OT: Bruce Allen going at Peter King RE: Patriots Draft

[Sicilian]

Huh? The last portion of your sentence contradicts the earlier part. King used the same reasons leading to different opinion outcomes... MEANING, he is bashing the Pats draft, and praising the Eagles draft.

But neither of those things are a problem. I have no problem with him disliking the Patriots draft and liking the Eagles one. My issue is with his reasons and nothing more.

Don't make it more than it is.

 

[maverick4]

It's not that King dislikes the Patriots draft, or that he likes the Eagles draft, it's that he argues BOTH with the same reasons leading to different opinion outcomes.

I agree it's irrelevant that he bashed the Pats, but the way you wrote it, I wasn't sure if you meant King did/did-not write a certain way about the Pats/Eagles.

 

[borg]

Let'sa get right down to some facts....
2009 Draft
Players chosen in top 100....Pats = 6 players, Phil = 2 players
2010 Draft
Picks in top 64 ...Pats = 4, Phil = 2

Yeah Peter, Philly is amazing and BB is all drugged up

 

[maverick4]

The Eagles didn't trade straight up for a future pick either. They got a boat load of picks for that 3rd rounder, including a 3rd rounder next year. So, again, did the Patriots get a 1st rounder for moving off of their 1st rounder?

Since you keep obsessing over who did better... let's say everyone here cedes that the Eagles got the best steal by moving down in the 3rd and picking up extra picks. How, in any way, is this related to justifying how the Pats were 'drunk with power' and 'unimaginative' for trading down and getting more picks?

 

[Pats67]

Well, given that your question is not actually THIS question, but is just your slant on it, I guess we can just move on, right?

I'm not sure what that is supposed to accomplish, but if you want to move on, move on.

I'm simply saying it strikes me as pretty inconsistent from one week to the next. Same draft strategy, done at different points in the draft. Why the difference in takes?

 

[Snapper]

And, once again, the argument becomes a circle. Post #10 of this thread:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/236942-ot-bruce-allen-going-peter-king-re-patriots-draft.html#post1375687

You're citing that post? Really? That's supposed to be the clarification, the point that I somehow missed through seven pages?

For what it's worth, that's the post that sent us off to the races. Between "King's right on this and Allen is wrong" and "I say this not because Allen doesn't have a point (he does), and not because King is 100% correct (he's not)", you couldn't have triangulated more if you were a politician.

Not to mention that this line:

The Patriots could have had Oher and still gotten their 3 defensive choices and pushed a pick or two into the next year, but they got cute with their maneuvering.

shows you think it's all about who the Patriots got with their picks and not about the trading back.

 

[maverick4]

You're citing that post? Really?

Forget it, the guy simply doesn't get it. It's like talking to... Peter King.

 

[Deus Irae]

Since you keep obsessing over who did better... let's say everyone here cedes that the Eagles got the best steal by moving down in the 3rd and picking up extra picks. How, in any way, is this related to justifying how the Pats were 'drunk with power' and 'unimaginative' for trading down and getting more picks?

I'm not obsessing over any part of it. You're the one worrying it like a dog with a bone. I'm just responding to a larger number of people than you are. You're the one that got so worked up that you called me a douche and had to edit it from your post.

Frankly, this is a non-issue to me, but an extremely humorous non-issue. You're actually insulting a columnist and working yourself into a lather over something as useless as a post-draft analysis.

 

[TealSox]

"Drunk with Power" or "drunk with talent"?

Based upon their needs and the 2009 draft class, it seems obvious that Belichick saw little to no value in the first round. I'm guessing that he had his targets set on certain players and it wasn't worth the money to draft a guy just because he was there. And the media can't assume that a deal that was there for one team was there for all other teams. So to argue why they didn't get more in one trade than another team got in their trade is silly.

Easy to have a good draft when you draft top rated skill players and fill holes on a Swiss cheese roster. Not so easy when you draft a bunch of second round players and fill the second/third level of your depth chart.

So yeah, this is the first Bruce Allen article I've read. It was interesting and entertaining, but so is King. Then again, that is there job... to entertain. Their articles shouldn't be preserved over time for future generations in the Library of Congress.

Much. A. Do. About. Nothing.

 

[Dirk3601215]

looks like king is a fan of the eagles. let em root for those choke artists.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're citing that post? Really? That's supposed to be the clarification, the point that I somehow missed through seven pages?

For what it's worth, that's the post that sent us off to the races. Between "King's right on this and Allen is wrong" and "I say this not because Allen doesn't have a point (he does), and not because King is 100% correct (he's not)", you couldn't have triangulated more if you were a politician.

Interestingly, Ian praised that post. If it sent you off to the races, such is life. I stand by it.

Not to mention that this line:



shows you think it's all about who the Patriots got with their picks and not about the trading back.

