We're leading in the division

[Ring 6]

Actually, there are multiple alternatives. For example:

1.) BB felt the need was greater elsewhere. In such a case, he could be right or wrong in his analysis of his team.

2.) BB felt he could pick up someone at that position later in the draft. Again, he could be right or wrong.

3.) BB felt there were adequate players available in free agency, that he'd be able to get. Again, he could be right or wrong.

4.) BB felt there were adequate players available in trade, that he'd be able to get. Again, he could be right or wrong.

5.) BB just blew the pick, despite being a generally qualified person.


One of the problems with being a 'homer' or a 'hater' is that you often get stuck in a binary situation, where everything has to be a "1" or a "0". Some things are all or nothing, black or white. Sports fandom doesn't need to be one of those things.

And the one problem with beng a critic, you think in retrospect you could have done better.
I will accept that BB is imperfect but I will accept that BB did a better job than Dues Irae would have from his armchair QB position.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Wow, maybe you are right. Show me. Post the Colts playoff record this decade and the Patriots. For that ,atter, post the Colt defensive rankings and the Pats. I think you'll stop hoping we become the Colts.

Once again, since 2005... they've won a SB and we haven't. You keep introducing 2001-2004 into this argument, even though my entire point is that we've failed to adequately replace the guys who were creating our pass rush from 2001-2004. We all agree that the team was awesome then. It was a legit dynasty. Nobody's questioning that. What we're questioning is why we've been unable to properly replenish our OLB talent since then.

 

[Ring 6]

Like BradyFTW pointed out, if your scheme handicap'd your drafting so severly that very few players could fit in, you are handcuffing yourself; you won't have impact players and you got a huge problem. That is kind of the trend with Bill and LBs.

Scheme, grading, does not matter, you can't take advantage of the crop of talents available to you while other teams can, and you have a bad product on the field, what say you?

How do you say the system that produced this level of success is flawed?

 

[Deus Irae]

Wow, maybe you are right. Show me. Post the Colts playoff record this decade and the Patriots. For that ,atter, post the Colt defensive rankings and the Pats. I think you'll stop hoping we become the Colts.

You're kidding with this one, right?


Hey, which team's won a Super Bowl more recently?

Which team's been to the playoffs more recently?

Which team's in better shape so far this season?

Which team won head-to-head this season?

At this point, you really need to just stop digging. You're going to be pissing off the Chinese pretty soon.

 

[BradyFTW!]

And the one problem with beng a critic, you think in retrospect you could have done better.
I will accept that BB is imperfect but I will accept that BB did a better job than Dues Irae would have from his armchair QB position.

Seriously, have you ever written a reply that wasn't a strawman or a blatant moving of the goalposts? Nobody's claiming that Deus would be a better coach/GM than Belichick. As for retrospect, Deus is one of the few posters on this board who avoids using hindsight, and sticks to criticisms that he made at the time.

 

[Ring 6]

Apparently you missed the part in my post where I said since 2005. The only one of those guys who wasn't here pre-2005 is Thomas, and he's just gotten himself benched for the season.

As for the others, yeah, McGinest, Vrabel and Colvin were all excellent OLBs. Back when they were playing for us, we had a pass rush. This was one of a number of reasons why our defense was dominant and we won SBs. Too bad they all got old and we, for one reason or another, were unable to replace them.

Those players were here from 2001-2008. Now, all of sudden you want to scrap the system and become the Colts? Remind me what their playoff record is?

 

[BradyFTW!]

How do you say the system that produced this level of success is flawed?

Because it's proving unsustainable due to our inability to replace the talent that is necessary for success. When we had OLBs who could execute within the system, our D was great, but that potential means nothing if we can't find anyone to replace those guys.

Over the course of a couple of years, I could see arguing that this is simply a random chance thing, but we're going on 4+ years of passing up premium pass rushers who have gone on to flourish elsewhere, while we continue to get killed by our lack of a pass rush. Dress it up however you want; if we had a pass rush, we'd probably have 5 championships this decade.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Those players were here from 2001-2008. Now, all of sudden you want to scrap the system and become the Colts? Remind me what their playoff record is?

When did I ever say I wanted to become the Colts, anyways?

All that I said was that, if the Pats have to keep passing over guys who can provide what they need, for 4+ years, because those guys "don't fit the scheme", then maybe the scheme is part of the problem.

 

[Ring 6]

You're kidding with this one, right?


Hey, which team's won a Super Bowl more recently?

Which team's been to the playoffs more recently?

Which team's in better shape so far this season?

Which team won head-to-head this season?

At this point, you really need to just stop digging. You're going to be pissing off the Chinese pretty soon.

What is the Colts playoff record, what is the Patriots.
Its not a difficult question. Go emualate the Colts if you wish,
I will take the Patriots record of success over the Colts. You disagree?

 

[bigfandan]

And the one problem with beng a critic, you think in retrospect you could have done better.
I will accept that BB is imperfect but I will accept that BB did a better job than Dues Irae would have from his armchair QB position.

The real comparison is whether Bill did a better job against his peers? It is fair to say he has been wrong with his evaluation of his own team.

