Idle thoughts...Setting the record straight

[Ring 6]

doesn't work around here......the group think around here is so steeped in kool-aid, it is going to get interesting when BB goes 6-10 or 5-11

its not even about the success of the draft picks to me......the real mind-boggling approach is the toilet-swirl known as the LB core.......the 3-4 MUST have outstanding LB's....speed isn't a big thing as long as they could recognize and understand situation. the pats don't have anyone who can read the offense and call things out....in general, the pats used to have 4-5 guys who could had the ability to recognize....not one player now has the same ability that 4 or 5 guys did previously......

this team will struggle to stop any decent offensive execution, and there are 3X as many on the schedule in 2010 versus 2009

Can someone please explain why the negaitve posters have to couch everything in 'homer' rather than the merits of the argument.
Take the post you quoted, and change homer to chicken little and 100% to 0% and its the exact same thing.
Positive or negative is not by itself a piece of evidence in an argument except on this board.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Can someone please explain why the negaitve posters have to couch everything in 'homer' rather than the merits of the argument.
Take the post you quoted, and change homer to chicken little and 100% to 0% and its the exact same thing.
Positive or negative is not by itself a piece of evidence in an argument except on this board.

huh? unlike most of the homers, I actually made a valid point.....but feel free to focus on the other stuff

 

[spacecrime]

Can someone please explain why the negaitve posters have to couch everything in 'homer' rather than the merits of the argument.
Take the post you quoted, and change homer to chicken little and 100% to 0% and its the exact same thing.
Positive or negative is not by itself a piece of evidence in an argument except on this board.

You are incorrectly assuming that the purpose of the post you quoted was to advance a position or thought. The purpose was simply to generate a reaction. If this was Jetsinsider, he'd be calling anyone who thought Sanchez would improve next year or that Cromaftie will return to 2007 form a pathetic homer.

They are the original definition of trolls. Trolling for a reaction.

Pats fans do it to the Jets and Colts boards, too. Like the trolls here, they don't go to Jetsinsider or the Indystar to discuss anything. They just want to mess with the other teams fans. I don't know why people do this, but they do. Moderators at Jets, Colts, Charger sites are just better at keeping discusion on track and restricting people who they feel are there to disrupt rather than discuss.

Too bad, but even with them, this is still the best Pats fan site on the web.

 

[Coach42]

the ones who miss their rookie season due to injury have an extremely low success rate.........and here we are talking about a guy who wasn't all that productive in college, either

I could understand going for him if he was either healthy or actually productive in the passing game, but he's really only a special teamer....

You don't even know exactly what the injury was. Here is the thing the Pats have holes, but so does every team in the NFL. You can't sit here and say that we're in a bad spot because a lot of things have to shake out. We were a touchdown of 4th quarter points away from being 13-3, so I personally am pretty happy about where we are sitting right now. I think there are far more things to be positive about then negative. Would I love a OLB, yes, would I love a legit #2 WR, yes, are most of the teams in the NFL in a worse spot then us? YES

 

[tanked_as_usual]

You are incorrectly assuming that the purpose of the post you quoted was to advance a position or thought. The purpose was simply to generate a reaction. If this was Jetsinsider, he'd be calling anyone who thought Sanchez would improve next year or that Cromaftie will return to 2007 form a pathetic homer.

They are the original definition of trolls. Trolling for a reaction.

Pats fans do it to the Jets and Colts boards, too. Like the trolls here, they don't go to Jetsinsider or the Indystar to discuss anything. They just want to mess with the other teams fans. I don't know why people do this, but they do. Moderators at Jets, Colts, Charger sites are just better at keeping discusion on track and restricting people who they feel are there to disrupt rather than discuss.

Too bad, but even with them, this is still the best Pats fan site on the web.

this guy makes my case for me.......I make a valid point, and he comes up with........BLLLLAAAAHHHHHH

 

[tanked_as_usual]

You don't even know exactly what the injury was. Here is the thing the Pats have holes, but so does every team in the NFL. You can't sit here and say that we're in a bad spot because a lot of things have to shake out. We were a touchdown of 4th quarter points away from being 13-3, so I personally am pretty happy about where we are sitting right now. I think there are far more things to be positive about then negative. Would I love a OLB, yes, would I love a legit #2 WR, yes, are most of the teams in the NFL in a worse spot then us? YES

