A tale of a draft SQUANDERED....

[Ring 6]

The point is the R+R defence Isn't the only one that is succesfull. Some people such as myself drink Kool aid, some chug, and some like yourself are hooked up to a continuous I.V. drip.

OK, so instead of trying to discuss the point you pull that crap to try to belittle my viewpoint?
Please explain this to me.
Apparently, since you don't care to actually read and try to understand the posts, you have decided I am the most supportive of BB person in the world.
If that is true and BB has just presided over the 2nd best decade any franchise has ever had, didn't you just say I am right more than anyone?

Now, how about you drop the lame characterizations and we have a discussion?

There are plenty of respected (at least they were until last night) posters here that think that a real need for this team is defense, especially a pass rusher.

I think its obvious that pass rusher is a need.
That doesnt mean its smart to draft a pass rusher who wont help the team, just to say you drafted a pass rusher.
I expect OLB to be a big FA focus, but unlike you I'm not pretending that there were great OLBs out there to take and we just fell asleep at the wheel.

The pats haven't had a one since Vrable and Colvin were in their prime five years ago or more. But when they and i make our case were call idiots, morons.

When did I call you an idiot or moron?
I said before you say you want to change the system, look at the results. Did you?
What case are you trying to make?

Bill B is a genious well Landry, Shula, Walsh, Noll, JJohnson were all geniouses at one time too. In the end the arc of thier careers is similar, they all won thier SB withing a six year window, after that except for Shula they never made it back to another SB. I like watching the team win a lot of games but i like winning SB's better. Thats the ultimate goal.

What are you arguing here? You are right because you want to win SBs, and you think other people don't? Aren't we above this childish kind of argument yet?

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, because it would say that the Patriots were putting their team at risk by having a backup who couldn't hold off a rookie QB from a bad QB class.

There were 4 QBs taken in the top 12, how is that a bad QB class, and BB felt Mallett was the best QB in the draft.
If you seriously think it is negligent to have a backup who could be beaten out by the best QB in the draft, you should go back to the analysis drawing board.

 

[Kasmir]

My "agenda" is giving as even a look at the team as I can. I'd rather be honest about what I see with my team, and to be a realist. If you'd rather be a homer, or a Chicken Little, you're welcome to those approaches.

For me, being realistic about the teams I follow makes them more fun to watch. Your mileage may vary.

You're a pessimist at best. I cannot recall you ever supporting a Belichick personnel decision that was at all controversial. Prove me wrong.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're a pessimist at best. I cannot recall you ever supporting a Belichick personnel decision that was at all controversial. Prove me wrong.

Shall we start with the one that was about as controversial as any has ever been, when I was one of the few defending Cassel? Sure, let's just go with that.

Now, you have a great night. I'm not here this weekend to deal with people who want to make this about defending the team instead of honest discussion regarding the picks.

 

[FalconHeavy]

You're a pessimist at best. I cannot recall you ever supporting a Belichick personnel decision that was at all controversial. Prove me wrong.

Let it go man. You are breaking your head against a wall, everyone has their view point , some are optimistic, some are not

 

[Kasmir]

Let it go man. You are breaking your head against a wall, everyone has their view point , some are optimistic, some are not

As long as DI slings ad hom arguments (PFK is a homer, etc), I'll feel free to sling back.

 

[DaBruinz]

pats are in desperate need of a pass rush and a guard. They are not in desperate need of 2 RBs and a back up QB with Brady entering year 1 of a 4 year mega contract.

Guess you haven't looked at the roster lately.

The Pats, prior to the draft, had Woodhead and Clayton signed. BJGE is tendered as a RFA. Faulk, Taylor, and Morris are UFA.

Vereen is more than a 3rd down back and you clearly are just parroting others with your comments.

People seem to forget that there is a key element we know nothing about. The interview with the individual player. If you are daft enough to think that isn't important, then you shouldn't be posting on any message board.

 

[DaBruinz]

OK, I just give up. The Pats can't rush the QB and are the worst (by far) at getting off the field on third down and you just don't see a serious need. Must be the new NFL where letting the other team go on long drives is now the key to success.

