This Rant - The Same As The Last

[RoughingthePasser]

To me - literally each DB transaction has made sense in a vacuum.

Sanders was overpaid - gone.
Meriweather was a bum in many ways - gone.
Page was mediocre - gone.
Butler was underperforming - gone.
Bodden was underperforming, lacked commitment - gone.

It's only when you add them up that they become a problem.

We are what we are back there. Its up to the front 7 - and I look to guys like Haynesworth & Ellis stepping up - to taking some pressure off of them.

yeah i hear ya...
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/840659-can-we-fix-secondary.html

 

[RoughingthePasser]

Belichick changed his philosophy for 2011. He kicked out veteran depth BEFORE he knew that the replacements would work out.
==================================
Belichick had zero cap pressure. He chose not to keep Butler and Sanders as backup defensive backs. The alternative has been street free agents at those positions.

CORNER
Even if Dowling was productive in this rookie year AND Bodden returned 100% from his injuries, Butler would have been a reasonable choice as our #5 corner (and special teamer).

SAFETY
Even if Barrett was better than Page and Meriweather and Sanders, AND Brown was a solid #3 safety, Sanders is still good enough to be a solid backup.

BOTTOM LINE
Sanders and Butler should have been on the 53-man roster. Our record may be no different at this point, but the quality of our defensive backfield for the rest of 2011 would be different, and this would be the case even if Bodden and Dowling were here.

Our 8 man defensive back group is a disgrace counting on Molden, Adams, Barrett, and Brown to back our "playoff quality" starters McCourty, Arrington, Chung and Ihedigbo. This is the worst Belichick secondary ever, and Belichick is buying the groceries, and was a secondary coach. This set of decisions is all on Belichick.

Most sadly, this secondary is by choice. Belichick used lots of picks on the secondary. Belichick chose to say goodbye to Page, Meriweather, Sanders, Wilhite and Butler. Belichick chose not to spend to big bucks (or any bucks) on an additional defensive back.

GOING FORWARD
We still are favored to get into the playoffs. We still have as good a chance as any AFC team to reach the SB.

I would note that bettors still have us as the havvy divvison favorite, the AFC favorite and the 2nd most likely team to win the Super Bowl.

Good thread...I agree. Bill should pm us to manage the secondary if he cant
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/840659-can-we-fix-secondary.html

GO BILLS!

GO PATS!

 

[Ring 6]

The cherry picked time frame

I didn't pick it.

was the period they needed draft the replacements for Law, Harrison, Bruschi, Seymour, Vrabel, McGinest, etc.

Law was 'replaced' by Samuel. In 06 and 07 Seymour, Vrabel, Harrison were still here. We chose Mayo to replace Bruschi.

I never acted like they were 2-14. The talent that they won their championships with was getting old and needed to be replaced by new draft picks.

But you r are acting as if that would be easy. When has a team lost most of its best players on a unit over a 3 year period and found equal replacements in the draft? Your expectations are unreasonable.

The Law's, Bruschi's, Seymour's etc, are all long gone and the only legit replacement has been Mayo,

So that negates Bruschi. Law was repalced by Samuel, who was replaced by McCourty. Chung was drafted to replace Harrison. Seymour was here for every one of those drafts that were cherry picked, as was Warren.

maybe McCourty but he's looked bad in his second season.

No. He looked bad the first few games, and has been fine since.

Chung is average at best until he proves otherwise.

Your opinion, mine is different.

They had 8 defensive draft picks in the first three rounds from 06-09.
The players they used those picks on were:

Mayo
Chung
Brace
Meriweather
Butler
Wheatley
Crable
McKenzie

And what are your expectations?
Mayo is an allpro.
Chung is a starter.
Brace has been injured but looked good when he played.
Meriwhether started for 4 years and played well enough that peers and coaches had him in the probowl.
Butler had a good rookie season and crapped out. That is not shocking for a second.
Wheatley was never healthy.
Crabel was never healthy and after missing 2 years of football couldnt cut it, hardly shocking for a 3rd.
McKenzie was the 97th pick and was injured in rookie minicamp.