I don't even believe it is so much the injury as the time missed..........when they are out for a year, they come back and are going up against rookies who played the season before while they have been away from the game for a year......its one thing to miss a season after already playing in the league, but missing the first pro season means you mossed out on a whole lot of development. the good news with tate was that he actually saw the field for a bit, so he was in full practices......but a guy like crable or mckenzie already have a ton of cards stacked against them

 

[Ring 6]

huh? unlike most of the homers, I actually made a valid point.....but feel free to focus on the other stuff

"Homer" is not a counter argument, it is escaping from the argument.
Because you appear to dislike the PAtriots and everything about them, has nothing to do with whether or not you are correct.
The positive side or negative side of any argument are not more correct because they slant positive or negative, they are correct if they have merit.
When you can come up with no better counter argument that 'homer' which is equal to saying 'you are wrong because you disagree with me' you have no argument.
You seem like a pretty smart guy, but your jaded, arrogant opinion just makes no one want to listen.
You do realize that in virtually every post you make you dismiss the opposite point of view, simply on the basis that anyone who has anything positive to say could never be right. Thats foolish. Especially when you do it on the board of the team that was the most succesful in the NFL over the past decade.
If this were the Lions board, and you took this "all things equal it must be bad' approach, you'd have some validity, but you choose to default to everything sucks with the team that has the best track record in the league.
I am sure you don't care, so post however you want. I can choose to read or not. I would just find more value in your posts if they were rational.

 

[patfanken]

For those who have been bashing others for being critical of the team:

What's the basic success percentage for the Patriots on draft picks?
- How many start for the team in year one?
-- How many start from game one?

What's the basic success percentage for the Patriots on free agents?

What's the basic success percentage for the Patriots on players they traded for?

If all of those are 100%, there's no room to criticize the team/BB, and the forum should just become a place where people discuss which moves and players are even more awesome than the next.

If those are not all at 100%, you should all stop with the appeals to authority. Perhaps an actual discussion on the merits might, instead, be appropriate.

It seems that like the political debates, all issues are black and white. No shades of gray allowed. Thats silly. By any measure the Pats had a great draft in 2009, and had several failures in Free Agency. Though a guy like Bodden worked out better than expected, doesn't he count?

When you are dealing in NFL personell the fact is that you will have BOTH hits and misses. Is Polian any worse the team builder just because his #1 pick just 4 years ago was let go. I still contend that Moroney and Watson were decent draft picks at the bottom of the first round. Both started, contributed, and filled important roles. Neither were as good a one might have hoped, but neither has sucked either. Ron Brace disappointed in the 2nd round, but Myron Pryor was a find in the 6th, go figure. The fact is that ONCE they are at camp it the only people who care WHEN they were drafted are the fans and media. The fans because they love to 2nd guess, and the media because they love to 2nd guess even more. . The coaches just care about if those guys can play and when they can start helping the team on the field in some way or fashio

Its fine to question past drafts. Some have been very good. Some have been mixed, and like the 07 draft, some have been just bad. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER TEAM. I'm just thankful we haven't had the "monumental bust" a la Vernon Gholston. Though picks like Chad Jackson and Kevin OConnell were pretty bad....in 20 20 hindsight. But no worse than most other teams who have struck out in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

BOTTOM LINE - Those who criticize should consider how RARE it is for a team to have 9 consecutive years of winning seasons. 7 consecutive years of winning 10 or more games. And of course those FOUR superbowl appearences. Somebody must have been doing SOMETHING right to keep the team playing at such a high level for SO many years. They must have gotten a few draft picks and FA picks right.

Just think about some of the teams who have surfaced among the elite and vanished into obscurity. Have you forgotten that at the begining of this decade the Raiders were an elite NFL TEAM. Have you forgotten that the Bears made it to the superbowl....and haven't been to the playoffs since. Do you remember that the last time the Broncos won a playoff game it was in 2005 (vs the Pats). Most of you probably have forgotten that the Tampa Bay Bucs WON a superbowl and quickly became a bottom feeder battling the Lions for worst team in the league. How have the Pathers faired since that spectacular Superbowl in 2003????

It is EXTREMELY hard to stay at the top of the NFL for an extended period like a decade, given the way the NFL is set up. Yet only the Pats, Eagles, Steelers and Colts out of 32 teams have managed at SOME level to maintain....and among those 4 teams, NO ONE has done it better than the Pats, no matter what Bill Pollian says.

So I guess what I'm saying is that its fair to criticize the Pats FO for real and perceived errors in judgement. BUT we should keep in mind that EVERY team makes those errors...ALL the time....including our guys in Foxboro. But given the results, even the most cynical of you have to admit that relative to the rest of the league. They must be making FEWER than you realize. Now isn't that FAIR?????

