Ty Law on ESPN: Pats made big mistake gutting team of SB veterans

[Patspsycho]

On ESPN NFL Program tonight (Friday), Ty Law, in studio, criticized the Patriots for parting ways with all almost all of their multiple Super Bowl winning veterans. Law said the sudden loss of these veteran players (Seymour, Varvis Green etc.) left the young players without the strong locker room role models that have been the hallmark of the Patriots in the Belichick era up to this prior season.

The ESPN NFL panel rated the Patriots as a team with the "window closing", but also noted that any team with Tom Brady at QB can not be counted out. The consensus was New England's offense not the problem, but the lingering question mark remains: Can their young defense emerge to resemble their past Super Bowl winners which were anchored by a stout defense?

BB had to turn the roster over at some point to start a new era. And yes the "window is closing" so that a "new window" can open.

 

[RayClay]

We've seen young legs on defense pretty much every year of the Belichick era post-2002. The problem hasn't been finding decent/good young talent, because BB's been able to do quite a bit of that. The problem's been finding top talent replacements for aging/traded top talent.

The "elite" talent from the best defensive team(s):

Harrison
Vrabel
Seymour
Washington
Bruschi
Law

Not one of them has been replaced with an equal talent player or upgrade. (Wilfork is an excellent player, and has been a more than adequate replacement. He's just not Ted Washington). When you look at the other players, you have some good players replacing good players, but there are no elite players stepping in to help equal out the lost talent.

I don't disagree. By young legs, I meant equivalent young players, not young scrubs.

Of course we don't know how good they'll prove to be, but if draft picks are currency, we should have some talent and i love Bodden as a young talented acquisition.

Wilfork is better than Ted Washington in some ways and he's young. Two different flavors of elite NT.

I have to admit the top linebacker group plus Harrison was fantastic, but we have a good talent pool, it takes time.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

On ESPN NFL Program tonight (Friday), Ty Law, in studio, criticized the Patriots for parting ways with all almost all of their multiple Super Bowl winning veterans. Law said the sudden loss of these veteran players (Seymour, Varvis Green etc.) left the young players without the strong locker room role models that have been the hallmark of the Patriots in the Belichick era up to this prior season.

the only guy i would have kept was vrabel. but the team had to unload it's veterans at some point. plus no one saw (at least i didn't) bruschi suddenly hanging his cleats up. if BB had known that, he probably would have kept Vrabel around.

 

[ralphoutloud]

I hate when stuff like this is said, because it really while true, is actually helpful in the long term. The Patriots, unlike every other NFL dynasty, started reloading early for sustained success. Every other dynasty in the NFL held on to their great players until sometimes the very bitter end.

The way I see it, the Patriots can be the 2nd team to sustain dynasty-like success over two decades because of this fact. The 49ers did it albeit having 2 franchise QBs. I can suffer a few 10-6 or 11-5 years for another couple Superbowls when this crop of youngsters gets seasoned.

 

[eagle eye]

I hate when stuff like this is said, because it really while true, is actually helpful in the long term. The Patriots, unlike every other NFL dynasty, started reloading early for sustained success. Every other dynasty in the NFL held on to their great players until sometimes the very bitter end.

The way I see it, the Patriots can be the 2nd team to sustain dynasty-like success over two decades because of this fact. The 49ers did it albeit having 2 franchise QBs. I can sufferD) a few 10-6 or 11-5 years for another couple Superbowls when this crop of youngsters gets seasoned.

FYP

10 chars

 

[Deus Irae]

I hate when stuff like this is said, because it really while true, is actually helpful in the long term. The Patriots, unlike every other NFL dynasty, started reloading early for sustained success. Every other dynasty in the NFL held on to their great players until sometimes the very bitter end.

The way I see it, the Patriots can be the 2nd team to sustain dynasty-like success over two decades because of this fact. The 49ers did it albeit having 2 franchise QBs. I can suffer a few 10-6 or 11-5 years for another couple Superbowls when this crop of youngsters gets seasoned.

Unloading older players is only a good way to go if you have younger players who can step in or, at least, other talented players who can pick up the slack.

And a 10-6 season ending with the worst home playoff loss in history, during a wild card game, coming off of a season where the team did not make the playoffs, isn't exactly "dynasty-like success" in my eyes.

 

[ralphoutloud]

Unloading older players is only a good way to go if you have younger players who can step in or, at least, other talented players who can pick up the slack.

And a 10-6 season ending with the worst home playoff loss in history, during a wild card game, coming off of a season where the team did not make the playoffs, isn't exactly "dynasty-like success" in my eyes.

Well we have some very promising players who can eventually fill the roles left when the team lost it's vets.

And I didn't say that was dynasty-like success, but would you be happy with that 11-5 season and last year's 10-6 season in exchange for 1 or more Superbowls down the road when these players come into their own? I think that's a better option than holding onto all the vets until they simply can't play anymore and then have to rebuild instead of reload

 

[jmt57]

I did see the segment and based on the responses I'm guessing many that have commented did not. All Law was saying was that in his opinion the Pats lost a lot of veteran leadership in a very short time. He was specifically referring to leaders 'in the locker room'. Based on what we saw last year, as well as by comments from players like Brady, Wilfork, and Koppen, I don't see how what he said is off base. I'm not saying it is absolutely true or absolutely false, but it does appear to be a valid point to consider.