I'm not sure what your expectations are but those are pretty typical results.

What you responded to was my comment one 37Harrison's
"The other thing here is from 06-09, 11 of the 19 defensive picks (52%) were picked in round 4 or later... the majority of that (9 of 11 or 81%) being drafted in rounds 6 & 7."

So if late round picks shouldn't be expected to contribute (52%) than shouldn't higher picks result in a better crop of talent than Wheatley,Crable, McKenzie, Butler, Meriweather and Brace?

See above, they did.
And what his post was in response to was using a % of how many players are on the team from the 06 to 09 drafts as a judge of the drafting, which has been proven to be moronic.

Lack of attention and bad evaluation of talent has cost this team and will continue to cost this team.

Where are they not paying attention, and not evaluating? Who had substantially better results?
Your problem is that you want to rely on draft choices to consistently succeed when that doesnt happen.
Your real issue is you just don't understand the draft.

They need to invest more resources and better evaluation in their defense. The proof is on the field. That is, unless you're happy with this defense and don't think it needs to be improved.

So if I am unhappy with the play of the defense that proves that your reasoning for the cause is correct? Come on thats foolish.
We are discussing why. You can't claim you are right with 'because' and it is proven by why existing.

 

[Wax Frog]

Say hello to the new rant... same as the old rant?

 

[Ring 6]

Belichick is deliberately trading down, so the "the picks were in lower rounds" doesn't hold water. The picks are in lower rounds because of deliberate actions by the man making the picks.

This is what your argument results in.
If I trade down from the first and get a 2nd, 4th and 6th, then EACH OF THOSE 3 PICKS has to be as successful as your first for the drafting to be equal. The reality is that the COMBINATION of those picks must add up to the quality of your 1.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

I didn't pick it.



Law was 'replaced' by Samuel. In 06 and 07 Seymour, Vrabel, Harrison were still here. We chose Mayo to replace Bruschi.






But you r are acting as if that would be easy. When has a team lost most of its best players on a unit over a 3 year period and found equal replacements in the draft? Your expectations are unreasonable.



So that negates Bruschi. Law was repalced by Samuel, who was replaced by McCourty. Chung was drafted to replace Harrison. Seymour was here for every one of those drafts that were cherry picked, as was Warren.



No. He looked bad the first few games, and has been fine since.


Your opinion, mine is different.


And what are your expectations?
Mayo is an allpro.
Chung is a starter.
Brace has been injured but looked good when he played.
Meriwhether started for 4 years and played well enough that peers and coaches had him in the probowl.
Butler had a good rookie season and crapped out. That is not shocking for a second.
Wheatley was never healthy.
Crabel was never healthy and after missing 2 years of football couldnt cut it, hardly shocking for a 3rd.
McKenzie was the 97th pick and was injured in rookie minicamp.


I'm not sure what your expectations are but those are pretty typical results.




See above, they did.
And what his post was in response to was using a % of how many players are on the team from the 06 to 09 drafts as a judge of the drafting, which has been proven to be moronic.


Where are they not paying attention, and not evaluating? Who had substantially better results?
Your problem is that you want to rely on draft choices to consistently succeed when that doesnt happen.
Your real issue is you just don't understand the draft.



So if I am unhappy with the play of the defense that proves that your reasoning for the cause is correct? Come on thats foolish.
We are discussing why. You can't claim you are right with 'because' and it is proven by why existing.

Samuel left after 2007, who replaced him? Chung is a starter on the worst secondary in football. Meriweather did not start for 4 years, he barely played his rookie season and he stunk last year, The Pats released him. Butler didn't see a third season with the team, also released.

Wheatley released, 3 tackles as a Patriot, Crable released, 4 tackles as a Patriot, Mckenzie released, 0 games played?