 

[Ring 6]

It seems that like the political debates, all issues are black and white. No shades of gray allowed. Thats silly. By any measure the Pats had a great draft in 2009, and had several failures in Free Agency. Though a guy like Bodden worked out better than expected, doesn't he count?

When you are dealing in NFL personell the fact is that you will have BOTH hits and misses. Is Polian any worse the team builder just because his #1 pick just 4 years ago was let go. I still contend that Moroney and Watson were decent draft picks at the bottom of the first round. Both started, contributed, and filled important roles. Neither were as good a one might have hoped, but neither has sucked either. Ron Brace disappointed in the 2nd round, but Myron Pryor was a find in the 6th, go figure. The fact is that ONCE they are at camp it the only people who care WHEN they were drafted are the fans and media. The fans because they love to 2nd guess, and the media because they love to 2nd guess even more. . The coaches just care about if those guys can play and when they can start helping the team on the field in some way or fashio

Its fine to question past drafts. Some have been very good. Some have been mixed, and like the 07 draft, some have been just bad. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER TEAM. I'm just thankful we haven't had the "monumental bust" a la Vernon Gholston. Though picks like Chad Jackson and Kevin OConnell were pretty bad....in 20 20 hindsight. But no worse than most other teams who have struck out in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

BOTTOM LINE - Those who criticize should consider how RARE it is for a team to have 9 consecutive years of winning seasons. 7 consecutive years of winning 10 or more games. And of course those FOUR superbowl appearences. Somebody must have been doing SOMETHING right to keep the team playing at such a high level for SO many years. They must have gotten a few draft picks and FA picks right.

Just think about some of the teams who have surfaced among the elite and vanished into obscurity. Have you forgotten that at the begining of this decade the Raiders were an elite NFL TEAM. Have you forgotten that the Bears made it to the superbowl....and haven't been to the playoffs since. Do you remember that the last time the Broncos won a playoff game it was in 2005 (vs the Pats). Most of you probably have forgotten that the Tampa Bay Bucs WON a superbowl and quickly became a bottom feeder battling the Lions for worst team in the league. How have the Pathers faired since that spectacular Superbowl in 2003????

It is EXTREMELY hard to stay at the top of the NFL for an extended period like a decade, given the way the NFL is set up. Yet only the Pats, Eagles, Steelers and Colts out of 32 teams have managed at SOME level to maintain....and among those 4 teams, NO ONE has done it better than the Pats, no matter what Bill Pollian says.

So I guess what I'm saying is that its fair to criticize the Pats FO for real and perceived errors in judgement. BUT we should keep in mind that EVERY team makes those errors...ALL the time....including our guys in Foxboro. But given the results, even the most cynical of you have to admit that relative to the rest of the league. They must be making FEWER than you realize. Now isn't that FAIR?????

The way I see it is that 'good' or 'bad' is a gray area. You can find bad in the best players and good in the worst depending on how you slant it. Hell the 53rd guy beat out at least 27 others who were deemed good enough to compete for an NFL job, and show that they could do enough well to kept. (and the 27 men cut off 32 80 man rosters adds up to almost 900 players that are at least close to NFL quality that arent taking that guys job away)
Good or bad can only be quantified when COMPARED to others. You cannot say TBC shouldn't be a starter unless you look at what other starters produce. You cannot say Laurence Maroney cant convert 3rd and 1 when he misses one unless you bother to look up the average success rate and compare it to his.
You cannot say that team cant draft by listing your opinion of their drafts without comparing that to other teams.
You can't say 'the Patriots are sitting around doing nothing' when they don't sign one of the first 5 Free Agents to sign without saying that 26 of the other 31 teams also are sitting around doing nothing.
Thats the issue to me. When everyone was criticizing BB not signing the hig priced FAs in the first day or 2 of FA, I ask at least half a dozen times for ANYONE to show me ANY team that signed one of the 5 biggest FA contracts and won. No one answered, yet continued to imply we were missing the boat by notchoosing that failed path.
A 'homer' expects every player to have a career year.
A 'chicken little' finds fault in every topic.
A realist recognizes that there is no way to accurately judge the cumulative impact of an entire off-season of personell moves, especially with the knowledge handicap any non-professional has by not being privy to the majority of the necessary info and sees those decisions through the eyes of "if the decision maker is right more than most I can be confidnet' and 'if they are wrong more than most I have doubts' anything else is simply holding onto an agenda.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Great post all around, patfanken. I agree with most of what you said. My only real disagreement is re: Karlos Dansby, who will improve the Dolphins' defense an awful lot. He won't replace the loss in pass rush, but that's not what he does. What he will do is provide more range and versatility at ILB than they've had in a long time. He's all over the field, all the time, and it will be harder to exploit them up the middle than it traditionally has been.

