Oficial Post Game Thread- Pats beat the Cardinals

[Ring 6]

Your missing the point. If culture mattered as much as you suggest, it seems to reason it could endure taking a hit at the QB position. It never does.

Culture is about being a team. Culture doesn’t mean you lose a player and have no drop off. That’s ignorant. Culture means things like Do Your Job, No Days Off, and hundreds of other attitudes that coaches build within their team to drive being a team and winning at all cost over personal priorities. The higher you get the more challenging it is.
When the organization stops stressing that and shows the players winning WITH THEM doesn’t matter, you would rather lose with them to turn a new page, you lose those players. You now have a culture in your organization that is about me rather than we.
I doubt you have played competitive team sports much because you are totally clueless to this concept and think that team
building is about convincing players it’s good to lose because they suck and need to cheat to lose on order to grab the 20 year old savior.

There are zero examples of what you espouse working and examples every day on every team where building a winning team culture is a huge priority.

 

[lancerman]

Do I get to exclude any stat that doesn't back up my argument too?

Who drafted Plunkett BTW? Must've been a tanking team - how'd that work out for them?

I think we just found your new board nickname. The outlier.

Ok so is your argument that are strategy should be? Bet on a once in a half century occurrence to happen to our team for a second time? Sounds like some amazingly sound team building strategy lol.

Also still ignore 51% of SB winning QB’s came in the first half of the first round

 

[lancerman]

No, your implication is that the path to winning is solely reliant on drafting a QB in the top ten and a team should intentionally lose games to get there excludes every other variance possible in a complex system. Using examples of teams that didn't tank as reasons to tank makes zero sense because it's an apples to kumquats comparison itself.

No that’s not what I said, you should learn critical reading because twice now you have shown an inability to do much more than zone in on one line you thought you could argue and myopically make the whole discussion about that.

Drafting QB’s is a gamble. There are less risky areas to draft a QB. The most successful position is the number 1 pick. After the top 16 your odds of hitting on a QB go from 81% to a little better than 60% and then after the first round you are worse than a coin flip, after the 2nd it’s basically a 25% chance and after the 3rd it goes to complete crap.

QB is now a position of need. It’s not a position you can just put off anymore and go “oh I don’t see value, let’s wait a few rounds and see if someone we like is in the 3rd”. It doesn’t work like that. You can hope for a steal when it’s not a position of need. When it is a need, it becomes mission critical and you need to take your best shots.

 

[oldrover]

4 TDs and 9 INTs after 11 games must be a record.

Nope. Some of us geezers remember Joe Kapp's one year as a Pat in 1970.

11 games, 3 TD's, 17 INT's.

As I recall, folks really tore up the old PatsFans BB.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Stidham’ s career QB rating is 39. He’ll more likely be bagging groceries next year than be on the Patriots.

The same guy that a lot of us want to see get reps over Cam. lol

If that could get us the Kurt Warner effect, I'd like to give it a try.

 

[lancerman]

Nope. Some of us geezers remember Joe Kapp's one year as a Pat in 1970.

11 games, 3 TD's, 17 INT's.

As I recall, folks really tore up the old PatsFans BB.




View attachment 29324

Yeah that was before Ian Sr got rid of the bugs on the board. It was filthy they were crawling everywhere

 

[PScottman]

Ok so is your argument that are strategy should be? Bet on a once in a half century occurrence to happen to our team for a second time? Sounds like some amazingly sound team building strategy lol.

Also still ignore 51% of SB winning QB’s came in the first half of the first round

The strategy should be to evaluate the best methodology to improve the team...draft, free agency, etc but not at the expense of destroying the very reason the team has weathered as a dynasty longer than any other.

(Which yes includes a lightning in a bottle QB but isn't solely that) - a vibrant middle class of team depth, a veteran core turned over repeatedly that allows youth to grow and mature without sacrificing their confidence (a critical component to growth), a team-first approach that valued the outcomes of winning over the self-aggrandizement of the player, a steady stream of coaches and staff allowed to provide input on direction instead of yes men, superior cap management that lasted the entire dynasty until this year when most teams with a mortgage the future approach crash and burn in less than three years, an everyone is accountable mantra (including coaches and management), and a strategic approach to team building instead of a tactical one.

