Belichick on McCourty

[Ring 6]

Because that's what you're saying. You can dress it up any way you want. That's still what you're saying. You know it. I know it.



That's an obviously foolish thing to say.



That's irrelevant. For anyone at the NFL level, this is likely to be true. That includes Matt Millen, whom you chose to disparage. On the other hand, if you're referring to the draft, a recent study noted that the Patriots have the lowest percentage of their own draft picks (from 2005-2008, I believe, or something like that) on the team. So, one could say that BB is the person most likely to have NOT made a good decision when it comes to the draft. That's not my take, but it's at least as valid as your comment.



Sure you have. That's precisely what you're saying. You're just using different words to say the same thing.



Nonsense. You've used this as a reason to stifle any opposition to your position, which is that BB is the end all and be all. Why the hell are you on a message board if you can't handle the team being questioned?



I do, as you well know.




Your 'defense' has consisted of a lot more than that, as you well know.



To use your own words.... Read the board.



1.) My correctness was not limited. I chose an obvious situation outside the specifics we were discussing.

2.) My example was not phony, as millions of people could tell you.

3.) Pretty much everything you've posted on this topic has been a load of crap. Making that claim about 'same day' is certainly no exception to that.


Again, please feel free not to post replies to my posts. I would prefer it if you didn't.

Yeah, there isnt much point wasting my time to get responses like that.
I agree, you can go ahead and create an alternative meaning to other peoples post from now on.
It would be nice though if you did try to find those posts where you responded to any disagreement in any way other than your stock homer accusation.
Hey, I tried, but this was my last shot at having a productive reasonalbe discussion with you. Carry on and distort someone elses posts.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, my comment was that you have created a strawman identity, by proclaiming that everyone who disagrees with you fits into your predetermined definition of not having an opinion and only being a shill for BB, when that is not what they are saying.

Ok, for the sake of discussion, I'll say that it precisely what your comment was.

Your answer of "Thats not true" does nothing to respond to the point.

That is obviously an incorrect statement.

So what more would I want you to say? Umm, perhaps respond to it.

I did respond to it. I gave it all the attention it deserved and more.

Do you not reconginze that you spend all of your time on this board arguing that everyone who doesnt agree with you is a homer?

No but, then again, that's not what I do. Shall I supply you with names of examples? Why don't you start with "Hey Bro!" for a simple example.

Do you really think that their is one shared mind out there?

Obviously I realize that there is more than one mind out there.

You do realize that you dismiss every argument as homerism right?

Obviously this is untrue.

Feel free to show me any thread in the last few months where someone disagreed with you and you didn't call them a homer. I'm sure they are the exception (if they even exist) and not the rule.

Feel free to peruse all my posts during the time frame you'd like. They're all there to see.



P.S.

Just as an aside in response to this post of yours....


When I defend O'Brien, Maroney, Watson, Light, Pees, etc.... do I do it by calling the bashers "homers"?

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah, there isnt much point wasting my time to get responses like that.
I agree, you can go ahead and create an alternative meaning to other peoples post from now on.
It would be nice though if you did try to find those posts where you responded to any disagreement in any way other than your stock homer accusation.
Hey, I tried, but this was my last shot at having a productive reasonalbe discussion with you. Carry on and distort someone elses posts.

And Captain Irony strikes again.

 

[Kontradiction]

Wow, emoney, just when I thought I had seen the last of you, you burst out of nowhere and continue your tradition of making absolutely pointless arguments which then make everybody else dumber for reading them. Why I'm even responding to you is beyond me considering this is more or less a waste of time.

A vacuum, as it pertains to this discussion, is pointless. Arguing anything with respects to decisions under the pretense of "in a vacuum" is futile, and a certain poster is using it only as bait and a fallback for his warped perception of the rules of logic.

Deus isn't saying anything I wasn't saying last night the minute the first round ended. This pick on it's own is a bad decision. The best option to replace Seymour long term at DE was on the board and we passed him up only to see him fall to Miami. Instead we took a CB, which was a need in this draft, but not in the first round. However, I've repeatedly said since last night that I'm quite used to not having the Patriots pick my guys. They never do. By the end of the day, though, I'm usually pretty pleased (to say the least) about the draft because counting in the other rounds and evaluating from there made it a strong draft as a whole. Last night, all we had to evaluate was McCourty by himself without the help of a surrounding cast that would make us say, "well, CB wasn't a need there, but we did fill the other needs and managed to take what appears to be the best CB available, so it's a strong draft overall".

Using the term vacuum as it pertains to this discussion is also very illogical. In Physics the term vacuum is used to discuss ideal results in a perfect test environment with 0 outside influencing factors. To attempt to apply that to decision making of something like the NFL draft is beyond pointless.

I don't think I should have to explain this to you after my above paragraph...

Whether many people know what a "vacuum" is or not is also irrelevant. The term is being used very disingenuously in order to create argument while maintaining a perception of correct logic. It is the consistent MO of a certain poster that clutters the board with one of the highest post-rates of any member.

So you thought CB was a first round need? Do you have quotes to any of your posts posts before the draft to back that up? CB was not the correct pick to be made in round one. I only hope BB sees a DE and an OLB that he likes in the second or third round.

 

[emoney_33]

Kontra, stop slobbering all over Deus. My point about the vacuum is legit, and I will not be taking your bait, on to football.

CB was a need, CB depth vanished in the 1st round, McCourty is an elite talent and rare 4-down player who is likely to see a fair amount of playing time in 2010 and beyond. Depth at other positions still exist and the likelihood of filling other needs in rounds 2, 3 and 4 are high. I don't have to be on record predicting anything to agree with the choice.

