Warren to IR, Burgess reinstated

[mgteich]

A) I agree that G. Warren is as good a replacement to Seymour as we could have gotten.

However, I thought the point was that we shouldn't have traded Seymour before we had a replacement. That we signed one a year later seems irrelevant. The 2009 team suffered because we hadn't replaced Seymour (and the 2011 team will gain).

B) I agree that we are as prepared as we could have been for Warren's injury. We had a very solid defensive line for 2010 with Ty Warren. Belichick brought in Brace, Pryor and Richard last year. At least one should contribute this year. He also brought in G. Warren and Lewis this year. We were counting on one contributing. Now we need both to contribute. At DE/OLB, Belichick brought in Burgess last year, and Cunningham and Murrell this year.

Actually, G Warren is the closest thing to a replacement we could get. Even if teams had someone of his size and abilities, they wouldn't trade them to us.

The only place to find a player like that is high in the first round, where we don't draft, but Oakland hopefully does. We very likely got the best years out of Richard.

 

[Ring 6]

We didn't have Warren in 2009. That's my first point. Second, Warren is a journeyman that has played in this system before and didn't fair well.

Unfortunately there are more things to consider than whether you have allpro replacements when you make a trade.
Seymour would not be here today if he wasnt traded.
The thinking that resulted in Seymours trade was not based upon whether we would be better without him it was based upon longterm thinking that teams get criticized for when they employ or ignore.
Seymour was in the last year of his contract.
His history suggested that his contract negotiations would be difficult.
The tag was needed for Wilfork.
The contract would have been up in an offseason where there was uncertainty, to the point where they are concerned about how to resign Brady.
The Patriots were offered what they felt was tremendous value, a first from a perenially bottom 5 team in the first year where there would likely be a rookie cap. The team that disdained top 5 picks because the cost was prohibitive had a chance to get one the minute the cost was under control.
These reasons, not looking forward to whether we would have an injury in training camp of 2010, after Seymour would have been gone anyway, are why the trade was made, whether you agree with the decision or not.

 

[Ring 6]

We didn't have Warren in 2009. That's my first point. Second, Warren is a journeyman that has played in this system before and didn't fair well.

Thats the second time I have heard this. When did G Warren play in the Patriots system and 'not fair well'?

 

[RayClay]

A) I agree that G. Warren is as good a replacement to Seymour as we could have gotten.

However, I thought the point was that we shouldn't have traded Seymour before we had a replacement. That we signed one a year later seems irrelevant. The 2009 team suffered because we hadn't replaced Seymour (and the 2011 team will gain).

B) I agree that we are as prepared as we could have been for Warren's injury. We had a very solid defensive line for 2010 with Ty Warren. Belichick brought in Brace, Pryor and Richard last year. At least one should contribute this year. He also brought in G. Warren and Lewis this year. We were counting on one contributing. Now we need both to contribute. At DE/OLB, Belichick brought in Burgess last year, and Cunningham and Murrell this year.

G Warren isn't a replacement. If we get a real replacement, which is not likely, it will probably come from the draft pick we wouldn't have, had we not traded Seymour.

The 2009 team suffered because we gave a long term contract to a player we shouldn't have.

 

[mgteich]

You don't replace a player with a draft choice two years in the future who MIGHT come close to replacing his produiction three years in the future. That's not how to run a team.

G Warren isn't a replacement. If we get a real replacement, which is not likely, it will probably come from the draft pick we wouldn't have, had we not traded Seymour.

The 2009 team suffered because we gave a long term contract to a player we shouldn't have.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

BTW, I'm still waiting to replace Willie McGinest.

That's another story. But I'm with you. They haven't done very well in the LB department since BB was handed most of these players in 2000.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Thats the second time I have heard this. When did G Warren play in the Patriots system and 'not fair well'?

My bad, I mixed him up with someone else.

 

[Ring 6]

You don't replace a player with a draft choice two years in the future who MIGHT come close to replacing his produiction three years in the future. That's not how to run a team.

Sure, but running a franchise isnt about trying to fill in slots with replacements.
Its about getting the best players you can.

Its kind of like the "BB ignored the LB position"
My argument is that BBs personell moves made us the team of the decade. I am better with that than with less success if he had used more resources at LB. By definition if your moves resulted in being the best, there is a pretty good chances that different moves would have resulted in not being as good.
Sometimes I think people view BBs job like a crossword puzzle. The answers are all there and available you just have to know them. Of course that is wrong, every decision he makes is one choice out of many when it is impossible to have your decisions add up to getting everything you wish you had.

 

[RayClay]

You don't replace a player with a draft choice two years in the future who MIGHT come close to replacing his produiction three years in the future. That's not how to run a team.

Again MG. I don't know what team you run. I don't run one.

I'll go out on a limb and say, I think the Pat's know how to run one. The Patriots had a #6 pick years ago, they haven't had close to that since (traded down due to value once).

I don't think they expected to find a Seymour equivalent in the bottom of the 1st ever and they made a gamble based on the cost of a long term contract, Seymour's health and age and the chance they would ever see a top 10 draft pick to get a top lineman.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Its kind of like the "BB ignored the LB position"
My argument is that BBs personell moves made us the team of the decade. I am better with that than with less success if he had used more resources at LB. By definition if your moves resulted in being the best, there is a pretty good chances that different moves would have resulted in not being as good.

From 2001 to 2005, the Pats were almost flawless. To my friends, I was the epitome of a homer.

But since then, they've made some really, really bad moves. The problem with the Pats in the last 5 years is that they couldn't find capable role players to complement their core players.

It's a shame, because this team should've won at least 1-2 more super bowls had they drafted better, not waste draft picks on Starks, Burgess and signing other horrible players.