That said, they're still the dolphins, they've still hitched their wagon to Chad Henne, and as of right now they don't have a NT.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

"Homer" is not a counter argument, it is escaping from the argument.
Because you appear to dislike the PAtriots and everything about them, has nothing to do with whether or not you are correct.
The positive side or negative side of any argument are not more correct because they slant positive or negative, they are correct if they have merit.
When you can come up with no better counter argument that 'homer' which is equal to saying 'you are wrong because you disagree with me' you have no argument.
You seem like a pretty smart guy, but your jaded, arrogant opinion just makes no one want to listen.
You do realize that in virtually every post you make you dismiss the opposite point of view, simply on the basis that anyone who has anything positive to say could never be right. Thats foolish. Especially when you do it on the board of the team that was the most succesful in the NFL over the past decade.
If this were the Lions board, and you took this "all things equal it must be bad' approach, you'd have some validity, but you choose to default to everything sucks with the team that has the best track record in the league.
I am sure you don't care, so post however you want. I can choose to read or not. I would just find more value in your posts if they were rational.

oh, come on!!! you know damned well regardless of the presentation of my points, with most of the people I refer to as homers it would not matter......and in every instance, I wasn't even the one to start with insults, but I won't hesitate to escalate.........

and you have it backwards.......every single valid point I have made gets refuted with ignorance....no counter points, just some backhanded garbage that is meaningless......it doesn't matter what you say to many here.....they have alreayd decided that whatever the front office decides is right...they start with that and fill in the blanks later, and you know it......just because I don't submit to the idea that 'oh well, it must be gods will' doesn't make me wrong.....

I've had the same point regarding every single personnel change.....that it won't make a damned bit of difference unless they do something very drastic at LB.......because that's what the defense depends on most......3 superbowls, 3 different DL's.....3 superbowls, 3 very different secondaires....the only thing that was consistent was the LB's......for some reason everyone is forgetting that......so if I dismiss things, it because it I think it won't make a damned bit of difference unless the LB's are there......it was the same with the giants under BB and parcells, it was the same under BB with the browns, it was the same with the pats under parcells, its the same with the pats now........excuse me if I find the notion that the LB group now is near the one that used to be here utterly ridiculous......whether bodden is here or not or someon else in his place simply will not matter......just watch

 

[BradyFTW!]

It seems that like the political debates, all issues are black and white. No shades of gray allowed. Thats silly. By any measure the Pats had a great draft in 2009, and had several failures in Free Agency. Though a guy like Bodden worked out better than expected, doesn't he count?

When you are dealing in NFL personell the fact is that you will have BOTH hits and misses. Is Polian any worse the team builder just because his #1 pick just 4 years ago was let go. I still contend that Moroney and Watson were decent draft picks at the bottom of the first round. Both started, contributed, and filled important roles. Neither were as good a one might have hoped, but neither has sucked either. Ron Brace disappointed in the 2nd round, but Myron Pryor was a find in the 6th, go figure. The fact is that ONCE they are at camp it the only people who care WHEN they were drafted are the fans and media. The fans because they love to 2nd guess, and the media because they love to 2nd guess even more. . The coaches just care about if those guys can play and when they can start helping the team on the field in some way or fashio

Its fine to question past drafts. Some have been very good. Some have been mixed, and like the 07 draft, some have been just bad. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER TEAM. I'm just thankful we haven't had the "monumental bust" a la Vernon Gholston. Though picks like Chad Jackson and Kevin OConnell were pretty bad....in 20 20 hindsight. But no worse than most other teams who have struck out in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

BOTTOM LINE - Those who criticize should consider how RARE it is for a team to have 9 consecutive years of winning seasons. 7 consecutive years of winning 10 or more games. And of course those FOUR superbowl appearences. Somebody must have been doing SOMETHING right to keep the team playing at such a high level for SO many years. They must have gotten a few draft picks and FA picks right.