No, it shows that I'm talking about the general consensus of who the top 4 LTs were in the draft. Again, this is where people such as yourself go wrong. You're talking about a general draft analysis, making it Patriots specific, and then you're going off the rails if anyone dares to take a different approach.

The problem with that is that your approach is just not how it's done by the media throughout the country.

 

[Dirk3601215]

who da heck is bruce allen?

 

[Pats67]

Frankly, this is a non-issue to me, but an extremely humorous non-issue. You're actually insulting a columnist and working yourself into a lather over something as useless as a post-draft analysis.

Come on. Don't claim its a non-issue to you when you have more posts than anybody on the thread.

I can accept that you're pissed about Ellis Hobbs and you think the Patriots should have done something different in the draft (which again, is essentially the foundation of your arguments in this thread today). I personally don't know if they should or they shouldn't have - as it did with Chad Jackson (and on the other hand Logan Mankins) the truth will show itself soon enough.

But don't try to claim the high ground here. Your biases may be different than mine, but they're biases nonetheless.

 

[Snapper]

No, it shows that I'm talking about the general consensus of who the top 4 LTs were in the draft. Again, this is where people such as yourself go wrong. You're talking about a general draft analysis, making it Patriots specific, and then you're going off the rails if anyone dares to take a different approach.

The problem with that is that your approach is just not how it's done by the media throughout the country.

Wow. You nailed it. I'm upset that people dare take a different approach than the Pats. That's it exactly. And I think I crystallized that point when I said:

I don't give a damn how King or any other writer graded the Pats draft.

No. My problem is trying to make the same point repeatedly in post after post to somebody unwilling (or unable) to understand what I wrote. It's insanity, as defined by Einstein.

 

[NE39]

I really don't see how you can argue the two teams did anything differently without taking into account how you value the players they got in the draft.

Both teams traded out of picks to accumulate more pick, including future picks. Both got increased value for trading down.

The Eagles traded down because they felt they could still get the player they wanted while getting more value.

I assume the Pats felt the same way. Just because they traded out of the first round doesn't mean they felt they couldn't get better value. They obviously didn't feel the players available to them at #23 were worth the value.

Does King really think the Pats were trading down without a plan? That is ridiculous, especially given their track record. They haven't always been right (although they have been more than most), but they always are prepared going in and execute a plan. They don't decide to randomly trade down on a whim.

Really, King's argument makes no sense unless he throws in there that he doesn't like the players the Pats got. That is fine, he is entitled to his opinion. However, it really isn't any different from what the Eagles did, other than the players they got.

 

[Lampshade]

Interestingly, Ian praised that post. If it sent you off to the races, such is life. I stand by it.

No, it shows that I'm talking about the general consensus of who the top 4 LTs were in the draft. Again, this is where people such as yourself go wrong. You're talking about a general draft analysis, making it Patriots specific, and then you're going off the rails if anyone dares to take a different approach.

The problem with that is that your approach is just not how it's done by the media throughout the country.

Surely it absolutely should be Patriots specific when making an analysis of the Patriots' moves.

 

[Deus Irae]

Come on. Don't claim its a non-issue to you when you have more posts than anybody on the thread.

I can accept that you're pissed about Ellis Hobbs and you think the Patriots should have done something different in the draft (which again, is essentially the foundation of your arguments in this thread today). I personally don't know if they should or they shouldn't have - as it did with Chad Jackson (and on the other hand Logan Mankins) the truth will show itself soon enough.

But don't try to claim the high ground here. Your biases may be different than mine, but they're biases nonetheless.

I have more posts because more people are attacking my position. That's just common sense. As for the rest, you completely miss where I'm coming from.

1.) Did I want Oher? Yes, and I wanted Clady last year. Mayo still turned out to be one hell of a player. I realize that BB isn't going to be setting up his draft board based upon MY wants and desires. Pleasing me on draft day is not Belichick's job.

2.) I'm not pissed about Hobbs. I think it was a mistake to move him given just the known circumstances, but I acknowledge that I don't know everything involved. In fact, in a thread about it, I pointed out some arguments that I think would make sense if they were accurate.

Those thoughts have nothing to do with my responses here, because they don't apply to the discussion.

 

[Deus Irae]

Surely it absolutely should be Patriots specific when making an analysis of the Patriots' moves.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Deus Irae]

No. My problem is trying to make the same point repeatedly in post after post to somebody unwilling (or unable) to understand what I wrote. It's insanity, as defined by Einstein.

Since that's not what's happened, that's clearly not your problem. I understand your argument, I just don't buy it in the context of the entire scenario. But, if it will get you to stop going about in circles, you go with "understand" angle.

 

[Snapper]

Since that's not what's happened, that's clearly not your problem. I understand your argument, I just don't buy it in the context of the entire scenario. But, if it will get you to stop going about in circles, you go with "understand" angle.

Just a guess, but you've commented on Reiss's blog, am I right?