 

[Ring 6]

People keep talking about culture but there is absolutely no evidence this matters.

Packers had a winning culture.... until Starr retired.

Steelers had a winning culture..., until Bradshaw and Noll left. Then they were mediocre with a few good seasons until Ben came along.

Niner’s had an amazing culture until Young left. Then they became mediocre until Smith got there and gave them some shots.

Shula had a great culture in Miami. What have the Dolphins done since Marino left.

Now the Patriots, had an amazing culture for 20 years. Best in the NFL. On the verge of their first losing season right after Brady left.

There is zero evidence that culture matters to the degree people are saying, that it can sustain losing a high end player at the top position OR that tanking one year would destroy it and it can’t be immediately fixed with a new top talent (we literally saw Indy do this)

I firmly believe 4-5 weeks ago was the time to pull the plug on this and just get a QB the year the whole world was ready to give a mulligan to Belichick and the team. Next year if we don’t have a QB people won’t be as forgiving. It is a desperate need right now and it’s really going to determine a lot of outcomes the next few years

Lombardi, and the culture left before Starr, and the entire roster aged.

Pittsburgh continued to have a winning culture. Noll made the playoffs his first 2 years without Bradshaw and stayed competitive when pretty much the entire championship roster was gone.

The 49ers were deteriorating before young retired when the culture shifted from Walsh and seifert to Mariucci.

The culture left Miami with Shula another great example refuting your argument.

Culture doesn’t replace players, it’s not magic, but it is a necessary element of winning.
Im sure you could show examples of teams tanking and overcoming what that does to a franchise. I mean is there one? Any? I don’t see examples of a team doing what you suggest where they didn’t clean house afterward.

 

[lancerman]

The strategy should be to evaluate the best methodology to improve the team...draft, free agency, etc but not at the expense of destroying the very reason the team has weathered as a dynasty longer than any other.

(Which yes includes a lightning in a bottle QB but isn't solely that) - a vibrant middle class of team depth, a veteran core turned over repeatedly that allows youth to grow and mature without sacrificing their confidence (a critical component to growth), a team-first approach that valued the outcomes of winning over the self-aggrandizement of the player, a steady stream of coaches and staff allowed to provide input on direction instead of yes men, superior cap management that lasted the entire dynasty until this year when most teams with a mortgage the future approach crash and burn in less than three years, an everyone is accountable mantra (including coaches and management), and a strategic approach to team building instead of a tactical one.

This rests on two assumptions.

1. that tanking a year would ruin the foundation of the team. It’s already an inconsistent, non winning team.

2. that as soon as you get a solid QB, Bill can’t reestablish a winning culture (Colts did this after Luck, Bill implemented his culture almost as soon as the team bought into him and Brady).

Regardless, when you don’t have a QB, you need to find one. That’s just a fact. You don’t have any long term viability without one. You are basically praying you can get a stacked enough team to get lucky and get by for a single year with a game manager. It’s not sustainable whatsoever.

Longterm competitiveness is something that requires a QB. It makes that position vital. From there you go to “what are my best options to get a longterm franchise QB”.

It’s always going to be the draft. Within the draft there are areas that are more likely to yield success at that position than others. When the top half of the draft gets you 51% of the SB titles and nearly every other round including the bottom of the 1st splits the other half of titles..... that’s says something. When 75% to 80% of the league’s starters we’re drafted in the first round, that says something.

 

[Ring 6]

It’s worth noting that 6 of those 11 were the same guy who was an extreme outlier they thus far has occurred exactly one time in the SB era.

Let’s go through it

2001: Brady the outlier

2002: Brad Johnson 9th round pick who got carried. Never player more than 50 games for a single team.

2003. Brady the outlier

2004: Brady the outlier

2005: Ben 11th overall

2006: Peyton Manning 1st overall

2007: Eli Manning 1st overall

2008: Ben 11th overall

2009: Brees 32nd overall

2010: Rodgers 24th overall

2011: Eli Manning 1st overall

2012: Flacco 18th overall

—— I hope you realize that right here guys picked in the first 32 spots won 8 consecutive SB’s

2013: 75th overall

2014: Brady the outlier

2015: Peyton Manning 1st overall

2016: Brady the outlier

2017: Foles 88th overall *ill get to this later.