See what you want to see, I see a very poor job of evaluating defensive talent. I see a void of talent on this defense brought on by poor drafting.

 

[Ring 6]

Samuel left after 2007, who replaced him? Chung is a starter on the worst secondary in football. Meriweather did not start for 4 years, he barely played his rookie season and he stunk last year, The Pats released him. Butler didn't see a third season with the team, also released.

Wheatley released, 3 tackles as a Patriot, Crable released, 4 tackles as a Patriot, Mckenzie released, 0 games played?

See what you want to see, I see a very poor job of evaluating defensive talent. I see a void of talent on this defense brought on by poor drafting.

Deltha Oneal and Wilhite replaced him in 08 when we were 11th in pass defense yardage, and Bodden came the next year when we were 12th.
We were 12th, 12th and 31st in pass defense the 3 years Samuel was a full time starter.
And I see similar results to what other teams have had with similar draft choices.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

This is what your argument results in.
If I trade down from the first and get a 2nd, 4th and 6th, then EACH OF THOSE 3 PICKS has to be as successful as your first for the drafting to be equal. The reality is that the COMBINATION of those picks must add up to the quality of your 1.

Everyone on this board was gloating about how smart the Pats were because of the pick used on Clay Matthews the Pats turned into Gronk, Butler, Tate and Edelman. Well the trade turned out to be essentially Matthews a #1 in 09 for Gronk a #2 in 2010, basically traded out a year to go down a round. They had the ammo to get Gronk without trading the 2009 # 1. Gronk's a hell of a player but the trade was not the score we all made it out to be espicially considering they already had the ammo to get him if they really wanted him but that pick could have been used on Matthews and we still could have had drafted Gronk.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Deltha Oneal and Wilhite replaced him in 08 when we were 11th in pass defense yardage, and Bodden came the next year when we were 12th.
We were 12th, 12th and 31st in pass defense the 3 years Samuel was a full time starter.
And I see similar results to what other teams have had with similar draft choices.

So from Law to Samuel to Deltha O'neal, that's hell of a way to build a team.

 

[Ring 6]

Everyone on this board was gloating about how smart the Pats were because of the pick used on Clay Matthews the Pats turned into Gronk, Butler, Tate and Edelman. Well the trade turned out to be essentially Matthews a #1 in 09 for Gronk a #2 in 2010, basically traded out a year to go down a round. They had the ammo to get Gronk without trading the 2009 # 1. Gronk's a hell of a player but the trade was not the score we all made it out to be espicially considering they already had the ammo to get him if they really wanted him but that pick could have been used on Matthews and we still could have had drafted Gronk.

If you are going to judge a draft pick or trade by how players still on the board turned out to be, no one has ever had a good draft.
Your screen name is a good one, because you are living in revisionist history.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

If we could just get Bobby Grier back, everything would be OK.

Grier's last draft class in 1999 as the same amount of players on this team as the 2006-2007 draft classes combined.

 

[Ring 6]

So from Law to Samuel to Deltha O'neal, that's hell of a way to build a team.

Just answering your question.
So you expect that every position on a team in every year must stay as good or improve?
Thats a hell of way to be unrealistic.
No comment on how there was no drop off in pass D stats?

 

[Ring 6]

Everyone on this board was gloating about how smart the Pats were because of the pick used on Clay Matthews the Pats turned into Gronk, Butler, Tate and Edelman. Well the trade turned out to be essentially Matthews a #1 in 09 for Gronk a #2 in 2010, basically traded out a year to go down a round. They had the ammo to get Gronk without trading the 2009 # 1. Gronk's a hell of a player but the trade was not the score we all made it out to be espicially considering they already had the ammo to get him if they really wanted him but that pick could have been used on Matthews and we still could have had drafted Gronk.

By the way, you should know enough to realize that what everyone on this board says about the draft when it happens is almost always wrong.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

If you are going to judge a draft pick or trade by how players still on the board turned out to be, no one has ever had a good draft.
Your screen name is a good one, because you are living in revisionist history.