There are plenty of circumstances and possible explanations to consider as to how and why that happened, but I don't think what Law said was out of line.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well we have some very promising players who can eventually fill the roles left when the team lost it's vets.

And I didn't say that was dynasty-like success, but would you be happy with that 11-5 season and last year's 10-6 season in exchange for 1 or more Superbowls down the road when these players come into their own? I think that's a better option than holding onto all the vets until they simply can't play anymore and then have to rebuild instead of reload

Why should people be happy with 11-5 and then 10-6 (w/smoke show in playoffs) when that's two more years of Brady's career that went down the hopper?

What you, and a lot of the homers, keep ignoring, is the obvious: you can never get those two years back. They are gone. 2008 wasn't anyone's fault, as it was injury based. 2009 is on BB.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Why should people be happy with 11-5 and then 10-6 (w/smoke show in playoffs) when that's two more years of Brady's career that went down the hopper?

What you, and a lot of the homers, keep ignoring, is the obvious: you can never get those two years back. They are gone. 2008 wasn't anyone's fault, as it was injury based. 2009 is on BB.

Yet, you stick up for Bill O'Brien.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

If Law was talking about locker room presence, then I don't know why you guys are dismissing it based on on-the-field performance of the older guys. Me, I would have liked to have a Vrabel and/or Willie and/or Seymour in that combustible locker room last year, not to mention that they probably would have started on last year's awful front 7 anyway (obviously Seymour would have). So yeah, I agree with what I read that Ty said. I'll never understand the antipathy towards Law shown here. That man played like a beast for the Pats.

I saw it and believe Law meant vet leadership presence, and he was right. Nothing bitter or overly critical, just his reasoned opinion.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yet, you stick up for Bill O'Brien.

Bagging on a first year O.C. when he's dealing with Brady's inconsistencies, Sam Aiken as the WR3, an O-line that couldn't stay healthy and a total lack of tight end depth along with a RB who's changed his style from one that was outwardly displeasing to the masses, but effective, to one that is outwardly pleasing to the masses, but far less effective, is just silly, IMO.

 

[jmt57]

Why should people be happy with 11-5 and then 10-6 (w/smoke show in playoffs) when that's two more years of Brady's career that went down the hopper?

What you, and a lot of the homers, keep ignoring, is the obvious: you can never get those two years back. They are gone. 2008 wasn't anyone's fault, as it was injury based. 2009 is on BB.

That's true, a very valid point that tends to be overlooked. And of course it's not just Brady, but also Randy Moss, Matt Light, Stephen Neal, etc.

On the other hand perhaps at some point Belichick felt the chances of a 2009 championship were extremely thin. Brady was coming back from a major injury, Bruschi's skills had eroded to where he would have been cut if he hadn't retired - after being counted on for 2009, and whether it was player or scheme, Thomas was not the force BB had envisioned he would be. Put a team together that's good enough to get to the playoffs and once there roll the dice with the idea anything can happen once you're in. Meanwhile look ahead as well, as part of the Kraft and Belichick philosophy has always been to build a team that would be competitive for the longterm. There's still time left for Brady to win another championship, even if one (or two) seasons are gone and are never coming back.

I can see both sides on this debate. I don't think there's an absolute clear-cut 'this was the right way' or 'this was the wrong decision' on the topic.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Bagging on a first year O.C. when he's dealing with Brady's inconsistencies, Sam Aiken as the WR3, an O-line that couldn't stay healthy and a total lack of tight end depth along with a RB who's changed his style from one that was outwardly displeasing to the masses, but effective, to one that is outwardly pleasing to the masses, but far less effective, is just silly, IMO.

Sorry you can't use the personnel card anymore when at one time Troy Brown was his #1 WR, David Patton as your #2 WR and they really didn't have a #3 WR. Their TE's were Jermaine Wiggins and Rod Rutledge. They won a super bowl that year.

In 2009, the Pats chose not to to commit to running the football and put RB's on timeout if they fumbled or were stoned at the line. Sure, there were times when they didn't execute as Brady missed a wide open Moss deep against Denver for an easy 40+ yard touchdown as there were others. And aside from Light, their O-line wasn't that banged up. But many people on this board and in the media agree, their offense was easy to game plan against.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry you can't use the personnel card anymore when at one time Troy Brown was his #1 WR, David Patton as your #2 WR and they really didn't have a #3 WR. Their TE's were Jermaine Wiggins and Rod Rutledge. They won a super bowl that year.

In 2001, the team was winning based upon mistake free offense and a punishing defense. There was no punishing defense in 2009, and the Patriots post-2004 have become more and more centered around the offense. That's not on the recent offensive coordinators, that's on the head coach.