2018: Brady the outlier

2019: Mahomes 10th overall.

Since Brady got here, 1st round picks (most of them high) account for 10 of the 19 SB’s. Of the 9 remaining Brady accounts for 6, Foles who got granted a first seed basically road Wentz who was a 2nd overall to the playoffs so you have to give Wentz some credit for even giving them the position to do it, that leaves Johnsob and Wilson.

Then for multiple SB wins since the 2000’s it’s

Brady: outlier at pick 199

Ben: pick 11

Peyton: pick 1

Eli: pick 1

so 3 of the 4 multi SB winners were high first round.

The reason I keep bringing up Brady is an outlier is because no QB in the SB era had even a 10th of the success being drafted that late. It’s like hoping for lighting to strike as a strategy. Meanwhile you have first overalls like Aikman, Elway, Bradshaw, and even Jim Plunkett who account for 11 SB’s. Add the 4 from the Manning’s and the 1st overall pick accounts for 15 of 54. Drop that to top 16 and you can add Namath (16), Dawson (17), Griese (18), McMahon (19), Simms (20), Dilfer (21.... he didn’t a first round game manager job), Ben (22, 23), Peyton and Eli (gets you to 27), Mahomes (28).

And now all of a sudden 28 of 54 SB winning QB were in the top 16 picks. That’s 51%. If it’s about winning SB’s....

You added the Manning’s twice.

 

[Ring 6]

This rests on two assumptions.

1. that tanking a year would ruin the foundation of the team. It’s already an inconsistent, non winning team.

2. that as soon as you get a solid QB, Bill can’t reestablish a winning culture (Colts did this after Luck, Bill implemented his culture almost as soon as the team bought into him and Brady).

Regardless, when you don’t have a QB, you need to find one. That’s just a fact. You don’t have any long term viability without one. You are basically praying you can get a stacked enough team to get lucky and get by for a single year with a game manager. It’s not sustainable whatsoever.

Longterm competitiveness is something that requires a QB. It makes that position vital. From there you go to “what are my best options to get a longterm franchise QB”.

It’s always going to be the draft. Within the draft there are areas that are more likely to yield success at that position than others. When the top half of the draft gets you 51% of the SB titles and nearly every other round including the bottom of the 1st splits the other half of titles..... that’s says something. When 75% to 80% of the league’s starters we’re drafted in the first round, that says something.

1) you consider the patriots culture and foundation to be inconsistent and non winning? Really?
2) the colts fired the entire coaching staff and front office.

Destroying the culture in your organization to get a QB sets you back much further than it lifts you.

51% is not a correct stat. And flawed as well.

75-80% of starting QBs were first round picks because QBs are over drafted. What is the success rate for first round QBs? Not very good.
You want to gamble by turning your team into individuals who care nothing about winning, who work at a place that thinks it is useless so it must cheat to grab a savior, who will not want to be here after being forced to lose on purpose, where your massive free agent spending in 2021 will have to be wasted to overpay slugs because no one will want to come to a crappy team, so you have a chance to draft a qb who might have a 1 in 3 chance of making it? When you still get a first round pick no matter where you finish.
you should really be a fan of the jets or the browns because they operate that way.

 

[notex]

Lombardi, and the culture left before Starr, and the entire roster aged.

Pittsburgh continued to have a winning culture. Noll made the playoffs his first 2 years without Bradshaw and stayed competitive when pretty much the entire championship roster was gone.

The 49ers were deteriorating before young retired when the culture shifted from Walsh and seifert to Mariucci.

The culture left Miami with Shula another great example refuting your argument.

Culture doesn’t replace players, it’s not magic, but it is a necessary element of winning.
Im sure you could show examples of teams tanking and overcoming what that does to a franchise. I mean is there one? Any? I don’t see examples of a team doing what you suggest where they didn’t clean house afterward.

Honestly cannot think of an example of a sports team (any sport) keeping their coach and GM, purposely tanking, drafting some star player, and rebuilding a culture with that same coach/GM, and having success after. Generally speaking there is a period of stinking, a change-up in Coach/GM, and new leadership "starting fresh" with some shiny new young draft picks.

