Idle thoughts - the morning after....

[ayjackson]

Tavon Wilson was the best player on the Pats board. You have to assume that. At that pick, they can't look at Kiper's and Mayock's boards and say, "well, we can let this guy slide a few more rounds". They have to assume that a handfull of the other 31 teams have scouted him and ranked him in a similar matter. So if you thinks he's the best on the board and value at that number, you take him.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Not to belabor Wilson, but what if there weren't any good offers on the table for pick #48 at that time? It takes two to tango in a trade. I'm sure the Pats would have loved to pick up a future 1st or a future 2nd plus a current 2nd, but what if nobody was willing to give up that much in the 5-10 minute trade window and the Pats were like fine, no good trade offers, so we'll just take a player then? We're not in that war room. It's way too easy to play a second guesser when you don't know all the parameters.

 

[ralmat55]

Well last night I was so stunned by the Wilson pick, I couldn't feel any rage.....UNTIL....the Pats decided to give away the 62nd pick in the draft for pennies on the dollar. THEN I threw something at the screen....and thankfully missed (proving once again why I was always the grunt and never the "skill player")

I've watched 33 NFL drafts and the only time I ever threw anything after a Patriot selection was in 2000 when I threw the Boston Globe I was reading onto the floor when the Pats selected Tom Brady. Afterall, they had Drew Bledsoe and Michael Bishop so why draft another QB!!!

 

[Deus Irae]

Tavon Wilson was the best player on the Pats board. You have to assume that. At that pick, they can't look at Kiper's and Mayock's boards and say, "well, we can let this guy slide a few more rounds". They have to assume that a handfull of the other 31 teams have scouted him and ranked him in a similar matter. So if you thinks he's the best on the board and value at that number, you take him.

You're making assumptions that nobody has to make. The first one, especially, is likely incorrect.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

It's actually a good thing that when I read your posts (and I do read them) I add a mental disclaimer that your opinions are just that, your opinions, and not any more credible than any other fans opinion, including the casual ones. Otherwise they would drive me crazy, or more crazy as the case would be.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

You're making assumptions that nobody has to make. The first one, especially, is likely incorrect.

Says the pot to the kettle...

He may well have been the best available player who was a fit for what Bill envisions his scheme to be going forward for a variety of reasons. Best doesn't mean most talented or highest graded athletically - unless you want to argue that it must on a purely semantic basis as is your forte - when part of scouting (and it's stressed to scouts here) as well as value is fit - and in Belichick's world often fits.

Frankly I find it difficult to not assume that Bill always takes the best player available based on his unique understanding of his system and scheme and all the other variables like other and existing available talent.

 

[Deus Irae]

Says the pot to the kettle...

He may well have been the best available player who was a fit for what Bill envisions his scheme to be going forward for a variety of reasons. Best doesn't mean most talented or highest graded athletically - unless you want to argue that it must on a purely semantic basis as is your forte - when part of scouting (and it's stressed to scouts here) as well as value is fit - and in Belichick's world often fits.

Frankly I find it difficult to not assume that Bill always takes the best player available based on his unique understanding of his system and scheme and all the other variables like other and existing available talent.

Belichick has said, time and again, that it's not best player, but best value, which is NOT the same thing. Now, you can toss out the "pot/kettle" nonsense all you want, and you can talk about semantics when it's the coach's own take and not mine, but that's just the way it is.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

You're making assumptions that nobody has to make. The first one, especially, is likely incorrect.

And your assumptions "is likely incorrect" are not anymore credible than his. You're such a **** it's incredible.

 

[Keegs]

You're making assumptions that nobody has to make. The first one, especially, is likely incorrect.

You come off like everyone's opinion holds less value than yours

You replied to a post that makes the most sense based on everything we know and act like its incorrect b/c you said so.

Are you stone cold Steve Austin?

 

[Deus Irae]

You come off like everyone's opinion holds less value than yours

You replied to a post that makes the most sense based on everything we know and act like its incorrect b/c you said so.

Are you stone cold Steve Austin?

Let's get this straight....

"You have to assume that" is just fine despite the fact that the guy making the picks has said that it's not BPA that the team goes by, but "likely incorrect" is a problem? The coach has said that they don't go by BPA, so going by BPA is likely incorrect.

"You value the players, you grade them, and then within that there is a draft strategy with maybe where you think that player is going to go in the draft, with what the league thinks of him relatively, what an individual team thinks of him, and need sometimes can factor into that too or maybe the compilation of your roster - a player that you see having a bigger impact on your team because of whatever the circumstances are on your team versus another one who may for the same value duplicate whatever you already have and maybe make it less valuable for your particular team at that particular point in time," Belichick said.

http://blogs.providencejournal.com/sports/patriots/2010/04/belichick-intri.html

What the hell is the problem there?