 

[RayClay]

From 2001 to 2005, the Pats were almost flawless. To my friends, I was the epitome of a homer.

But since then, they've made some really, really bad moves. The problem with the Pats in the last 5 years is that they couldn't find capable role players to complement their core players.

It's a shame, because this team should've won at least 1-2 more super bowls had they drafted better, waste draft picks on Starks, Burgess and signing other horrible players.

BB and Pioli's move to accept Ty Law, Bruschi and McGinest was outstanding.

 

[Kontradiction]

Wilfork play a few plays at DE. Wright has played there his career.
Are you saying Wright is best at NT? I couldnt disagree more with that.
Our 34 DEs and 43 teams DTs are pretty much interchangable. There are very, very few players we have ever used at 34 DE who would be DEs in a 43
Seymour and Warren both played NT as rookies.
They are also built like DTs if you are talking about 43 defense. Our 34 DEs look like that.
Gerard Warren is much bigger than Wright.

Ideally, you would want your 3-4 DE's to look like Richard Seymour (6'6" range). But there's nothing wrong with using Wright to play DE on situational downs. He's just more naturally a 4-3 DT.

 

[Ring 6]

Ideally, you would want your 3-4 DE's to look like Richard Seymour (6'6" range). But there's nothing wrong with using Wright to play DE on situational downs. He's just more naturally a 4-3 DT.

We are a 34 team. Wrights positon is DE. He is not used there on situational downs, he played it more than anyone on our roster last year.
Wright is 6'4 295
Ty Warren is 6'5 300
Seymour was an inch taller
Green was shorter
Wright is perfectly within the size range for a DE in our system.

He is a DE on this team in every sense of the term. 34 or 43 he is lining up at DE. He moves inside, like all of our DEs do in nickle and dime.

 

[Ring 6]

From 2001 to 2005, the Pats were almost flawless. To my friends, I was the epitome of a homer.

But since then, they've made some really, really bad moves. The problem with the Pats in the last 5 years is that they couldn't find capable role players to complement their core players.

It's a shame, because this team should've won at least 1-2 more super bowls had they drafted better, not waste draft picks on Starks, Burgess and signing other horrible players.

I would consider, from a personell and roster building standpoint, 18-1 and 11-5 with Matt Cassell to be very competitive with 2001-2005 results.
Not making one of many plays in the SB to not finish 19-0 doesn't fall on a draft record, and 11-5 with a QB who hadnt played meanignful snaps since HS speaks for itself.

 

[Kontradiction]

We are a 34 team. Wrights positon is DE. He is not used there on situational downs, he played it more than anyone on our roster last year.
Wright is 6'4 295
Ty Warren is 6'5 300
Seymour was an inch taller
Green was shorter
Wright is perfectly within the size range for a DE in our system.

He is a DE on this team in every sense of the term. 34 or 43 he is lining up at DE. He moves inside, like all of our DEs do in nickle and dime.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with Wright playing DE in the 3-4. I just view him more as a natural DT in the 4-3 than a natural DE in the 3-4.

 

[ALP]

damn the warren news is horrible....DE is now our weakest position....the young guys are all right, and teh new guys are inconstistent


we went from being strongest at the DL 2 years ago, to quite possilby making it the weakest part of our D....

wilfork is gonna need a LOT of help

 

[italian pat patriot]

i agree with Tedy Bruschi: the loss of Ty Warren is really huge...

very very bad...

now Gerard Warren, Wilfork and Wright will be the 3 starters in the 3-4 i guess

stop the run will become more difficult imho

 

[SanAngeloState]

Loss of warren won't be a big deal by year end. People will step up. Lot of talented rookies, etc.

 

[Rob0729]

From 2001 to 2005, the Pats were almost flawless. To my friends, I was the epitome of a homer.

But since then, they've made some really, really bad moves. The problem with the Pats in the last 5 years is that they couldn't find capable role players to complement their core players.

It's a shame, because this team should've won at least 1-2 more super bowls had they drafted better, not waste draft picks on Starks, Burgess and signing other horrible players.

The Pats were clearly not flawless from 2001-2005. The Pats went 9-7 in 2002. The biggest free agent acquisition during this time period was Donald Hayes who might be the worst free agent acquisition of the Belichick era (worse than Adalius Thomas who at least played well in 2007). The Pats had more hits than misses, but there were still misses in drafting and free agency.

Also, the Pats were clearly not as bad as you make them from 2006-2010. You do realize the Pats have been to two AFC Championships and one Super Bowl between 2006 and 2009. I know we have become a spoiled fan base where anything short of a Super Bowl win is complete disaster, but the Pats haven't become the Raiders or the Lions.

 

[mgteich]

"The biggest free agent acquisition of this time period was Donald Hays" ???????????
===============================================
Some others that were "bigger" for the patriots in that time period
2001 Cherry, compton, Izzo, Patten, Phifer, Pleasant, Antowain Smith and Vrabel
2002 Fauria
2003 Centers, Colvin, Hochstein, Poole
2004 Traylor

The Pats were clearly not flawless from 2001-2005. The Pats went 9-7 in 2002. The biggest free agent acquisition during this time period was Donald Hayes who might be the worst free agent acquisition of the Belichick era (worse than Adalius Thomas who at least played well in 2007). The Pats had more hits than misses, but there were still misses in drafting and free agency.

Also, the Pats were clearly not as bad as you make them from 2006-2010. You do realize the Pats have been to two AFC Championships and one Super Bowl between 2006 and 2009. I know we have become a spoiled fan base where anything short of a Super Bowl win is complete disaster, but the Pats haven't become the Raiders or the Lions.