Bedard: There was second guessing about Mayo over summer and him getting a second year isn't guaranteed

[sportnik]

As a fan I'd rather see them make improvement over the final half of the season. I don't root for a draft pick, especially when I don't have faith in Wolf's ability to draft. I want to see them play better, make fewer mistakes and penalties, want to see continued growth in Maye.

Playing for draft picks is what loser franchises do. We don't want to be the team that "wins" the offseason every year only to win 2-4 actual games... no thanks.

Completely agree. You only play for draft position if you need a QB. We have a QB. It really doesn’t matter where we draft next year. Establishing a culture of winning is far more important.

 

[Steve102]

Completely agree. You only play for draft position if you need a QB. We have a QB. It really doesn’t matter where we draft next year. Establishing a culture of winning is far more important.

It matters if the depth of the draft class at LT is thin, but to your point, wins matter now. You have to figure there's 3-4 LTs that are round one guys, and they should be in reach if they end up picking 8-12 range.

 

[TommyD4207]

There was a report of a veterans-only meeting about pulling together. So I think Mayo's soft comment did what it intended.

I mean, kinda.
The Jets only giving Breece Hall 16 carries (80 yds, 5ypc), and given Braylon Allen 12 (37 yds), is more of a Jete problem than a 'Patriots suddenly not soft' problem.

It looked better, but why Breece Hall didn't get 25 carries when he's gashing the Patriots is beyond me.

 

[festy1986]

I'm not against trading down necessarily. I'm a little lost as to what you're getting at. If I said something last year then yeah there was no way I wanted to trade down with Maye on the board.

If you're talking about next year I'm not making any hypotheticals but if we're talking about another top 5 player I'm probably going to want that player instead of an extra draft pick.

Now I'm still very confused how losing more in 20-22 would have prevented going 4-13?

Interesting.

So you're saying having a top 5 pick in each of 2020-23 when they were minus Mac rookie season doesn't put us in a position now where we have a better roster?

How about not being in a position where we're picking 15 overall coming out of a pandemic in a reset year winning useless games with cam newton?

So doing what you want us to do this year in 2020 didn't help us in the long run did it?

Winning 6, 7 or 8 games in a non competitive season only worsens us in the long run. Now is the time to bottom out. Not next year. Not 2026. It's now.

But sure. Let's win 6 games and pick 12th overall cause it builds a winning culture.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

I mean, kinda.
The Jets only giving Breece Hall 16 carries (80 yds, 5ypc), and given Braylon Allen 12 (37 yds), is more of a Jete problem than a 'Patriots suddenly not soft' problem.

It looked better, but why Breece Hall didn't get 25 carries when he's gashing the Patriots is beyond me.

Hall’s first two rushes were for 25 yards in the first quarter. Rest of the game, 14 rushes and 55 yards, 3.93 per carry - still high but much more reasonable. He had 5 carries, 39 yards at the half. 11 carries, 41 yards in the 2nd half (3.72 ypc). The Jets likely should have run him more, but after those first two runs the Pats did a much better job bottling him up.

 

[signbabybrady]

Interesting.

So you're saying having a top 5 pick in each of 2020-23 when they were minus Mac rookie season doesn't put us in a position now where we have a better roster?

How about not being in a position where we're picking 15 overall coming out of a pandemic in a reset year winning useless games with cam newton?

So doing what you want us to do this year in 2020 didn't help us in the long run did it?

Winning 6, 7 or 8 games in a non competitive season only worsens us in the long run. Now is the time to bottom out. Not next year. Not 2026. It's now.

But sure. Let's win 6 games and pick 12th overall cause it builds a winning culture.

Never bottom out. You're just asking to be the Jets or something. Name the last team to win a SB via this bottom out in multiple year philosophy?

 

[XLIX]

Never bottom out. You're just asking to be the Jets or something. Name the last team to win a SB via this bottom out in multiple year philosophy?

Several teams have gone from one of the worst in the League to Super Bowl contenders in short order. It all comes down to making the right draft picks, but it is certainly do-able.

 

[festy1986]

Never bottom out. You're just asking to be the Jets or something. Name the last team to win a SB via this bottom out in multiple year philosophy?

It literally doesn't work that way.

The jets have a way better roster than us.

Bengals win Superbowl against the rams if not for a ******** holding call on defense on 4th down but ya man it don't work.

 

[signbabybrady]

Several teams have gone from one of the worst in the League to Super Bowl contenders in short order. It all comes down to making the right draft picks, but it is certainly do-able.

It's just an honest question who is the last one to win a SB that way?

 

[signbabybrady]

It literally doesn't work that way.

The jets have a way better roster than us.

Bengals win Superbowl against the rams if not for a ******** holding call on defense on 4th down but ya man it don't work.

And the Bengals may have fallen back to being the Bengals just as quick. It's just an honest question who is the last team to win one following multiple years of bottoming out? I'm sure I'm missing someone but the closest thing I can think of is the 96 Packers.

Edit Packers in 96 was a slower build then I remember. 1999 rams instead unless you have someone more recent.

 

[festy1986]

And the Bengals may have fallen back to being the Bengals just as quick. It's just an honest question who is the last team to win one following multiple years of bottoming out? I'm sure I'm missing someone but the closest thing I can think of is the 96 Packers.

Edit Packers in 96 was a slower build then I remember. 1999 rams instead unless you have someone more recent.

Maybe you forgot how the Patriots dynasty started to begin with.

Hint. It was lots of top 10 picks and bottoming out in 2000.

It works. If you have the QB.

 

[signbabybrady]

Maybe you forgot how the Patriots dynasty started to begin with.