What I responded to was your claim that "The reality is that the COMBINATION of those picks must add up to the quality of your 1". I used the Matthews trade to show that it didn't, there's nothing revisionist about it.

 

[Ring 6]

What I responded to was your claim that "The reality is that the COMBINATION of those picks must add up to the quality of your 1". I used the Matthews trade to show that it didn't, there's nothing revisionist about it.

Based on the criteria of this thread, we have 2 players to show for the trade instead of 1. The premise was the raw # vs the percentage, in which case you have shown that while we have 2 players remaining (and 2 more made contributions) that is a 50% "hit rate" and is worse than get 1 player with a pick producing 100%.
I recognize you are including who the player is, but that discussion was based upon whether the # of players or the % of picks is a better metric. This is a great example why the % is a poor metric, but all but one person on the board realizes that (or admits it) I think.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Grier's last draft class in 1999 as the same amount of players on this team as the 2006-2007 draft classes combined.

Max Land and Todd Rucci agree with you - Grier was a great GM.

Statistics can't be wrong.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Max Land and Todd Rucci agree with you - Grier was a great GM.

Statistics can't be wrong.

But you can, Rucci and Lane were chosen by Parcells, and what do statistics have to do with it?

Grier was not a good GM, although his last draft class did include Faulk, Damien Woody, Sean Morey in the 7th round and Katzenmoyer who had a very good rookie season before hurting his neck. Bringing Grier into the conversation makes me want to ask why the current regime isn't held to the same standard.

Bring up 2006-2008 drafts and people will defend every pick. Crable, O'Connell, Wheatley, Meriweather, Maroney, Thomas, Chad Jackson - all taken in the top 3 rounds. Are those picks any better than Grier's?

And the 2009 class isn't looking much better. Vollmer looks like the only solid pick. Butler, Tate, McKenzie and I'm sorry but Chung stinks.

 

[JoeSixPat]

But you can, Rucci and Lane were chosen by Parcells, and what do statistics have to do with it?

Grier was not a good GM, although his last draft class did include Faulk, Damien Woody, Sean Morey in the 7th round and Katzenmoyer who had a very good rookie season before hurting his neck. Bringing Grier into the conversation makes me want to ask why the current regime isn't held to the same standard.

Bring up 2006-2008 drafts and people will defend every pick. Crable, O'Connell, Wheatley, Meriweather, Maroney, Thomas, Chad Jackson - all taken in the top 3 rounds. Are those picks any better than Grier's?

And the 2009 class isn't looking much better. Vollmer looks like the only solid pick. Butler, Tate, McKenzie and I'm sorry but Chung stinks.

In your zeal to analyze draft statistics you seem to have missed the point that a GM does more than draft

You've also missed the extremely obvious point that exasperated Patsfan references to Max Lane and Todd Rucci seldom have anything to do with who or when they were drafted.

References to Lane, Rucci and Greer have something to do with another very important aspect to the game of football and the role of the GM

(I'd embellish further but I don't want to spoil things for those catching up on their "History of the New England Patriots"

I'd just leave it that everyone correctly seems to agree that Grier was not a good GM, even if statistics show that he got lucky or did a good job in the draft

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

In your zeal to analyze draft statistics you seem to have missed the point that a GM does more than draft

You've also missed the extremely obvious point that exasperated Patsfan references to Max Lane and Todd Rucci seldom have anything to do with who or when they were drafted.

References to Lane, Rucci and Greer have something to do with another very important aspect to the game of football and the role of the GM

(I'd embellish further but I don't want to spoil things for those catching up on their "History of the New England Patriots"

I'd just leave it that everyone correctly seems to agree that Grier was not a good GM, even if statistics show that he got lucky or did a good job in the draft

Like in a Ochocinco, Leigh Bodden, Shawn Ellis way?

 

[Julius Peppers]

Simple nuff yall need some pressure

Eli got nothin but yall make him like Ern Roger out theres