I am a huge believer in the "human" side of the equation of winning. One could argue that outside of 2008 the Pats have never won because they were the most talented team in the league.

 

[Triumph]

Nope. Some of us geezers remember Joe Kapp's one year as a Pat in 1970.

11 games, 3 TD's, 17 INT's.

As I recall, folks really tore up the old PatsFans BB.




View attachment 29324

Joe didnt have a TE or good WRs either.

Joe went to a Super Bowl and 5hit the bed too. Just like Cam.

 

[Ring 6]

No that’s not what I said, you should learn critical reading because twice now you have shown an inability to do much more than zone in on one line you thought you could argue and myopically make the whole discussion about that.

Drafting QB’s is a gamble. There are less risky areas to draft a QB. The most successful position is the number 1 pick. After the top 16 your odds of hitting on a QB go from 81% to a little better than 60% and then after the first round you are worse than a coin flip, after the 2nd it’s basically a 25% chance and after the 3rd it goes to complete crap.

QB is now a position of need. It’s not a position you can just put off anymore and go “oh I don’t see value, let’s wait a few rounds and see if someone we like is in the 3rd”. It doesn’t work like that. You can hope for a steal when it’s not a position of need. When it is a need, it becomes mission critical and you need to take your best shots.

There is no way in the world that 81% of of top 16 QBs are “hits” or 60% of 17-32.
Not even a chance.

 

[Ring 6]

Honestly cannot think of an example of a sports team (any sport) keeping their coach and GM, purposely tanking, drafting some star player, and rebuilding a culture with that same coach/GM, and having success after. Generally speaking there is a period of stinking, a change-up in Coach/GM, and new leadership "starting fresh" with some shiny new young draft picks.

But here is the real bottom line.
Sports in general and professional sports in particular are about COMPETING. Athletes live to compete. Coaches live to teach and compete.
In the nfl, best described as 60 minutes of collisions, if you slack off your career can be over in a second and if not you just played yourself out of the league on film.
The nature of the sport is if you have nothing to play for, you slack off. Some players can be motivated high level players on crappy teams, but they are rare and they will leave the tanker as soon as they can. The NFL is about growing and developing the players on your roster. Tanking sets them back. The coach that tanks loses his team. 100% of the time. Losing 53 players to draft one is stupid.

 

[lancerman]

Joe didnt have a TE or good WRs either.

Joe went to a Super Bowl and 5hit the bed too. Just like Cam.

Cam had virtually the exact same stat line as a guy named Tom Brady against the exact same team two weeks earlier.

 

[Jim Beankie]

The reason I keep bringing up Brady is an outlier is because no QB in the SB era had even a 10th of the success being drafted that late. It’s like hoping for lighting to strike as a strategy. Meanwhile you have first overalls like Aikman, Elway, Bradshaw, and even Jim Plunkett who account for 11 SB’s. Add the 4 from the Manning’s and the 1st overall pick accounts for 15 of 54. Drop that to top 16 and you can add Namath (16), Dawson (17), Griese (18), McMahon (19), Simms (20), Dilfer (21.... he didn’t a first round game manager job), Ben (22, 23), Peyton and Eli (gets you to 27), Mahomes (28).

And now all of a sudden 28 of 54 SB winning QB were in the top 16 picks. That’s 51%. If it’s about winning SB’s....

It's clear you have a different perspective - totally understandable. You see that 51% as boosting your point, but to me it clearly boosts mine. We don't need to further run around in circles. I do disagree that you can conveniently call Brady an outlier. Montana is the 2nd greatest QB of all time, and he was drafted in the 3rd round. Warner was undrafted, and he was an offensive beast and won a SB (and came close to multiple ones). Also, I wanted to keep the numbers close to the beginning of unrestricted free agency, for obvious reasons (although it would be 8 of 16 outside of the 1st round off the top of my head I think). Don't get me wrong - it'd be nice to get one of those top 6 QBs in the draft, but I'd rather win.

I wonder if Belichick's seeing 3rd rounder Hostetler filling in (to "beat" Montana and Kelly to win it all), after 1st rounder Simms' injury after Week 15 in '90, influenced his thoughts regarding the QB position. [I'm pretty sure I watched the Pats' Week 17 loss to the Giants to get to 1-15, but I don't remember a darn thing.] I'm sure his continuing misses on 1st round and midseason offensive players (non OL) are starting to get old for him.

