The real problem for this team is...

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: the real problem for this team is......

We literally are 3 plays from 10-2 and it is 3 plays we would make 95 times out of 100. Why do you find a problem with that. It doesnt mean we are 10-2, it means we better figure out how to make those plays when it matters and we can compete with anyone in the postseason.

I think BB has done a tremendous job with the roster. I think it is ignorant to segregate one position without recognizing the job is to build a team.

the biggest abberration was the bills week 1.......the pats had no business winning that game.

again.....avoiding the question and spinning and twisting any way you can..........has BB done a good job with the LB's on this team? I know how hard it is to tell the difference between the terms LB and roster which is why I am asking one more time........may YOU are just to ignorant to segregate positions, or you KNOW the answer and KNOW that I am right.

keep twisting

 

[patsfan-1982]

02 team wasnt better, because it wasnt as healthy. It was equal(possibly a bit better), but sustained more injuries, and frankly wasn't as hungry because they had won.

2002 did have more talent now talent dose not all was get you a SB or make you the best team in the NFL

the saints and colts are both 12-0 but i think that the arizona cardinals have the most talent in the NFL and they are 8-4

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: the real problem for this team is......

You've ignored my post about the value LBs and turned it into what BB inherited which was a disaster by any definition.

what value LB's? there hasnt been one added to the roster since 2001. instead there has been constant fishing for buys like beisel and chad brown.

I supposed that 4 of your 6 LB's in your rotationin 2008 were 32,34,35,39 years old.....must be by design and only you could be suprised at the results this year.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: the real problem for this team is......

what value LB's? there hasnt been one added to the roster since 2001. instead there has been constant fishing for buys like beisel and chad brown.

I supposed that 4 of your 6 LB's in your rotationin 2008 were 32,34,35,39 years old.....must be by design and only you could be suprised at the results this year.

So Mayo doesn't have value?

 

[mgteich]

Re: the real problem for this team is......

Let's see
In the last two years Belichick has acquired five kids in Mayo, Guyton, Ninkovich, Crable and McKenzie. He brought back Banta-Cain and re-signed Woods. The cap represents a zero sum game. Money saved on linebackers is spent somewhere else. We needed corners even more than linebackers. Bodden and Springs did well when they were the starters. So how well did he do with the five kids at linebacker? One was DROY. I would argue for the cap money spent and that Belichick didn't do badly.

I would have preferred that the patriots use more resources on linebackers. Obviously, AD is eating up a lot of cap monies. Paying huge salaries to veterans who get injured isn't a good way to use cap space. This happened with Colvin and Thomas.

BOTTOM LINE
Belichick seems to have built an OK set of future ILB's in Mayo, Guyton and McKenzie.

Obviously, OLB is a weakness primarily because Thomas hasn't been performing for whatever reason. Banta-Cain, Woods, and Ninkovich have been doing their jobs. They would be good role players on a 2010 team.

So, yes we need an OLB or two. Crable will compete, perhaps one last time.

We also need to replace Green.

This is now normal turnover.

everything you have said is moronic.....I mean 'duh 3 plays from 10-2' ..... do you realize how idiotic that sounds?

so I ask again.........do you think BB has done a good job with the LB's on this team?

 

[IcyPatriot]

Another baseless argument

... so add your star linebacker and now who do you subtract to stay under the cap?

.... Thomas was supposed to be that guy ... he either got lazy or got off of the HGH.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: the real problem for this team is......

So Mayo doesn't have value?

do you understand value? they used the 10th pick in the draft to get him.......to say he is good or bad value at this point is premature. he had a good rookie season, but does look like ted johnson in coverage from time to time. let just call it even right now. he ain't no patrick willis, that's for sure

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: the real problem for this team is......

do you understand value? they used the 10th pick in the draft to get him.......to say he is good or bad value at this point is premature. he had a good rookie season, but does look like ted johnson in coverage from time to time. let just call it even right now. he ain't no patrick willis, that's for sure

Ok, in that case we got great value for Seau, Banta-Cain, Woods, and Guyton. They may not be excellent players, but we didn't pay much for em.

The only way your premise works is if value is defined as an all-pro caliber player that you pick up off the trash heap. And no, we haven't have one of those in a while, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: the real problem for this team is......

