NFL, sometimes seriously, but they heal and if they are good enough players, they succeed irrespective of the prior injury. Garrett Mills was perfectly healthy in 2007, yet he couldn't make the roster in only his second season as a 4th round pick. That is a "clunker" in my book. Kevin O'Connell is a clunker too. So was Guss Scott. We can leave Brock Williams out of this discussion if you'd like, because I don't think he ever really recovered from his injury.

Here are the Patriots third round picks since 2000: Redmond, Williams, Scott, Hobbs, Kaczur, Thomas, Crable, O'Connell, Tate and McKenzie. I'm sure you are delighted with that haul (otherwise you'd be rooting for the Bengals) but in my "opinion" that leaves a bit to be desired. I hope you'll let me continue rooting for the Patriots despite that opinion.

 

[realtime]

Tate was injured LONG before his career with the Patriots started. The Patriots selected him knowing that.

Mills was cut in an effort to get him on the practice squad. BB was pissed when the Vikings claimed him and claimed the Vikings' David Herron for a week as retribution. Do you remember that?

I do remember, but he was still, at best, the 54th guy on a 53-man team a mere season after being a 4th round pick.

Tate was selected with a pre-existing injury, but so was Womack and that didn't pan out. We can compare Chad Jackson's promising rookie season to his post-injury debacle while were at it. I'm just not as optimistic as others that Tate will pan out, though obviously nobody knows for sure whether or not he will.

 

[mcmurtry86]

Here are the Patriots third round picks since 2000: Redmond, Williams, Scott, Hobbs, Kaczur, Thomas, Crable, O'Connell, Tate and McKenzie. I'm sure you are delighted with that haul (otherwise you'd be rooting for the Bengals) but in my "opinion" that leaves a bit to be desired. I hope you'll let me continue rooting for the Patriots despite that opinion.

The jury is still out on Tate and McKenzie. Kaczur is a solid (not great) OL who clearly BB thinks highly enough to ink to an extension. Hobbs was a valuable piece and was a starter before being traded for picks, Redmond was vital to the 2001 Super Bowl, Williams never had a chance after destroying his knee so early.

O'Connell and Scott are really the only complete flops. Thomas may or may not be a useful player this year (and going forward). Crable, Williams and McKenzie.......you can't predict injuries, as much as you want to blame BB for "missing" on those guys.

 

[realtime]

Gimme a break. Womack was a late 7th rounder (237th overall), Williams blew out his knee and was never the same player, and BB wanted to keep Mills but didn't have the space on the 53 and lost him on a waiver claim by Minnesota.

The Pats knew Tate was hurt when they drafter him, in fact that's the only reason he was available in the 3rd round. McKenzie blew out his knee, but from the reports we've seen, he should be able to rebound.

The problem isn't that the Patriots draft busts, every team does. The problem is that some people refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of draft picks in ANY round don't pan out.

See post 42. And I hereby acknowledge that the vast majority of draft picks in ANY round don't pan out.

 

[Deus Irae]

Thanks for the condescending response. Despite referring to "you people" and "large chunk" you only cited my post, so you'll excuse me if I thought you were referring only to me.

No, it was pretty clear.

We can certainly disagree about whether players who have been injured are deserving of the title "clunkers". I think they most certainly are. Players get injured all the time in the NFL, sometimes seriously, but they heal and if they are good enough players, they succeed irrespective of the prior injury. Garrett Mills was perfectly healthy in 2007, yet he couldn't make the roster in only his second season as a 4th round pick. That is a "clunker" in my book. Kevin O'Connell is a clunker too. So was Guss Scott. We can leave Brock Williams out of this discussion if you'd like, because I don't think he ever really recovered from his injury.

Using injury to define draft clunkers is moronic, in my opinion. I'm sorry, but assigning status as a result of injury is not the same as assigning status as a result of a player sucking at the NFL level despite having his full health.

Here are the Patriots third round picks since 2000: Redmond, Williams, Scott, Hobbs, Kaczur, Thomas, Crable, O'Connell, Tate and McKenzie. I'm sure you are delighted with that haul (otherwise you'd be rooting for the Bengals) but in my "opinion" that leaves a bit to be desired. I hope you'll let me continue rooting for the Patriots despite that opinion.

Yes, I am. Then again, I live in a place called 'reality'. Redmond helped the team win a Super Bowl. Hobbs was a starting cornerback beginning in his rookie season. Kaczur was, and continues to be a starting right tackle. Thomas is still on the team. Tate was clearly a flier pick and will be given time to develop. McKenzie just suffered a season ending injury after being drafted.

The only true 'busts' in the round have been Scott and O'Connell. Anyone who can't handle a better than 50% hit ratio on 3rd round picks simply doesn't understand how the NFL draft works.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

The only true 'busts' in the round have been Scott and O'Connell. Anyone who can't handle a better than 50% hit ratio on 3rd round picks simply doesn't understand how the NFL draft works.

Let's not forget Scott was derailed by injuries too.

 

[Deus Irae]

Let's not forget Scott was derailed by injuries too.