Just think about some of the teams who have surfaced among the elite and vanished into obscurity. Have you forgotten that at the begining of this decade the Raiders were an elite NFL TEAM. Have you forgotten that the Bears made it to the superbowl....and haven't been to the playoffs since. Do you remember that the last time the Broncos won a playoff game it was in 2005 (vs the Pats). Most of you probably have forgotten that the Tampa Bay Bucs WON a superbowl and quickly became a bottom feeder battling the Lions for worst team in the league. How have the Pathers faired since that spectacular Superbowl in 2003????

It is EXTREMELY hard to stay at the top of the NFL for an extended period like a decade, given the way the NFL is set up. Yet only the Pats, Eagles, Steelers and Colts out of 32 teams have managed at SOME level to maintain....and among those 4 teams, NO ONE has done it better than the Pats, no matter what Bill Pollian says.

So I guess what I'm saying is that its fair to criticize the Pats FO for real and perceived errors in judgement. BUT we should keep in mind that EVERY team makes those errors...ALL the time....including our guys in Foxboro. But given the results, even the most cynical of you have to admit that relative to the rest of the league. They must be making FEWER than you realize. Now isn't that FAIR?????

Definitely, I agree that you have to look at it on a system level. There is no such thing as a 100% success rate, so the comments that accuse Belichick of being clueless because he whiffed on a half dozen draft picks are just stupid. By that standard, everyone in the league is an idiot. All that you can say is that Belichick is among the very best at assembling and coaching a team.

That said, Deus isn't wrong. Because there will always be bad moves, even if the FO is essentially perfect, then there *is* room for debate. Nobody is infallible, and by accepting that you understand that it's possible to question a particular move without questioning Belichick's or the Pats' track record.

The standard that I've always used is that criticizing specific moves is fair game, as long as you do it without the benefit of hindsight. If you were against a move when it happened, for reasons that turned out to be valid, then those are interesting points that belong in the conversation. Belichick would be the first to admit that he's fallible and sometimes stuff doesn't work, and it's valuable to figure out exactly why it didn't work. Unfortunately, for every post like that that we get, we have a few from people who are just trying to cherrypick every bad move after the fact, so they can claim that Belichick doesn't know what he's doing. Those people are idiot trolls.

 

[Coach42]

I think there have been some very good points brought up under this thread for both sides. I think we need not to resort to calling people who think this team is improving "homers" and those who think its regressing "chicken littles". I personally see the glass as half full however I will concede WR and OLB are a concern. The one thing that irks me when people go after the glass half full crew is saying in Bill we trust, or kool aid drinkers. Well, whose kool aid should I be drinking? Hasn't this team, under Belicheck had one of the most successful decades in NFL history?? Should I be drinking Polian's or Holmgren's or Reid's? I don't get it, why wouldn't you trust the judgement of a group that has been HISTORICALLY successful?

P.S. Successful not perfect, I'm not saying don't critique team just don't tell me their is someone better at putting a team together.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Definitely, I agree that you have to look at it on a system level. There is no such thing as a 100% success rate, so the comments that accuse Belichick of being clueless because he whiffed on a half dozen draft picks are just stupid. By that standard, everyone in the league is an idiot. All that you can say is that Belichick is among the very best at assembling and coaching a team.

That said, Deus isn't wrong. Because there will always be bad moves, even if the FO is essentially perfect, then there *is* room for debate. Nobody is infallible, and by accepting that you understand that it's possible to question a particular move without questioning Belichick's or the Pats' track record.

The standard that I've always used is that criticizing specific moves is fair game, as long as you do it without the benefit of hindsight. If you were against a move when it happened, for reasons that turned out to be valid, then those are interesting points that belong in the conversation. Belichick would be the first to admit that he's fallible and sometimes stuff doesn't work, and it's valuable to figure out exactly why it didn't work. Unfortunately, for every post like that that we get, we have a few from people who are just trying to cherrypick every bad move after the fact, so they can claim that Belichick doesn't know what he's doing. Those people are idiot trolls.

there's was a constant besides brady through those SB year.......the LB group

they are now gone. so, at least from a defensive standpoint, the LB's will keep this unit from succeeding or they will make is succeed

 

[BradyFTW!]

there's was a constant besides brady through those SB year.......the LB group

they are now gone. so, at least from a defensive standpoint, the LB's will keep this unit from succeeding or they will make is succeed

Agreed. Our LBs, as a group, aren't good enough. I think that's a pretty fair assessment that even the staunchest defender would agree with. Even Belichick would agree, I'm sure. He's invested a lot into upgrading the group, but with AD going off the reservation and McKenzie and Crable having bad luck with injuries, his efforts just haven't panned out yet. One way or another, I'm sure he'll keep trying until he gets it right.