 

[Deus Irae]

And the one problem with beng a critic, you think in retrospect you could have done better.
I will accept that BB is imperfect but I will accept that BB did a better job than Dues Irae would have from his armchair QB position.

Perfect example of how your arguments in recent months consist of numerous straw men:

As I said, I'm torn. I trust Belioli, but I think this pick sucks. My guess is that Belioli's superior knowledge makes this the right move, and that history will prove that. It doesn't mean I have to like it right now.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/13/81674-official-2008-nfl-draft-discussion-page9.html#post873371

 

[BradyFTW!]

What is the Colts playoff record, what is the Patriots.
Its not a difficult question. Go emualate the Colts if you wish,
I will take the Patriots record of success over the Colts. You disagree?

Colts are 4-3 with a SB victory.
Pats are 5-3 with no SB victories.

Though once again I'm not really sure what that's supposed to say, since you're the only one who has anything to say about the Colts. Pretty irrelevant to the point that the rest of us are talking about.

 

[Ring 6]

When did I ever say I wanted to become the Colts, anyways?

All that I said was that, if the Pats have to keep passing over guys who can provide what they need, for 4+ years, because those guys "don't fit the scheme", then maybe the scheme is part of the problem.

You brought the Colts intio it, implying our system is flawed because the Colts routimely find players for theirs.
My point is that evety system is flawed. To say ours is wrong because it is flawed, and stating the Colts overcome that flaw is to say the Colts system is better, which is incorrect because it has other, more disasterous flaws.

 

[Ring 6]

Colts are 4-3 with a SB victory.
Pats are 5-3 with no SB victories.

Though once again I'm not really sure what that's supposed to say, since you're the only one who has anything to say about the Colts. Pretty irrelevant to the point that the rest of us are talking about.

Umm, from memory
Pats, since Brady 14-3 2 SBs
Colts since
Manning 7-8 1 SB
Nice of you to conviently leave out 9-0 and 3 Lombardis...we did do that with the same system, right?

 

[BradyFTW!]

You brought the Colts intio it, implying our system is flawed because the Colts routimely find players for theirs.

You might want to check the post (written by you, no less) that I was quoting. To say that I 'brought the Colts into it' is pretty obviously false.

My point is that evety system is flawed. To say ours is wrong because it is flawed, and stating the Colts overcome that flaw is to say the Colts system is better, which is incorrect because it has other, more disasterous flaws.

Context is a hell of a thing. The only point that I've argued in this thread is that we've had an exceptionally hard time replacing our Super Bowl OLBs, and our pass rush has gotten progressively worse year in and year out as a result. Either it's a player evaluation issue or a system issue, but either way it's kept us from winning SBs. So yes, I do think that the Colts do a better job of replacing players through the draft than the Pats do, though, once again, I have no idea how this is relevant to the actual point being discussed.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Umm, from memory
Pats, since Brady 14-3 2 SBs
Colts since
Manning 7-8 1 SB
Nice of you to conviently leave out 9-0 and 3 Lombardis...we did do that with the same system, right?

Ok, seriously, this is a waste of time. This is my last post on the topic, because either you're incredibly dense or you're just being obstinate for its own sake.

My argument is, and has from the outset been, that we've done a crappy job of replacing our OLB production from 2001-2004. Given that that's the argument, why the hell would you use the 2001-2004 stats to argue that we've done a good job of replacing those players? We didn't replace 2001-2004 Willie McGinest with 2001-2004 Willie McGinest, did we? When you're talking about how well we've replenished the talent from 2001-2004, it logically follows that your data is... everything after 2004. Absolutely nobody has claimed that the 2001-2004 teams weren't excellent. So congrats, I guess, for definitively proving a point that nobody ever disputed in the first place

 

[Ring 6]

Perfect example of how your arguments in recent months consist of numerous straw men:



http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...08-nfl-draft-discussion-page9.html#post873371

Summoning the post where you say you dont criticize does not negate a pattern of criticism

 

[ausbacker]

There's only so long people can harp on about the Patriots and the Colts post-season performances without sounding like a nostalgic funny duddy. I've said it before countless times, too many Patriots fans are living on past glories rather than in the present. Everything the Patriots did in the earlier part of this decade counts for nothing with this new crop of players. Absolutely nothing.

The Colts are better than us now. Plain and simple.

 

[Deus Irae]

What is the Colts playoff record, what is the Patriots.
Its not a difficult question. Go emualate the Colts if you wish,
I will take the Patriots record of success over the Colts. You disagree?

Actually, you'd be foolish to go with the Patriots, in terms of "record of success in the playoffs" since the defensive rules changes post 2004. The Patriots are 5-3 in the playoffs during that stretch, have missed the playoffs once during that stretch, and have no Super Bowl wins. The Colts are 4-3 in the playoffs during that stretch, have been in the playoffs every year during that stretch, and have won a Super Bowl. The Colts also defeated the Patriots in a playoff matchup. The Patriots have not defeated the Colts in the playoffs in that time frame.

 

[Deus Irae]

Summoning the post where you say you dont criticize does not negate a pattern of criticism

Ignoring the point of that post doesn't change the point of that post, either.

Are you purchasing the straw in bulk now?