Now hopefully we can proceed to get Koa Misi and Damian Williams. Replacing Seymour with equivalent talent is not a valid 'need'. Far too great of a risk to rely on a rookie or put that much expectation into a pick anyway. Adding a talented DE is still VERY likely. Disagree with the decision all you want, that's fine. I am not trying to convince the universe that it was the absolute correct decision. Using a vacuum as your argument however is foolish, childish and bait. If any of you "objective" posters are as intelligent as you say you are, I'm sure you can use more than a fictional vacuum to debate the decision being poor.

 

[Kontradiction]

Kontra, stop slobbering all over Deus. My point about the vacuum is legit, and I will not be taking your bait, on to football.

What bait? I correctly correlated a vacuum with the point being made about the first round of the draft falling on different days than the second and third rounds. If you don't feel like talking about it and know that you were making a ridiculous argument just for the hell of it, then just say so.

CB was a need, CB depth vanished in the 1st round,

There is still a large amount of CBs left that could be had with #47 or #53 (the spot where I thought a CB should have been drafted).

McCourty is an elite talent and rare 4-down player who is likely to see a fair amount of playing time in 2010 and beyond. Depth at other positions still exist and the likelihood of filling other needs in rounds 2, 3 and 4 are high. I don't have to be on record predicting anything to agree with the choice.

I know you've seen the thread I made about taking a closer look at McCourty last night. You should know that I went on to say that I don't like the pick in the first round with Jared Odrick available, however if we manage to fill other needs with the second, third, and fourth round picks in a deep draft, then this pick looks better than it did at first sight. Right now we only have first sight and it doesn't look good. This is where it would be beneficial to your argument to present some or any sort of post from you in which you ranked CB to be a need right up there in the first round along with DE and OLB (which was pretty WIDELY agreed to be the two spots of biggest need). By the way, notice how I mentioned OLB up there with DE but didn't present a name? The reason for that is because I was pretty confident last night that we could obtain a really good OLB prospec sometime in the second round. However, I saw Odrick as being the prototypical long-term replacement for Richard Seymour as a DE in this system. Besides Wootton, who needs to add at least 20lbs. on before he's ready to play the position, I didn't see anybody else who could fill that need.

Now hopefully we can proceed to get Koa Misi and Damian Williams. Replacing Seymour with equivalent talent is not a valid 'need'. Far too great of a risk to rely on a rookie or put that much expectation into a pick anyway.

Replacing Seymour, IMO, is the very top need of this defense. Last year saw a plethora of bodies being put into the position (including Vince Wilfork) to try to plug up the hole that our opponents were taking advantage of. Against the Ravens, we got the ball pounded down our throat and most of it was off that side of the line. Against passing opponents, the loss of Seymour and his ability to control and push two men off the LOS, was visible in both the DE and OLB positions (one was very much affected by the other). This is where trading for Big John Henderson (should be be healthy) for a second rounder should come in. He's a guy who we know can operate in this system and he's only 31 years old. At 6'7", he'd be hard for any quarterback to see over or around if he gets a push into the backfield. He's had experience, has had most of his contract pay, and is dependable (doesn't have injury issues). I don't see why not.

Making this move would, on it's own, make the McCourty pick look that much better. Now answer this question for me, emoney: Do you not agree with my last sentence?

Adding a talented DE is still VERY likely. Disagree with the decision all you want, that's fine. I am not trying to convince the universe that it was the absolute correct decision.

Yes. You very clearly are. If you weren't, you wouldn't have have started a ridiculous and pointless argument.

Using a vacuum as your argument however is foolish, childish and bait. If any of you "objective" posters are as intelligent as you say you are, I'm sure you can use more than a fictional vacuum to debate the decision being poor.

First, I was never the guy that used a vacuum to make his point. I only understand what he is saying. It's you who is having trouble with a VERY simple explanation. Second, I thought you were dropping this and ceasing to discuss it with me. Tell me, what part of my first paragraph to you in correlation with a vacuum do you want me to break down and explain to you on a 10th grade level?

By the way, don't forget to answer that question I posed to you earlier in this post. I know how forgetful you are.

 

[emoney_33]

Kontra, I stopped reading when you went off topic and personal again (3rd sentence). I don't have time for these childish antics anymore. I am not going to continue with or be baited into such discussions any longer as they do nothing but degrade the board even further.

If you want to dispute a point a poster makes, dispute it. If you want to dispute the poster making the point, then just save your breath (fingers). The very simplistic generalization of what my first post meant is that the decision was NOT made in a vacuum and thus debating its merits in a vacuum is pointless and nonsensical (unless you just want to argue).

 

[Kontradiction]

Kontra, I stopped reading when you went off topic and personal again (3rd sentence). I don't have time for these childish antics anymore. I am not going to continue with or be baited into such discussions any longer as they do nothing but degrade the board even further.

If you want to dispute a point a poster makes, dispute it. If you want to dispute the poster making the point, then just save your breath (fingers). The very simplistic generalization of what my first post meant is that the decision was NOT made in a vacuum and thus debating its merits in a vacuum is pointless and nonsensical (unless you just want to argue).

So basically you realized that you were trying to start a pointless argument. Good on you. I didn't go personal anywhere in my posts. If you consider me labeling your attempt to get into a "vacuum" argument ridiculous then that's your problem. I hope you answered that question I posted you to yourself and now realize that you're agreeing with me.

By the way, I like the Gronkowski pick.

 

[muzz]

All I heard was how good was he on special teams, and some blocked punts......
I must have missed the rest, which is entirely possible.

What's he supposed to do, bash the guy he just drafted?

He's the greatest thing since sliced bread...
Your's Truly,

Bill Bellichick