But I'm willing to concede that it wasn't looking good for him even without the injuries. It's easier than listening to the squeals of "But that's just blaming injuries for everyone!" and the like.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

But I'm willing to concede that it wasn't looking good for him even without the injuries. It's easier than listening to the squeals of "But that's just blaming injuries for everyone!" and the like.

Squeals is apt. After watching the development of Sanders and Meriweather from rookie to starter, I believe Scott was working within a similar development framework, but I think landing on IR two years in a row for knee injuries pretty much counts as career amputation vice suckitude.

 

[realtime]

No, it was pretty clear.

It's pretty clear that some people on this site are comically pedantic and self-important.

Using injury to define draft clunkers is moronic, in my opinion. I'm sorry, but assigning status as a result of injury is not the same as assigning status as a result of a player sucking at the NFL level despite having his full health.

I'm talking about injured players who have recovered or players we draft despite a known injury issue (which happens only rarely). Anyone in those categories who do not pan out can deservedly be called "bust", "clunker" or any other term you like (in my opinion). As I said before, we can exclude Brock Williams from this discussion because I don't think he ever recovered and he was not injured when drafted.

Yes, I am. Then again, I live in a place called 'reality'. Redmond helped the team win a Super Bowl. Hobbs was a starting cornerback beginning in his rookie season. Kaczur was, and continues to be a starting right tackle. Thomas is still on the team. Tate was clearly a flier pick and will be given time to develop. McKenzie just suffered a season ending injury after being drafted.

The only true 'busts' in the round have been Scott and O'Connell. Anyone who can't handle a better than 50% hit ratio on 3rd round picks simply doesn't understand how the NFL draft works.

I'm sure you're not talking to me now, because I understand perfectly well how the NFL draft works and can "handle" any success rate on Patriot's draft picks, as I am a fan of the team regardless. You can spin the picks all you want, but the Pats have done significantly better in the 7th round and UDFA than in the 3rd round. So, for whatever, reason, the 3rd round has not been the Patriots' drafting strong suit. But I'm not complaining; just giving my opinion.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's pretty clear that some people on this site are comically pedantic and self-important.

I'm sorry, but the use of plural and the use of singular are done for a reason. It's not my fault if you couldn't figure that out, and it has nothing to do with self importance. Your poor reading comprehension is not the fault of anyone posting here.

I'm talking about injured players who have recovered or players we draft despite a known injury issue (which happens only rarely). Anyone in those categories who do not pan out can deservedly be called "bust", "clunker" or any other term you like (in my opinion). As I said before, we can exclude Brock Williams from this discussion because I don't think he ever recovered and he was not injured when drafted.

Yet another ridiculous way to try justifying what was a terrible post you made. Was McKenzie injured when he was drafted? How about Scott or Crable? How about Thomas, who suffered a foot injury and hasn't been the same since?

I'm sure you're not talking to me now, because I understand perfectly well how the NFL draft works and can "handle" any success rate on Patriot's draft picks, as I am a fan of the team regardless. You can spin the picks all you want, but the Pats have done significantly better in the 7th round and UDFA than in the 3rd round. So, for whatever, reason, the 3rd round has not been the Patriots' drafting strong suit. But I'm not complaining; just giving my opinion.

No, I'm talking specifically to you now. You showed the inability to grasp when I was talking about others, remember?

 

[realtime]

I'm sorry, but the use of plural and the use of singular are done for a reason. It's not my fault if you couldn't figure that out, and it has nothing to do with self importance. Your poor reading comprehension is not the fault of anyone posting here.

Please don't blame the reader for the incoherence of your own posts. It is really very unseemly.

Yet another ridiculous way to try justifying what was a terrible post you made. Was McKenzie injured when he was drafted? How about Scott or Crable? How about Thomas, who suffered a foot injury and hasn't been the same since?

If you want to be the official patsfans.com apologist for the Patriots 3rd round picks, be my guest. I explained my views on this subject and I respectfully disagree with yours.

No, I'm talking specifically to you now. You showed the inability to grasp when I was talking about others, remember?

I was being sarcastic. My apologies for any defects in your reading comprehension.

 

[pats1]

As discussed in a recent edition of PFW in Progress, the third round has been a problem for the Pats. Belichick, at some point, described the nature of the third round as being a risky round, as most of its crop are guys who, for one reason or another - injury, etc., were not first or second round picks. Tate falls right into that category.

 

[Deus Irae]

Please don't blame the reader for the incoherence of your own posts. It is really very unseemly.

There was nothing incoherent about it.

If you want to be the official patsfans.com apologist for the Patriots 3rd round picks, be my guest. I explained my views on this subject and I respectfully disagree with yours.

I responded to your "explanation". I'm still waiting for your clarification on McKenzie, Scott, Crable and Thomas.

I was being sarcastic. My apologies for any defects in your reading comprehension.

I was being deliberately cynical in my remarks, and was using line one to set up line two. My apologies for not making it easy enough for you to understand that. Now, back to more of the 'meat' of your assertion: How about McKenzie, Scott, Crable and Thomas?

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Alex Smith and Chris Taylor should be among the next 'batch' of players to get cut - I did like what I saw of Chris,Smith downright sucks ass.

