OT: Steelers ship Santonio to the Jets

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Re: Steelers ship Santonio to the Jets

I suppose the true question here is whether the success of the franchsie has been based upon

A) A handful of players who are irreplaceable or
B) The philosophy, approach, talent, coaching ablity, structure and stability of the organization
I have always felt it was (B) but it appears you feel it is (A)

Perhaps that is the divide between the 'homers' and the 'Chicken Littles' whether you believe the success is by design or good fortune, which also leads to the second question of whether you feel the Patriots have had sustained 'success' for 10 years, or a 4 year run followed by 5 years of disappointment.

It would seem obvious why the Chicken Littles are what they are if they believe we won 3 in 4 years because we had the best players, and the last 5 years have been failure because there have been no rings, while the the 'homers' apparently see a relatively seamless 10 year run where no matter how good you are winning a SB is defying the odds and cant be expected to happen every year.

I think a great deal has to do with a handful of guys who knows what it takes to win,pass it on to others who come in as raw youngsters or guys from other teams that were not with winning franchises before and spend some time with them in getting them to realize what it takes to be a champion and how to thrive every game not just for a paycheck but for a ring in the end,the hunger the heart,the desire to be the best and that is what we had with Bruschi,Vrabel,McGinest,Seymour and Harrison.

Those guys,even if just a handful of them on the team,was just as important as the whole coaching aspect when it comes to winning teams and the Pats certainly had both in the last decade ,thus the equation and recipe for winning championships

I consider the last decade a tremendous overall success and a playoff appearance is always a good season no matter how far you go,only 12 teams out of 32 make it

Only irrational fans want 10 SB wins in one decade...will never happen in our lifetimes

But that still does not take away of how hard it is to remain constantly competitive for a good portion of two decades which we are now entering into the 2nd.

 

[TokyoJetts]

I've thought this over and have changed my mind.

The Jets are becoming the Dallas Cowboys, while the Patriots are going via the draft and are aiming for max chemistry.

Just remember,BB and Brady outweigh the Jets enough to still beat them head on.

But remember, BB and Brady combined do not outweigh Rex.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Informative post Steelers fan. I do agree the JETs got a bargain, even with the baggage. PIT did what it had to do.

Actually I'm impressed that the Steelers were able to get a 5th rounder for him... now that the deal is done and we're hearing more about what a turd Santonio is, its amazing they didn't need to GIVE the Jets a 5th rounder to take him.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Steelers ship Santonio to the Jets

Put me in the sustained success over ten years category and not just sustained but defined.

Actually, 2001 demonstrates fairly conclusively that players matter more than scheming, or are at least as important, as a general rule. Noting this doesn't make one a Chicken Little or a homer.


Andy set up a false dichotomy with his post.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Sure...... just rub it in.


Hey, your team's made some interesting moves this offseason and with the talk being that a lot of talented older players could get the axe in the months after the draft, the Jets will be able to fill in depth positions behind the starters if they are willing to spend the cash.

What's good for you as a fan is that, with the need to generate demand for those insane PSLs, the team will probably be willing to fork out a lot of cash to sign veterans to short term deals.

excellent point... the Jets aren't the Raiders East or the Cowboys East... they're the Redskins East... proclaiming themselves the Super Bowl Champions as of Training Camp with the best and most expensive team on paper....

Ask the Redskins what that's worth...

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Steelers ship Santonio to the Jets

I think a great deal has to do with a handful of guys who knows what it takes to win,pass it on to others who come in as raw youngsters or guys from other teams that were not with winning franchises before and spend some time with them in getting them to realize what it takes to be a champion and how to thrive every game not just for a paycheck but for a ring in the end,the hunger the heart,the desire to be the best and that is what we had with Bruschi,Vrabel,McGinest,Seymour and Harrison.

Those guys,even if just a handful of them on the team,was just as important as the whole coaching aspect when it comes to winning teams and the Pats certainly had both in the last decade ,thus the equation and recipe for winning championships

I don't agree. I think that every team has those type of guys, in fact everyone of them except Bruschi played elsewhere and won nothing.
I think the 'leadership' angle is romantizing winning. Somehow society treats winning with good guys or with valor as winning plus, so everyone searches to find reasons that we 'won better' that someone else.

There have been many great players and great leaders in the NFL who havent won, and others who won once. Does that mean their leadership was key once but not every year? Look at Ray Lewis or Mike Singletary. They were reknowned, more than the guys you listed, as great leaders, yet they one 1 SB each. Did their leadership fail 12 other times?

Also, your list of 'leaders' is simply a list of good players that you have assigned leadership qualities to.
Seymour has never been described as a leader, or having any of the 'team only' qualities you mentioned. McGinest was considered a malingerer before BB got here, and left under questionable circumstances.
Bruschi no doubt was an emotional leader, but how would we quantify the impact? Same with Rodney.
I believe those players contributions were primarily the plays they made on the field.
The 'chemistry' and leadership issue is very much a chicken and egg thing IMO. Why did the great character 1996 team become the lack of character team from 97-99 then develop character all of sudden by 00-01?