The Pats can and DO rush the QB. You also seem to be forgetting that the Pats added Marcus Stroud and have Ty Warren returning. That, alone, will change the face of the pass rush. Stroud is still good enough to draw double-teams. Wilfork is one of the best NTs to ever play the game.

Having those two improves the pass rush because it will open up the inside lanes for Spikes, Mayo and Guyton. It will also make things easier on Ninkovich, TBC and Cunningham.

The Pats added a CB who should help them get off the field on third downs, provided he plays the slot-corner on a regular basis. You also seem to forget that McCourty, Spikes and Cunningham both have a year of experience under their belt and Chung has 2. The Pats will also be getting Leigh Bodden back and he should help against the other teams better receivers.

Instead of being so down on the draft, throw every assumption you've made out the window and try and figure out WHY the Pats made the moves they did.

For instance, Marcus Cannon projects inside to guard. And contrary to what people have speculated on here, he should be 100% in 8-12 weeks.

Vereen gives then a solidly built guy who has some speed, very good vision and agility. Ridley is a bruising North/South RB for those short-yardage situations the Pats have struggled with the last 3 years.

Solder will go into the OT rotation and probably be spelling Light by the end of the year pretty regularly. It's not the first time the Pats have done that with a 1st round pick (Wilfork, Warren).

Mallett is the guy who may be the heir apparent to Brady. Hopefully, he comes in with a chip on his shoulder and makes it his mission in life to prove the other teams wrong. Just the way Brady did. And he's got a great mentor in Brady and a great coach in Belichick.

Carter, Smith and Williams have their work cut out for them. I wouldn't be surprised to see BB carry a 4th TE on the roster and have Smith learn everything he can from Crumpler.

 

[Synovia]

Now, you have a great night. I'm not here this weekend to deal with people who want to make this about defending the team instead of honest discussion regarding the picks.

Deus, you're never here for honest discussion. You're here to belittle people.

 

[BaltimorePatsFan]

Yes, because it would say that the Patriots were putting their team at risk by having a backup who couldn't hold off a rookie QB from a bad QB class.

Right. So the Jets signing and starting LT over Shonn Greene last season proved that Greene is a bust the Jets have absolutely no confidence in.

 

[IllegalContact]

we have a huge number of fans in full panic mode because of nothing more than them unable of being more wrong in their predictions.

taking a step back, looking at the roster and then the draft itself lends plenty of logic.


- the OL/RB was by far the most important issue
- the defense is already ridiculously young

now going pick by pick,

solder - addresses a need....end of story
trade away 28 - the only logical picks here would have been 5 tech guys (wilkerson and heyward)....I believe neither showed enough to make BB believe that either would get past deaderick on the depth chart. not worth a 1st, and the rest of the value was poor at the time. move back and leverage next year.
dowling - I thought sheard or brooks would have been logical, but I guess it was simply that neither is worth much in term of coverage and neither brings much over what is already there in cunningham. where would we put another OLB who is not ready to cover?
vereen - kevin faulk replacement. as much fun it was to watch woodhead, I would still rather have faulk as he made the small plays that mattered more consistently....in terms of value, vereen was a 2nd rounder whose value may have dropped in some peoples eyes for no other reason than lack of exposure during a time when players abilities don't change
ridley - I understand the type of RB in the pick........at this point, there was not a 3-4 front 7 player left that would have provided a meaningful contribuition is the logic behind the pick....the only thing I could see that might have been better would have been either moffitt or rackley at OG (in which they got a better player in marcus cannon) or WR with hankerson or pettis.

as for the rest of the draft, its a crapshoot at best so I don't see the big deal.

the offense got younger.

while it was not the way I would have had the draft unfold, I doubt that my knowledge of the game has any meaning in comparison to the ones calling the shots.....neither does nyone elses here

 

[reflexblue]

OK, so instead of trying to discuss the point you pull that crap to try to belittle my viewpoint?
Please explain this to me.
Apparently, since you don't care to actually read and try to understand the posts, you have decided I am the most supportive of BB person in the world.
If that is true and BB has just presided over the 2nd best decade any franchise has ever had, didn't you just say I am right more than anyone?

Now, how about you drop the lame characterizations and we have a discussion?