Ok, in that case we got great value for Seau, Banta-Cain, Woods, and Guyton. They may not be excellent players, but we didn't pay much for em.

The only way your premise works is if value is defined as an all-pro caliber player that you pick up off the trash heap. And no, we haven't have one of those in a while, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

you wanna be a drama queen, knock yourself out. can't say we got great value for them, because most of them stink.....just because the team has nobody else and is forced to put somebody on the field doesn't automatically make it good value. put it this way......none of them would make the steelers, chargers, cowboys, packers, or broncos.......all 3-4 teams

kind of tells you the value of our LB corp

 

[mgteich]

Re: the real problem for this team is......

I'd say that we got great value this year in Banta-Cain and McGowan.

Ok, in that case we got great value for Seau, Banta-Cain, Woods, and Guyton. They may not be excellent players, but we didn't pay much for em.

The only way your premise works is if value is defined as an all-pro caliber player that you pick up off the trash heap. And no, we haven't have one of those in a while, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: the real problem for this team is......

the biggest abberration was the bills week 1.......the pats had no business winning that game.

again.....avoiding the question and spinning and twisting any way you can..........has BB done a good job with the LB's on this team? I know how hard it is to tell the difference between the terms LB and roster which is why I am asking one more time........may YOU are just to ignorant to segregate positions, or you KNOW the answer and KNOW that I am right.

keep twisting

LB is part of the roster. You cannot evaluate transactions at LB without evaluating transactions on the entire roster. There is a salary cap. you know.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: the real problem for this team is......

what value LB's? there hasnt been one added to the roster since 2001. instead there has been constant fishing for buys like beisel and chad brown.

I supposed that 4 of your 6 LB's in your rotationin 2008 were 32,34,35,39 years old.....must be by design and only you could be suprised at the results this year.

Guyton....UDFA starter
Mayo.....DROY
Banta Cain, cheap FA who leads team in sacks
Woods....cheap depth
That is a bunch of value just on the roster today.

When we had Vrabel, Covin, McGinest, Thomas at OLB and Bruschi, Phifer, Johnson and other bit players in the parttime role of 2nd ILB from 01-07 at the LB position how would you expect to see other 'value' players?
We have been as good at LB over the last 10 years in total as any NFL team. Please show me all the teams that have been better. Since your position is we suck, it should be at least 20.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: the real problem for this team is......

its not about the 2009 draft.......I'll ask you to go back in time and look at how the pats under BB have not developed ANYONE worth a damn at LB......right now, we are holding out hope for mayo, but that's it.

1.) I'm glad I took you off ignore on this computer when I did my upgrade, because I'd have missed this post of yours otherwise. So, welcome back, so to speak....

2.) My response to Riddler was specific to his complaint about this draft. His argument is a poor one in context. I love that he defends his binkies, but he fights on the wrong battlegrounds.

3.) BB has approached the linebacker position in a way that's strikingly similar to the Steelers' method. The difference between the two has been mainly health related. I've posted about this multiple times, on multiple threads. This post I'll link to serves as a recap:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/301059-lack-playmaking-lbs-swings-misses.html#post1631346

We don't know what Crable and/or McKenzie could have provided, and I just don't think it's fair to point to the USC boys as if they're proof of a failing with this draft as a result, particularly since so many other 3-4 teams passed on them once or twice.

P.S. My expectations of Crable have never been high, and that's not changed to date. I really don't like the look of his lower legs.

 

[mgteich]

Re: the real problem for this team is......

Why is unfair to think that we might be as good as Green Bay in evaluating talent in a 3-4 OLB? Green Bay took the chance with Matthews and he will be an important reason for them getting to the playoffs if they indeed make it. There was absolutely no question that we need OLB help this year or next. I would have been OK if we picked Butler at 26, but Belichick would have traded up to get him at 40 in any case.

I understand that drafting Laurinitis was a different issue. Belichick thought that he had his two starters for the future and could get a backup for the rotation later. He did that.

And no, I wouldn't have drafted Maualuga. Belichick requires a certain level of intelligence for players in certain positions. Maybe he's wrong, but this bias hasn't hurt the team over the years.

1.) I'm glad I took you off ignore on this computer when I did my upgrade, because I'd have missed this post of yours otherwise. So, welcome back, so to speak....