 

[mgteich]

The future of Alex Smith is still in doubt. If it weren't, he'd be gone by now. Smith has not learned the offense. He has not performed well. HOWEVER, Belichick still has a lot of work to do before the "final" setting of rosters for Game 2. Smith could get traded. One of the other tight ends could be traded, leaving us with Smith as our overpriced #3 tight end.

Alex Smith and Chris Taylor should be among the next 'batch' of players to get cut - I did like what I saw of Chris,Smith downright sucks ass.

 

[realtime]

There was nothing incoherent about it.



I responded to your "explanation". I'm still waiting for your clarification on McKenzie, Scott, Crable and Thomas.



I was being deliberately cynical in my remarks, and was using line one to set up line two. My apologies for not making it easy enough for you to understand that. Now, back to more of the 'meat' of your assertion: How about McKenzie, Scott, Crable and Thomas?

We'll have to agree to disagree on the quality of your prior posts (which you think are wonderful and which I think are absurdly condescending and moronic).

Back to the substance, what about Scott? You said yourself he was a "true bust." I agree with that characterization and am happy to have found some common ground with you. I'm not sure what clarification you are looking for.

McKenzie is injured. Yes, he will get a chance next year. But who from the Belichick era has missed year one because of injury and rebounded to become a key contributor in future years? Stephen Neal, maybe? I'm just not that optimistic about McKenzie's chances.

Crable and Thomas. Both have been injured. Both are more famous for one of the most untimely penalties in their respective team's history (Crable in college against OSU and Thomas in the playoffs against Indy) than anything else they have done in the NFL. When on the field, Crable looks awkward and gangly in space and Thomas looks like decent role player. I wouldn't call Thomas a bust, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Crable gone by 2010. What clarification are you looking for here?

 

[pats1]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the quality of your prior posts (which you think are wonderful and which I think are absurdly condescending and moronic).

Back to the substance, what about Scott? You said yourself he was a "true bust." I agree with that characterization and am happy to have found some common ground with you. I'm not sure what clarification you are looking for.

McKenzie is injured. Yes, he will get a chance next year. But who from the Belichick era has missed year one because of injury and rebounded to become a key contributor in future years? Stephen Neal, maybe? I'm just not that optimistic about McKenzie's chances.

Crable and Thomas. Both have been injured. Both are more famous for one of the most untimely penalties in their respective team's history (Crable in college against OSU and Thomas in the playoffs against Indy) than anything else they have done in the NFL. When on the field, Crable looks awkward and gangly in space and Thomas looks like decent role player. I wouldn't call Thomas a bust, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Crable gone by 2010. What clarification are you looking for here?

Ben Watson.

 

[alvinnf]

Ben Watson.

He's trade bait for Cincy, they were short on quality TE's. Two just got season ending injuries, concussion for Utecht. I'll bet they are on the phone right now. Can you say 4th rounder, alright fine 5th.

 

[realtime]

Ben Watson.

Good call.

 

[Deus Irae]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the quality of your prior posts (which you think are wonderful and which I think are absurdly condescending and moronic).

Irony, writ large.

Back to the substance, what about Scott? You said yourself he was a "true bust." I agree with that characterization and am happy to have found some common ground with you. I'm not sure what clarification you are looking for.

Actually, as noted in my posts with Box, I conceded Scott rather than argue about him with you. However, the fact is that he did, indeed suffer from injuries. He missed his entire rookie season due to an injury suffered after signing. Using your rubric ("we can exclude Brock Williams from this discussion because I don't think he ever recovered and he was not injured when drafted"), he's not a bust.

McKenzie is injured. Yes, he will get a chance next year. But who from the Belichick era has missed year one because of injury and rebounded to become a key contributor in future years? Stephen Neal, maybe? I'm just not that optimistic about McKenzie's chances.

That doesn't make him a bust or a bad pick, only potentially so in your eyes.

Crable and Thomas. Both have been injured. Both are more famous for one of the most untimely penalties in their respective team's history (Crable in college against OSU and Thomas in the playoffs against Indy) than anything else they have done in the NFL. When on the field, Crable looks awkward and gangly in space and Thomas looks like decent role player. I wouldn't call Thomas a bust, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Crable gone by 2010. What clarification are you looking for here?

Thomas, not a bust, per your concession. Crable has the potential to be one, in your eyes, but can't possibly be considered one yet.

So, using your own arguments,

Williams - Not a bust
Thomas - Not a bust
McKenzie - Clearly not yet a bust
Tate - Clearly not yet a bust
Scott - Not a bust
Crable - Not yet a bust
Redmond - Not a bust, or at least not mentioned as one here

Using your own arguments, there is not a single 3rd round draft pick taken by Belichick that can 'officially' be considered a bust besides O'Connell (Unless you stretch Redmond into that postion. I wouldn't have a problem considering him a disappointment/bust, particularly given the circumstances of that first draft, but I give him props for helping the team win the Super Bowl). Given that I agree that picking O'Connell was an odd choice, and that I didn't like the pick, there's really nothing left but for you to admit your initial post was wrong and wildly off the mark.

Hell, Williams has already gone from "unmitigated disaster" to "not a bust".