Response is too long so I have to make them separate posts.
Really? So someone who recognizes their lack of expertise and who prefers to observe, analyze, and learn from the process rather than piddle all over everything and complain about the smell is as annoying as someone who offers nothing but monkey flung crap? How droll.
No. People who observe, analyze, and learn about the process are fine in my book. In example, these are the people who recognized that spending $91M on a DE conversion project who is weak against the run is probably not the best idea. These are the same people who recognized what we could have had in Boldin for relatively low money compared to what most people thought he would have demanded. These people are sensible. What I'm talking about are the people who, the minute the deal fell through with Boldin, came into the thread and began to trash Boldin as if he was some stiff. "He's 30 years old, wants to be a #1 receiver, is constantly injured (logically false), is too slow, etc.". To make matters simple, these people who come in and bash every player after he turns down a Patriots offer (no matter how good of a fit he would have been with the team) are just as bad as the people who think that our season is trashed just because we didn't sign him.
One or two.
And it should be very clear how to separate the people like ramon and SanAngeloState from the people that want the team to make only the moves that would be in their best interests. Unfortunately, people are not doing that. Instead, ANYBODY that has a bone to pick with the Pats not making the move on Boldin is being labeled as a Chicken Little and a bandwagon rider. It's really quite annoying, especially for people that followed the Pats when they were non-contenders for the AFCE. I take it you will try to argue why Boldin was NOT in the Pats' best interests later on in this post so I will address that when I come to it.
I think we can both agree that WR is a pretty dire need this offseason, unless you feel comfortable going into 2010 with Sam Aiken and Isaiah Stanback. Of course, I know you don't from your posts in the draft forum and the numerous offseason threads in this one. I think we both should be able to agree that Boldin is a infinitely better upgrade over Sam Aiken. My question is, for a three year extension, why shy away from the guy when he can come in and make your offense that much better than it was last season? I just do not understand that.
Most agree the team could use a stronger pass rush. A more analytical observer might argue BB prefers to use a blend of interior pocket pressure, edge rush, and scheme to achieve the desired result...whilst a more impassioned (sadly paired with the more obnoxious) observer will just insist that not paying $13+M/year to a player whose sack stats were matched by the player re-signed under a contract which will be less than half of that ("if" he reaches all his escalators) is 'epic failure.'
TBC "up to" $6m/year (3 years, $6M guaranteed) 2009: 55 TT, 10 sacks, 2 FF
JP $13.5M/year (first 3 years, $42M guaranteed) 2009: 42 TT, 10.5 sacks, 5 FF, 2 int
I think we can both agree Peppers made more impact plays, but "twice as many, guaranteed?"
Perspective: a desperate management who screwed themselves with a big money QB deal last season is now throwing good money after bad in a bid to save their jobs...whilst a more proven management team reacquired similar production at a more budget friendly rate.
I was never an advocate of bringing Peppers in here unless the money was right and we acquired a DE that was capable of taking up two blockers on a consistent basis to put in front of him. Usually after I made those points in threads, I conceded that neither was probably going to happen.
With that information, whom do you think has a better chance of a winning season in 2010?
I fully agree that New England has a better chance of winning in 2010. Once again, I was never an advocate of backing up the Brinks truck for Peppers. On top of that, Jay Cutler is still Chicago's quarterback, to my knowledge.
Look at that and tell me I'm wrong to give the NE management team the benefit of the doubt.
There's nothing wrong with giving them the benefit of the doubt on Peppers because logic tells you that giving Peppers that much money will have hamstrung the organization. It's impossible to dispute that point, actually. However, the problem lies in giving the New England management the benefit of the doubt on the every situation. Each particular move should be looked at objectively, by itself. For example, not signing Peppers can be looked at as a smart move by the New England management. While, on the same token, giving up two draft pick for Derrick Burgess was NOT a smart move by the New England management. You see, my problem with this forum lies in two types of people: the people who can see no wrong in what the Pats management does and the people who can see no right in what the Pats management does. One side has just as big of a population as the other.
Does this apply to all the kool-aid and homer references? This "homer" drank "kool-aid," did the math, and didn't crap his pants then proceed to smear it all over the forum when NE didn't do exactly as he wanted (of course wanting in one hand and crapping in the other isn't my primary form of entertainment either).
No, but eating in one hand and crapping in the other is
my primary form of entertainment.
Define "players?" NO's 53 man roster had to contend with something like 29 players reaching RFA/UFA status this offseason, NE's burden was about half of that through timing contract expirations, extending mid & lower level contributors during the season, and gearing the roster management to avoid many of the challenges NO is facing. NE bid on Peppers, Bolden, there were reports of Mason, and I'm not sure who else, while at the same time extending their Franchise Tagged defensive anchor and captain (full offseason program, no distractions) and re-signing two other starters - Patriots Day 1 free agent recap - Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston - "playahs" baby.
In my opinion, NE needs to be active in going after at least one WR through free agency and trade and should have probably looked for a CB. However, Hobbs has been tendered and Rbinson, who probably would have been a better fit for us than Shawn Springs, was picked up by Atlanta. And my definition of players doesn't involve persuing the players, it involves bringing them in and putting a Flying Elvis on their helmet. For cost reasons (even though the cost was not that high), the Pats decided not to upgrade the #3 WR position (which is really the #2 WR position, but in our offense, Welker is the #2 even if he is lined up in the slot) with a guy who is, arguably, the best #2 WR in the league. I find that disappointing, personally. However, like I've said time and time again, there is still a good amount of offseason to go. However, the longer we wait, the more prime talent comes off the board.
Define "holes?" Some here would insist that Kaczur is a "hole," true? Yet Kaczur has been a five year starter on a team which has never gone less than 10-6 - and done it with two different Quarterbacks and two different Offensive Coordinators and however many other changes the team has gone through in the past five years (did I mention Bill Polian's Competition Committee likes to make rules changes and such with ulterior motives?). It's that pesky "perception" thing again.
I'm not high on Kaczur at all as a starting RT. But he is not a hole. Sam Aiken at WR3 is a hole. RG should still be considered a hole because of Neal's inability to stay healthy for a 16 game season. We have two holes at OLB because AD is likely gone and TBC should not be counted on in running downs. We have a hole at CB (two if Bodden departs). As of right now, we have two holes at the TE position. There is a glaring hole at the DE position. There is a hole at the third down RB position (though, I expect that to be filled within the week). And there is a hole in my ass. Personally, I think it would be unfair to expect the NE management to fill all of these holes in the draft alone.
"Highly" unlikely? At this moment NE has it's starting QB, 4/5 of the RB committee, the entire starting OL, the same #1 WR, 2/3 starting DL, 3/4 starting LB, 3/4 starting S, 2/3 specialist corps - it's day "effing" two of Free Agency and team X has won the Super Bowl - time to castrate yourself and become a monk, maybe you can find peace.
How does this, in any way, address the fact that this team shouldn't be expected to play at a high level with rookies filling in all of those spots in which I have just pointed out holes? Oh right... it doesn't.