2.) My response to Riddler was specific to his complaint about this draft. His argument is a poor one in context. I love that he defends his binkies, but he fights on the wrong battlegrounds.

3.) BB has approached the linebacker position in a way that's strikingly similar to the Steelers' method. The difference between the two has been mainly health related. I've posted about this multiple times, on multiple threads. This post I'll link to serves as a recap:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/301059-lack-playmaking-lbs-swings-misses.html#post1631346

We don't know what Crable and/or McKenzie could have provided, and I just don't think it's fair to point to the USC boys as if they're proof of a failing with this draft as a result, particularly since so many other 3-4 teams passed on them once or twice.

P.S. My expectations of Crable have never been high, and that's not changed to date. I really don't like the look of his lower legs.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

The OP and The Riddler are right in that the reason why this team is in the position that they are in right now is because of a lack of talent at LB and secondary. But who knew their offense would suck too? People loved Pierre Woods for some weird reason and he is proving to be nothing more than a special teamer. Also, let's be realistic, Shawn Crable isn't going to jack next season and may not even make the team. In addition, McKenzie is going to struggle as he tries to come back from an ACL tear. Don't expect much from him in 2010.

For a team that was armed with with the most draft picks in 2009, passes on the most glaring need until the 3rd round. Flat out, the Pats dropped the ball in the 2009 Draft (again). They reached on Chung, Brace was horrible at the time and he's doing his best in making us doubters look right.

We all know the Pats pass rush isn't very good. We can all agree that the pass rush comes from the LB's in a 3-4. So why is this even an argument?

Some people on this board counter with, "well BB brought in this guy or that guy" and "he's developing". Until guys like Ninkovinch, Crable and McKenzie actually do something, the Pats are still bad at LB.

The reason why people have such high expectations for Mayo is because of the player that went in his spot one year before him in Patrick Willis. Seeing at what Willis is doing makes fans on this board expect similar results out of Mayo.

So if 2010 is capped, the Pats will get yet another chance to rebuild a position that has been neglected since 2005. There are a ton of LB's that are set to hit FA if a new CBA deal is set in place. Three LB's I expect the Pats to go after are Shawne Merriman for the outside, Kirk Morrison on the inside or Barrett Ruud on the inside. Their goal should be in 2010 is to sign one outside LB and one ILB and draft a few more.

2010 is now or never.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: the real problem for this team is......

Why is unfair to think that we might be as good as Green Bay in evaluating talent in a 3-4 OLB? Green Bay took the chance with Matthews and he will be an important reason for them getting to the playoffs if they indeed make it. There was absolutely no question that we need OLB help this year or next. I would have been OK if we picked Butler at 26, but Belichick would have traded up to get him at 40 in any case.

1.) The Patriots had Crable, and drafted McKenzie. They had attempted to address the position. The two draftees are on IR.

2.) The Packers had 2 picks in the first round, not one, thus making that second pick a bit easier if they considered it a gamble. I'm not saying that they felt Matthews was a gamble, but I'm noting that they could better afford to make one at that point. The interesting thing here, of course, is that he's been the better first round pick for them, so far.

3.) I mentioned "so many other" 3-4 teams passing on the USC pair. I did not say that every one of them did it.

It's funny that when I point to Oher and Clady, people point to Mayo and Vollmer, but they refuse to look at the LB situation in that same light by looking at the two IR'd draftees. Again, for the record, I'm not a Crable fan.

I understand that drafting Laurinitis was a different issue. Belichick thought that he had his two starters for the future and could get a backup for the rotation later. He did that.

Frankly, I think one can really raise a question here more than with the USC duo, but I'm not sold on Guyton to this point, so that bias makes my opinion here a bit suspect.

And no, I wouldn't have drafted Maualuga. Belichick requires a certain level of intelligence for players in certain positions. Maybe he's wrong, but this bias hasn't hurt the team over the years.

Well, it has when a player's been able to overcome the problem, but I've got no problem with having minimum intelligence standards, as long as that doesn't turn your team into the NFL equivalent of Havard or Yale.

 

[Tunescribe]

The real problem with this thread is ...



















... the OP doesn't know jack about the team-building process.