I think its obvious that pass rusher is a need.
That doesnt mean its smart to draft a pass rusher who wont help the team, just to say you drafted a pass rusher.
I expect OLB to be a big FA focus, but unlike you I'm not pretending that there were great OLBs out there to take and we just fell asleep at the wheel.



When did I call you an idiot or moron?
I said before you say you want to change the system, look at the results. Did you?
What case are you trying to make?


What are you arguing here? You are right because you want to win SBs, and you think other people don't? Aren't we above this childish kind of argument yet?

Look i'm not going to get into it with someone thats playing dumb. Just about all of this is a mischaracterization of what i posted.

 

[Ring 6]

Look i'm not going to get into it with someone thats playing dumb. Just about all of this is a mischaracterization of what i posted.

Actually it is exactly what you posted.
1) You throw a slur at me to try to make it sound like my POV lacks integrity or veracity.
2) I agree with you that pass rusher is a need, and suggest that picking a pass rusher for the sake of picking one isnt helping anyone. Do you have a list of the guys you wanted to take that were available to us that you think BB misevaluated?
3) You said you were called an idiot or moron, I asked you to show me where. What is that mischaracterizing?
Earlier I said if you are suggesting a system change I suggest you consider the results and here I ask if you did. You still havent answered
4) You commented that you want to win Super Bowls as if to strengthen the value of your point of view. I called you out on that lame tactic.

That describes every word in my post.
What exactly was a mischaracterization?

Where did I play dumb? You wanted to end the discussion with "AJ is a homer so his opinion is dishonest" and "I want to win SBs so my concerns are important" and you say its ME who is playing dumb? Wow.

 

[Ring 6]

As long as DI slings ad hom arguments (PFK is a homer, etc), I'll feel free to sling back.

Stick to your guns. When he is wrong, he will change the topic, and throw you some condescing insults. Then when you call him out, he will say that he has no need to talk to someone who can't understand his argument or some other condescending excuse and will 'take the high road' or putting you on ignore. At that point you have won the argument, and that is his admission.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Yes, because it would say that the Patriots were putting their team at risk by having a backup who couldn't hold off a rookie QB from a bad QB class.

I give you credit for your perceptions of the Pats backup QB's, recalling that you were among the few of us who defended Matt in those first volatile weeks after he took over for Tommy, but I think your comment above is unfair.

If Mallet could beat out Hoyer after only a few months in the NFL, it would be just as reasonable to conclude that the Pats learned that in Ryan they had indeed drafted a first round talent who adapted quickly to their system and was ready to take the field. Other than that he was the "last guy standing" after several other guys were sent away from the Pats organization, we really don't know what we have in Hoyer or what Belichick and Brady really think of him.

As for this being "a bad QB class," I think history tells us that, with rare exceptions, we don't know whether the majority of QB classes are "bad" or "good" for several years.

 

[Observer]

Shall we start with the one that was about as controversial as any has ever been, when I was one of the few defending Cassel? Sure, let's just go with that.

Now, you have a great night. I'm not here this weekend to deal with people who want to make this about defending the team instead of honest discussion regarding the picks.

:agree:

Why can't we discuss the merits of our draft picks vs. the picks that we could have made to help the team rather than discuss whether BB and crew are above scrutiny or not. The draft is over... we got what we got and it definitely makes the team better, the question is how much better? Clearly BB had one idea on what makes the team better and others had different ideas. This does not mean that there should be no discussion on whether or not those picks could have been better spent on other player. Ultimately the game is not won by the draft philosophy or number of picks... it is won by the player you put on the field.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

It's a shame more people can't be objective and have to love everything Belichick does.

This team's biggest problem has been its inability to get off the field on 3rd downs. That correlates directly with the pass rush. There is no edge presence on this team at all. If you want to rely on scheme to pass rush, that's fine but I don't see Belichick turning his defense into a high blitzing Dom Capers/**** LeBeau/Rex Ryan type of defense.

If you're not going to do that, you need to get impact pass rushers who can collapse the pocket as part of a 4 man rush. The Pats have 0.0 of those guys. Banta-Cain, Cunningham, Ninkovich, Moore -- none are elite or even great. Cunningham has some potential, but is seen as more of a solid/steady Colvin-type that doesn't have gamebreaking ability.