 

[scout]

The defense has been rebuilt since the championship years. Brady will probably be the lone player remaining from the dynasty years. The offense will be as good as last year, the special teams may be better if one of these guys is a return guy, along with the new gunners. The defense should be improved. You have to assume, that one of the db's will emerge as #1 status. This is a team which went to the Superbowl and just got better. They stay healthy and we will be clincking the glasses.

 

[patfanken]

Not to belabor Wilson, but what if there weren't any good offers on the table for pick #48 at that time? It takes two to tango in a trade. I'm sure the Pats would have loved to pick up a future 1st or a future 2nd plus a current 2nd, but what if nobody was willing to give up that much in the 5-10 minute trade window and the Pats were like fine, no good trade offers, so we'll just take a player then? We're not in that war room. It's way too easy to play a second guesser when you don't know all the parameters.

Whatever offers were there, they HAD to be a lot better than the one they eventually took for 62

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Let's get this straight....

"You have to assume that" is just fine despite the fact that the guy making the picks has said that it's not BPA that the team goes by, but "likely incorrect" is a problem? The coach has said that they don't go by BPA, so going by BPA is likely incorrect.



Belichick intrigued by 2010 Draft | Patriots Blog | Rhode Island news | The Providence Journal

What the hell is the problem there?

The problem is you didn't grasp what you just quoted Bill saying there and the poster you corrected apparently does...

He didn't say BPA which is the generic talent ranking, he said best player on their board...which is how they have players slotted for a variety of reasons Bill touches on in that quote not the least of which is fit for what they are attempting to do in the context of what they already have.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Whatever offers were there, they HAD to be a lot better than the one they eventually took for 62

Damn, is it June already???

Why? Because it will make you feel vindicated for saying so? What they eventually took for 62 turned out to be something they could parlay into 3 players they apparently had targeting prior to the draft. You're just upset because that had no relation to what you in your infinite wisdom thought they should have been targeting.

 

[Deus Irae]

The problem is you didn't grasp what you just quoted Bill saying there and the poster you corrected apparently does...

He didn't say BPA which is the generic talent ranking, he said best player on their board...which is how they have players slotted for a variety of reasons Bill touches on in that quote not the least of which is fit for what they are attempting to do in the context of what they already have.

Again, BEST PLAYER is not necessarily BEST PICK at a given draft spot, even on the Patriots board. I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out by the quote I pulled up, because it was pretty easy to read since it followed the whole "you grade them" part.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

Whatever offers were there, they HAD to be a lot better than the one they eventually took for 62

Tell me what offers they had or just stop the bull****. You are clueless about any 'offers' or lack of 'offers' just like the rest of us.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Again, BEST PLAYER is not necessarily BEST PICK at a given draft spot, even on the Patriots board. I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out by the quote I pulled up, because it was pretty easy to read since it followed the whole "you grade them" part.

OMG........ :bricks:

 

[BSR]

Again, BEST PLAYER is not necessarily BEST PICK at a given draft spot, even on the Patriots board. I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out by the quote I pulled up, because it was pretty easy to read since it followed the whole "you grade them" part.

You make distinctions that are largely meaningless to everyone other than you.

 

[Deus Irae]

You make distinctions that are largely meaningless to everyone other than you.

I haven't seen enough of the kid to know if the pick is a good one or bad one. Although being looked as so poorly despite coming from a known conference is something I consider to generally be a bad sign, that's about as close as I've come to offering a take on the player himself. I saw the pre-draft reports enough to know it was a reach, but that's just a sideline exercise in draft points accumulation.

I just questioned an assumption, saying it was likely untrue, because it didn't seem to take in the range of how BB claims to make his picks. The poster who put that post in there hasn't responded with any clarification, so I can't say really follow up about what he wrote, and we're stuck where we are. A couple of people lost their minds over it, and Mo jumped in with assumptions about arguable assumptions about arguable assumptions. It's typical Patsfans.com, which is typical NFL message board.

As to this particular distinction being meaningless, it hasn't been meaningless to others when they've discussed BB's methods in the past.

 

[Ring 6]

Let's get this straight....

"You have to assume that" is just fine despite the fact that the guy making the picks has said that it's not BPA that the team goes by, but "likely incorrect" is a problem? The coach has said that they don't go by BPA, so going by BPA is likely incorrect.



Belichick intrigued by 2010 Draft | Patriots Blog | Rhode Island news | The Providence Journal

What the hell is the problem there?

Now you are trying to cover your tracks by claiming Safety isn't a need on this team?
Wow. You will go to any length including embarassing yourself to avoid admitting you were wrong.