Furthermore, in 2001, the Patriots had a fullback on the team to help with the run blocking and to catch a few passes out of the backfield. Brady threw the fewest touchdowns of any remotely full season he's ever had (in other words, not counting 2000, where he threw 3 passes, or 2008, where he threw 11 passes). In 14 starts, Brady threw the ball 413 times, which is the fewest passes he's ever made in a 'full' season. It's one of only 2 seasons, along with 2003, where he's made fewer than 500 passes.

In 2009, the Pats chose not to to commit to running the football and put RB's on timeout if they fumbled or were stoned at the line. Sure, there were times when they didn't execute as Brady missed a wide open Moss deep against Denver for an easy 40+ yard touchdown as their were others. And aside from Light, their O-line wasn't that banged up. But many people on this board and in the media agree, their offense was easy to game plan against.

In 2009, the team's left tackle suffered a knee injury that took him out for multiple games, the right tackle struggled a great deal (due to injury or otherwise), the right guard missed games due to injury and his replacements sucked, one of the running backs ended up on IR, the QB was inconsistent from game-to-game and, all too often, within single games, the tight ends weren't great blockers, defenses could ignore the WR3, the replacement OT was a rookie, and there was no fullback to help open holes. So, basically, you're just about 100% wrong in your assessments.

As for "many people on this board and in the media agree", why the hell should I care about that particular consensus when it comes to analyzing what's going on during games and apportioning blame/credit? They agreed that Cassel would be cut, too, to point out one example among many.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

In 2001, the team was winning based upon mistake free offense and a punishing defense. There was no punishing defense in 2009, and the Patriots post-2004 have become more and more centered around the offense. That's not on the recent offensive coordinators, that's on the head coach.

Furthermore, in 2001, the Patriots had a fullback on the team to help with the run blocking and to catch a few passes out of the backfield. Brady threw the fewest touchdowns of any remotely full season he's ever had (in other words, not counting 2000, where he threw 3 passes, or 2008, where he threw 11 passes). In 14 starts, Brady threw the ball 413 times, which is the fewest passes he's ever made in a 'full' season. It's one of only 2 seasons, along with 2003, where he's made fewer than 500 passes.




In 2009, the team's left tackle suffered a knee injury that took him out for multiple games, the right tackle struggled a great deal (due to injury or otherwise), the right guard missed games due to injury and his replacements sucked, one of the running backs ended up on IR, the QB was inconsistent from game-to-game and, all too often, within single games, the tight ends weren't great blockers, defenses could ignore the WR3, the replacement OT was a rookie, and there was no fullback to help open holes. So, basically, you're just about 100% wrong in your assessments.

As for "many people on this board and in the media agree", why the hell should I care about that particular consensus when it comes to analyzing what's going on during games and apportioning blame/credit? They agreed that Cassel would be cut, too, to point out one example among many.

Don't mean to be rude, but at this point, this is all I see :blahblah::blahblah::blahblah::blahblah::blahblah::blahblah::blahblah:

 

[Patspsycho]

Getting younger isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. I would have preferred Vrabel and/or Willie over Burgess and/or A. Thomas, not to mention Seymour over Brace or Pryor. Seymour may be a me-first guy, but there's no way the defense lays (lies?) down like they did vs the Ravens if Seymour was out there.

It still takes away playing time from someone.

Every good defense always has a game where they get humbled and baptized. That's the only way you know what it takes to be a good defense. You have to be battle-tested. There's no other way to learn that if you want to win in football, you have to play for 60 minutes.

 

[Patspsycho]

I find it funny that Ty claims that there aren't strong locker room role models left on the Patriots. To me, that's a direct slam at guys like Kevin Faulk and Tom Brady. The Pats traded away TWO of their "locker room" guys in Vrabel and Seymour. The rest (as has been pointed out) either CHOSE to move on or retired.

I find it hard to believe that there were that many "locker room" role models to begin with. Ty definitely wasn't one of them.

Faulk and Brady are offensive players. They're not going to lead the defense.

 

[woolster22]

I saw the clip last night, and Law did say there is still the Vet leadership on the offensive side of the ball. He did get on BB for not being able to do much about all the defensive leaders departing in a matter of two seasons. I think we can all agree this has hampered the defense. You think AD would have pulled that garbage last year with Bru/Harrison getting on his case? This all 2 years removed from being one of the leaders in the 07 "humble pie" movement. Its mind boggling really that he could turn into such a complete clown so quickly. Show me someone that says they saw that coming and i'll show you a liar. Sure he had a rough 08 season, but an injury should not result in the meltdown that was AD's 09 showing. In any case, heres to hoping Spikes/Mayo/Wilfork/and a DB to be named later can get a fire lit under this defense and get it together. I think it will be rough out of the gate, but expect a drastic difference between the week 1 D and week 17's version. Pre-season cant come fast enough!

 

[chicowalker]

I wasn't aware that Law and all the otter vets who wound up gone had cut their salary demands to enable the Pats to keep them all while still building a team around them.