Look at the final 4 teams this past year. They could all rush the passer extremely well. The Jets had Pace, Ellis, an aging Jason Taylor and a pretty aggressive scheme. The Steelers have an aggressive scheme as well as Woodley and Harrison. The Packers have Clay Matthews, an aggressive scheme, and some difference makers on the DL like Jenkins and Raji. The Bears have a passive scheme, but shelled out the cash for one of the best pass rushers in the game -- Peppers.

Even look at the Colts who have Freeney and Mathis, the Chargers when they had a healthy Merriman and Phillips, the Giants when they beat us with Strahan, Tuck, Osi, etc.

The Pats edge presence is laughable in comparison to that. They don't have anyone that instills fear in the opponent's protection scheme. And that's a major problem and a major reason why they allowed nearly 50% of third down attempts to be converted into first downs.

 

[patsox23]

If we're being honest, we can't say things like "the jets rush the passer very well." They don't. Their defense is very, very good, but their pass-rush is not.

 

[Seels]

It's like half these fans don't realize it...drop Taylor and Morris and do NOTHING to replace them?

Morris and Taylor have contributed basically nothing but used roster spots the last two years. Any JAG FA RB could have replaced either of these guys.

 

[IllegalContact]

It's a shame more people can't be objective and have to love everything Belichick does.

This team's biggest problem has been its inability to get off the field on 3rd downs. That correlates directly with the pass rush. There is no edge presence on this team at all. If you want to rely on scheme to pass rush, that's fine but I don't see Belichick turning his defense into a high blitzing Dom Capers/**** LeBeau/Rex Ryan type of defense.

If you're not going to do that, you need to get impact pass rushers who can collapse the pocket as part of a 4 man rush. The Pats have 0.0 of those guys. Banta-Cain, Cunningham, Ninkovich, Moore -- none are elite or even great. Cunningham has some potential, but is seen as more of a solid/steady Colvin-type that doesn't have gamebreaking ability.

Look at the final 4 teams this past year. They could all rush the passer extremely well. The Jets had Pace, Ellis, an aging Jason Taylor and a pretty aggressive scheme. The Steelers have an aggressive scheme as well as Woodley and Harrison. The Packers have Clay Matthews, an aggressive scheme, and some difference makers on the DL like Jenkins and Raji. The Bears have a passive scheme, but shelled out the cash for one of the best pass rushers in the game -- Peppers.

Even look at the Colts who have Freeney and Mathis, the Chargers when they had a healthy Merriman and Phillips, the Giants when they beat us with Strahan, Tuck, Osi, etc.

The Pats edge presence is laughable in comparison to that. They don't have anyone that instills fear in the opponent's protection scheme. And that's a major problem and a major reason why they allowed nearly 50% of third down attempts to be converted into first downs.

its not about being a homer or a hater......just because they did not fill the needs you thought they should have filled does not mean that they did not fill needs.

truth be told, the offense faltered in the playoffs, not the defense. the defense did a good enough job against the jets where an offense led by brady should have won the game

the defense had problems last year, but also had its moments. with several starting players no longer rookies, I expect an improvement over last year based on experience alone. I also think adding a rookie to the OLB unit may not be the most effective approach going into next year and that adding a vet when they can do so will be more effective for 2011

I didnt agree fully with the way the draft went down, and maybe the team did not improve as much as it could have, but it did improve, and also leveraged more opportunity next year. leveraging opportunities are what added wilfork, mayo, gronkowski, chung, cunningham, hernandez as none of these guys would not exist here if it weren't for the additional picks gained by draft day philandering.

I still believe mankins will be extended, and with solder and cannon, the OL is suddenly a lot more physical. we dont have retreads for RBs anymore. dowling does add depth to a group who may be losing some after this year.....Ridley is a real battering ram

BB seems to be intent on giving a year of roster consistency to the LB unit in order to see if it will pay off. with the return of warren and adding stroud, they have the 2 taller guys they can put in the middle on passing downs to affect QB vision.

I been more pessimistic than most in the past, but I do see improvements over last year.

I would have like to have seen the defense become more athletic, but those opportunities were gone by 17