Yes..... that's an example and explanation of how averages work. You can have 9 results of 0, get a 10th that's 100, and average it out to 10 even though the vast majority of those results were 0. It's a simple, clean example of how averaging can work yet still be misleading depending upon how you're viewing it and what you were looking for. Seriously, you're pulling my leg on this, right?
More backtracking. No one is questioning whether the above is an average. What I'm calling out out on are your attempts to counter with examples that are far more exaggerated and ridiculous than what I'm saying. The above scenario is not even remotely close to how the "name" players that we banked from '06-'10 were scattered....as if they all came in just one draft.
Two bad drafts out of five =/= "nine zeroes in a row"
Actually, it nails your argument. Hell, "average" was your own specific word for it. You could have gone with something like "Yes, BB had some bad and questionable drafts from 2006-2008 or 2009, but rebounded brilliantly in 2010" and left it there, where it might not have been convincing to everyone but would have at least been accurate, but you went for the "average" angle instead.
It's amazing how you continue to be a caricature:
Sort of like how drafting Mayo needs to be dismissed, or downplayed, when talking about 2008. Or Chung and Vollmer for 09. Or Ghostkowski for 06 either. Or anyone who plays Special Teams as well. Yeah. That'll do it.
Pfft. You spun it exactly in the way I previously embarrassed you over.
No, there are more than two drafts. Again, you know this. At this point, you must be trolling.
Again:
The word on you really is true. If you face an argument that you cannot handle -- you just try to dismiss it without making any real rebuttal.
Notice how you say "You know this." As if it's actual substantial. Know
what exactly? Cause you certainly avoid backing it up with names and facts. You keep avoiding making an actual point. Do I Know....? That I want Mayo on my team? Yeah. Same for Chung and Vollmer? Yeah. That the overwhelming majority of teams simply do
not average 1 Pro Bowler a year, along with another quality player or even reserve? Yeah. That the Patriots, infact, do? Yeah.
And blaming McDaniels when Belichick makes the picks is pathetic. BB gets credit for Brady, and he gets the credit/blame for every other pick, as well. Shared blame/credit for the Pioli years makes sense, but trying to put it on McDaniels? Come on.
Do you even know what point you are trying to make?
It has nothing to do with giving "credit;" as if you think this convo is some sort of ESPN wank fest that exists to dole out superfluous accolades. Or a public press-confrence where the 'classy' thing for the Head Coach to do is to 'shoulder the blame' -- just for the sake of appearances. I don't care about appearances. I don't care who you want to credit within NE. Credit the late
**** Rehbein for Brady; for all I care. Hell, I don't care if you want to argue that Bill Belichick is a puppet who would be utterly lost w/o his scouts on draft day. If you want take credit away from Belichick; then I really don't care. It has nothing to do with this convo.
What I care about? How the past projects the future. Are the Patriots good? Will they be continue to be good? Specifically; which series of prior drafts were the
abnormality. I'd say it's 2006. Why? Because BB -- or rather his scouts (see? I gave you your rattle) -- where
not the impetus for the two draft picks that made those drafts so awful. That was McD. Without McD, BB's scouts would've picked 2 other players. Luckily, McD is gone. So, no. 2006 is not indicative of what's to come. Nor does it personify the past. It's an abnormality; one that your entire argument hinges on.
Ah! But luckily abnormalities go both ways. We saw it in 2010 when BB -- or his scouts (see? I gave you your rattle again), or Kraft, or the Ghost of Rehbein, or whoever the hell you, so pettily, want to assign "credit" to; walked away with
3 Pro Bowlers, one quality LB, and a quality STer. Damn. A franchise best draft. A draft you won't see for another
15 years. A timeframe that overly-entitled types like you won't ever appreciate. Something that very few teams can claim they pulled off in one draft....ever. So yeah. What is the long term result? Pretty solid. Why? Oh. It's the Law of Averages. The good in '10 balanced out the bad in '06. The other drafts, where we didn't trade away, netted some quality starters too. All in all, when the dust settled -- the end results from 2006-2011 were actually pretty good.
How good? In fact -- as or OP claimed in his artice -- not much worse than the Pittsburgh Steelers. Yes, those Steelers. You know, the franchise that's the
current focus of all those ESPN wank fests, where they heap superfluous praise on to the best of the best. Sort of like where NE used to be. The hype? Dissapating. But the results? Pfft. Not much has changed. The Pats still draft well. About as well as anyone. Yes, even the Steelers. As that article cited.