Hint. It was lots of top 10 picks and bottoming out in 2000.

It works. If you have the QB.

That's not what you said. Our dynasty started following one year bottoming out 2000 (previous 4 years 96-99 were all 8-8 or better)we had our one year 2023. You're advocating we should bottom out again or that we'd be better now if we did instead of the somewhat competitive 2020-22 years.

So like I said where are all these teams that used this strategy that you are suggesting to win a SB?

 

[festy1986]

That's not what you said. Our dynasty started following one year bottoming out we had our one year 2023. You're advocating we should bottom out again or that we'd be better now if we did instead of the somewhat competitive 2020-22 years.

So like I said where are all these teams that used this strategy that you are suggesting to win a SB?

You have to get talent through the draft is what I said and had they done in in the years where they weren't competitive we wouldn't have to do it now.

This team has almost no talent. It's not competitive and is going no where.

This idea that we need to scratch and claw to 6 or 7 wins to change the culture is laughable to me.

What we need is talent. And top end talent to boot.

Only way you're going to get that is high draft picks and a GM who picks the right guys.

So far they've had neither.

 

[XLIX]

It's just an honest question who is the last one to win a SB that way?

It is tough to answer a question which doesn't really define its terms. Specifically, what does it mean to "bottom out"? The Patriots arguably bottomed out in 2000, and the Chiefs did so in 2012. I'd say they've each had some success since then. The answer is also heavily skewed by the fact that those 2 franchises have won 9 of the past 23 Super Bowls (and only 10 total franchises have won one in the past 23 years). So ANY strategy most likely failed to win a Super Bowl but that doesn't mean it was a bad strategy.

Winning a Super Bowl is a very rare thing. It is a small, exclusive club. You can take any of the top 20 positions in the draft, ask "when was the last time draft slot X won a Super Bowl with the team who drafted him?" and the answer will be that it is an incredibly rare event.

 

[signbabybrady]

It is tough to answer a question which doesn't really define its terms. Specifically, what does it mean to "bottom out"? The Patriots arguably bottomed out in 2000, and the Chiefs did so in 2012. I'd say they've each had some success since then. The answer is also heavily skewed by the fact that those 2 franchises have won 9 of the past 23 Super Bowls (and only 10 total franchises have won one in the past 23 years). So ANY strategy most likely failed to win a Super Bowl but that doesn't mean it was a bad strategy.

Winning a Super Bowl is a very rare thing. It is a small, exclusive club. You can take any of the top 20 positions in the draft, ask "when was the last time draft slot X won a Super Bowl with the team who drafted him?" and the answer will be that it is an incredibly rare event.

There you go you defined the terms now find a team that did that multiple years in a row and parlayed that into a title. Because that's what was suggested.

However rare the SB is, that's the goal so I'm looking for strategies that get us that title.

 

[XLIX]

There you go you defined the terms now find a team that did that multiple years in a row and parlayed that into a title. Because that's what was suggested.

Well if I define the term "bottomed out" then I just gave you 2 examples.

However rare the SB is, that's the goal so I'm looking for strategies that get us that title.

This is what you fail to understand.... there is no single set "strategy" a team can follow to guarantee they win a Super Bowl. Some teams bottomed out and won it all. Some teams traded for key contributors/draft picks and won it all. And some teams signed key contributors via free agency and won it all.

 

[signbabybrady]

You have to get talent through the draft is what I said and had they done in in the years where they weren't competitive we wouldn't have to do it now.

This team has almost no talent. It's not competitive and is going no where.

This idea that we need to scratch and claw to 6 or 7 wins to change the culture is laughable to me.

What we need is talent. And top end talent to boot.

Only way you're going to get that is high draft picks and a GM who picks the right guys.

So far they've had neither.

Is the goal to get talent or to win SBs?

I'm not going to argue the math side that better picks = better talent but if it was that simple why haven't there been more teams to win a SB that way?

Because sucking like that multiple years in a row breeds a losing culture that takes years to overcome.

 

[signbabybrady]

Well if I define the term "bottomed out" then I just gave you 2 examples.

This is what you fail to understand.... there is no single set "strategy" a team can follow to guarantee they win a Super Bowl. Some teams bottomed out and won it all. Some teams traded for key contributors/draft picks and won it all. And some teams signed key contributors via free agency and won it all.

We had our bottom out already though. Some teams have hit bottom once and quickly managed to bounce back however doing it multiple years in a row leads to more losing not more success it's just facts.

There may be no single set guideline to guarantee you win. But losing like that is very proven strategy that just leads to more losing. Most every franchise has seen those down years where they just can't get out of it for years.

 

[XLIX]

We had our bottom out already though. Some teams have hit bottom once and quickly and managed to bounce back however doing it multiple years in a row leads to more losing not more success it's just facts.

There may be no single set guideline to guarantee you win. But losing like that is very proven strategy that just leads to more losing. Most every franchise has seen those down years where they just can't get out of it for years.

Yes that's right and ultimately what it comes down to is how well the franchise is run, especially with regards to player selection. Bottoming out wasn't the problem, it is what they did after bottoming out. If you bottom out and then, with the first pick in the draft, select JaMarcus Russell then you're going to stay in the basement for a while.

 

[signbabybrady]

Yes that's right and ultimately what it comes down to is how well the franchise is run, especially with regards to player selection. Bottoming out wasn't the problem, it is what they did after bottoming out. If you bottom out and then, with the first pick in the draft, select JaMarcus Russell then you're going to stay in the basement for a while.

If it was such a flawless strategy then very few teams would get stuck at the bottom like that yet it's a way more common thing to suck that bad and stay stuck then it is to parlay multiple top 5 picks directly into a SB.