 

[JMC00]

I used to think Pereira was a mouthpiece for the NFL, always agreeing with blown calls. Now I see he's just an idiot:

Did he also give his opinion on the double pass interference? Absolute joke of a call. Hopkins pushes off and Gilmore's PI is because Hopkins pushed off. You either call it on Hopkins or you pick the flag up, either way it's 4th down, instead they got a redo on 3rd down which led to them scoring 7 points, instead of having to punt.

The Double PI was a much more egregious call in terms of how the game played out than the hit on Newton. Gave the cardinals an extra chance to score points and if Arizona's kicker could hit a 45 yard FG and that hit on Newton still plays out it goes to OT.

And I know people will say "what about the missed call on the GL at the end of the 1st half" Well that's the risk Kingsbury ran running that play. Should have took the 3 points and it might not have come down to your kicker missing a FG. But what about the punt TD the refs took off the board? That was 4 points lost as Pats settled for a FG after. Also there was an egregious non-call on Byrd being grabbed by his jersey, if refs see a receivers jersey stretched and defender behind them that's supposed to be called a hold. Yet somehow on the same drive of the double PI call they somehow saw 2 different holding calls

 

[amfootball]

Culture is about being a team. Culture doesn’t mean you lose a player and have no drop off. That’s ignorant. Culture means things like Do Your Job, No Days Off, and hundreds of other attitudes that coaches build within their team to drive being a team and winning at all cost over personal priorities. The higher you get the more challenging it is.
When the organization stops stressing that and shows the players winning WITH THEM doesn’t matter, you would rather lose with them to turn a new page, you lose those players. You now have a culture in your organization that is about me rather than we.
I doubt you have played competitive team sports much because you are totally clueless to this concept and think that team
building is about convincing players it’s good to lose because they suck and need to cheat to lose on order to grab the 20 year old savior.

There are zero examples of what you espouse working and examples every day on every team where building a winning team culture is a huge priority.

I don't necessarily disagree with this but the culture of a football team is almost always set by the attitude and play of its QB. Just the nature of the position makes it so even for QBs who have no interest in being the leader (i.e. Flacco, Cutler, etc.). The Chiefs are such a prime example of this. Reid and his teams were always looked as talented teams with good coaching but always falling short in the post-season because of either dumb QB play or dumb coaching. Along comes Mahomes with his talent AND attitude and they win the SB in his third year with three come from behind wins.

 

[Doctor DDS]

people getting into the playoff discussion is useless. Sure, we could squeak out some wins and have a chance for a wildcard in the best case scenario, but then what? Get embarrassed even worse than last year in the first round? The only reason I'm still hoping and rooting for a winning record is for BB's legacy. But, more post season losses won't help. This year is about who to keep for next year's rebuild. I'm actually excited about a few of our young guys getting good experience this year.

Why is getting into the playoffs useless? I enjoy watching them win every time they are out there and would much rather they lose in the first round than not make the playoffs at all. And last years game had the Patriots with the ball down 1 with under 5 minutes to go and were an Edelman drop from having the ball at mid field with a chance to drive for winning FG. They certainly did not play great but there was absolutely nothing embarrassing about losing that game. While I always want to see the Pats win championships I can still enjoy seasons where they fall short.

Do you really want to bet on two historic outlier situations and make team building decisions based on that? Or do you want to go by historical trends that suggest you have the best chance of drafting a franchise QB at the top of the first round and your odds rapidly decrease the further away you get? It's just not the most pragmatic way to do it. It's very easy to say "oh the draft's a crapshoot". But you either keep picking high in the draft or pray you get exceptionally lucky. The truth is, most of us will likely be dead before another elite QB comes out the 5th or later rounds.

The problem I have with your argument is that you believe a team should lose on purpose to secure a draft pick. That goes completely against the integrity of the game and the individuals involved. Now if you said "I think they would be better off in the long run if they lost and secured a higher pick" I would still disagree with your assessment but could at least partially understand the logic.

We all know that the Patriots need to find their QB of the future. Most of us want to see the team fight and claw for every win they can get and use whatever draft capital and cap space they end up with and figure out the short and long term solutions.