 

[Coach42]

there's was a constant besides brady through those SB year.......the LB group

they are now gone. so, at least from a defensive standpoint, the LB's will keep this unit from succeeding or they will make is succeed

That is kind of true. Wouldn't you say the 06 team and 07 teams had very good defenses and the only player who was still entirely effective on those teams that was on the superbowl teams was Vrabel.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That is kind of true. Wouldn't you say the 06 team and 07 teams had very good defenses and the only player who was still entirely effective on those teams that was on the superbowl teams was Vrabel.

'06 did, and we probably would have won the SB that year if not for half of the defense catching the flu and the most atrocious PI call that I've ever seen. '07, not so much IMO. The injuries to Seymour and Colvin really killed the front 7, but the offense was so good that it made the opponents one-dimensional.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Agreed. That opinion is actually one of your reasonable ones.

its funny......its the only one I really have........the offensive decisions really don't matter that much.......whether bodden is signed or not doesn't matter that much........and while wilfork returning is a good thing especially from a leadership thing, he won't make as much of a difference as the LB's do....

year in, year out.....it was the LB's that made the game-changing plays.....go all the way back to 2001....the law INT for a TD was set up by vrabel being in warner's face......and until they got old, they made it look to manning like there were 2 extra players out there.....and it went far beyond their physical abilities.....vrabel, bruschi, mcginest, phifer were tied to each other.....they were so in sync, that they always knew what things they could ignore in each call making their jobs so easy.....the current group is so far away from that, they have no chance in forcing the QB away from his secondary targets.......its the 3-4.....there's no way around having crappy LB's...none at all...the defense may seem solid at times against really simple offenses and could be decent against the run, but it simply does nto have the ability to make big plays

 

[Ring 6]

oh, come on!!! you know damned well regardless of the presentation of my points, with most of the people I refer to as homers it would not matter......and in every instance, I wasn't even the one to start with insults, but I won't hesitate to escalate.........

and you have it backwards.......every single valid point I have made gets refuted with ignorance....no counter points, just some backhanded garbage that is meaningless......it doesn't matter what you say to many here.....they have alreayd decided that whatever the front office decides is right...they start with that and fill in the blanks later, and you know it......just because I don't submit to the idea that 'oh well, it must be gods will' doesn't make me wrong.....

I've had the same point regarding every single personnel change.....that it won't make a damned bit of difference unless they do something very drastic at LB.......because that's what the defense depends on most......3 superbowls, 3 different DL's.....3 superbowls, 3 very different secondaires....the only thing that was consistent was the LB's......for some reason everyone is forgetting that......so if I dismiss things, it because it I think it won't make a damned bit of difference unless the LB's are there......it was the same with the giants under BB and parcells, it was the same under BB with the browns, it was the same with the pats under parcells, its the same with the pats now........excuse me if I find the notion that the LB group now is near the one that used to be here utterly ridiculous......whether bodden is here or not or someon else in his place simply will not matter......just watch

Thats not what I see.
I see people responding to you WITH counterarguments. Then you dismiss the counterarguments as 'homeristic'. That doesn't mean there aren't counterarguments it means you pretend there aren't.
I don't remember the last post I read from you that didn't chalk any conflicting opinion up to 'homerism'. When you do that YOU are the one lacking counterargument. No one is ever wrong solely because they are either positive or negative. But you use that as your reasoning most times.
You have a valid point about the pass rush and the LBs. I don't know why that leads you to 'you just watch we will suck' as if you are hoping for it so you can shove it up the @ss of anyone who has any optimism.
I swear to God when I read your posts it sounds like you would like the PAts to blow so you can be vindicated and slam posters, rather than wanting the team to succeed.

There is no doubt that the biggest difference between the SB teams and last 2 years is the pass rush. It also contribute to critical failures in 06 and 07.
Its just hard to read your posts with the arrogant attitude you have.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

That is kind of true. Wouldn't you say the 06 team and 07 teams had very good defenses and the only player who was still entirely effective on those teams that was on the superbowl teams was Vrabel.

the regression had already started.......on 2006 and 2007, they were no longer making big plays the way they used to.......colvin came up with the strip of manning in 2007, but the offense made it so the defense didn't need to make big plays

I don't know if BB just sees nobody out there that wil lmake a difference at LB and for the next few years is going to try to do it some other way, but 100% of his success had been predicated on LB play.....you can't escape that

this is my one big gripe.....I don't really care about anything else