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Steelers ship Santonio to the Jets

Actually, 2001 demonstrates fairly conclusively that players matter more than scheming, or are at least as important, as a general rule. Noting this doesn't make one a Chicken Little or a homer.


Andy set up a false dichotomy with his post.

NOTE THE WORDS "PERHAPS THE DIVIDE"

Actually I think you haveit backwards, that 2001 proved clearly that lesser players could win due to better scheme. You think 2001 proved the best players win, and scheme doesnt matter, ie, the Patriots were outcoached by the Rams but their superior talent won out? Interesting.

The point was that ATTRIBUTING the success of the Patriots to a handful of players vs the organization appears to be a separating factor between homers and chicken littles. Your injection of a causal relationship was invented by you.

 

[signbabybrady]

Re: Steelers ship Santonio to the Jets

Actually, 2001 demonstrates fairly conclusively that players matter more than scheming, or are at least as important, as a general rule. Noting this doesn't make one a Chicken Little or a homer.


Andy set up a false dichotomy with his post.

I wasnt really chiming in on what was the cause as much as I am one that feels this team has been highly successful since it last one the big one and not that it is a failure because it hasn't. To me the last few years would compare well to the Eagles or Titans two teams regarded as one of the better franchises in the league this decade yet they have not won a SB. To me sustained sucess is a very important thing and almost as important as winning the big one.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Steelers ship Santonio to the Jets

NOTE THE WORDS "PERHAPS THE DIVIDE"

Actually I think you haveit backwards, that 2001 proved clearly that lesser players could win due to better scheme. You think 2001 proved the best players win, and scheme doesnt matter, ie, the Patriots were outcoached by the Rams but their superior talent won out? Interesting.

The point was that ATTRIBUTING the success of the Patriots to a handful of players vs the organization appears to be a separating factor between homers and chicken littles. Your injection of a causal relationship was invented by you.

1.) No, I think the team starting out losing with Bledsoe and then winning it all with Brady shows talent over scheme. The scheme was failing until BB found the right talent to execute it. This is not meant as a knock on Bledsoe or BB, or anyone else. It's just the reality of playing sports with schemes, styles and/or game plans.

2.) I wasn't trying to insult you, and I didn't say that you set up a false dichotomy on purpose. I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer. Your argument was lousy, but I should have been clearer in noting that I wasn't ascribing malicious intent to your post.

So, let me repeat: Homer/Chicken Little has nothing to do with player v. scheme. It's a false dichotomy you created, although I'm confident that you did not create it with any ill intent.

 

[Gunnails]

Lets keep this thread on track.

So do the Jets use Holmes as a #2 or a slot?

Braylon at #1? How would BB use these 3 receivers?

I am thinking move Cotchery to the slot. With 3 WR's sets does one have to play the slot?

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Steelers ship Santonio to the Jets

1.) No, I think the team starting out losing with Bledsoe and then winning it all with Brady shows talent over scheme. The scheme was failing until BB found the right talent to execute it. This is not meant as a knock on Bledsoe or BB, or anyone else. It's just the reality of playing sports with schemes, styles and/or game plans.

2.) I wasn't trying to insult you, and I didn't say that you set up a false dichotomy on purpose. I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer. Your argument was lousy, but I should have been clearer in noting that I wasn't ascribing malicious intent to your post.

So, let me repeat: Homer/Chicken Little has nothing to do with player v. scheme. It's a false dichotomy you created, although I'm confident that you did not create it with any ill intent.

I think that the 2001 Patriots beating the 2001 Rams is one of examples ever of scheme defeating talent.
I dont know what would lead you to search for right or wrong in a statement that begins with PERHAPS.
I think if you lined up the so-called 'homers' and 'Chicken Littles' you would find that most homers attribute the success to BB and most Chickne Littles to the players. I think you would also find the Chicken Littles more apt to consider the 2000s 4 years of success followed by 5 bordering on failure and the 'homers' seeing a 9 year run of success.
As I said, you created the idea that there is a causal relationship, but you would not be able to determine whether it was a false dichotmony unless you obtained the opinion of all so-called 'homers' and 'Chicken Littles' to the question.

 

[Garbanza]

I for one, wish the Pats could take a flyer on a "talented yet troubled" player....you know, like they did with Corey Dillon and Randy Moss. Unfortunately, the locker room nucleus has changed so much it hampers the ability to do so. The leaders, the team enforcers - so to speak - are gone. Gone, Bruschi. Gone, Harrison. Gone, McGinest. Gone, Vrable. BB does not trust the current vets as leaders - obviously. Can't say that I blame him. Take a look at Adalius Thomas' behavior.

Anyway, The Jest already have a shut down corner, which allows them to go aggressive on D. Add Cromartie - who should be a decent compliment....and the fact that we have Moss, Edelman and a box of donuts - well, edge Jets. The tandem of Edwards, Cotchery and Holmes is far superior to Moss, Edleman and who the eff knows...donlt even want to speak of RB. Seriously, the only edge the Pats have are QB and kicker.

 

[Jangles]

According to the homepage

The Pats have resigned Wilfork, so pretty awesome offseason everybody

 

[Garbanza]

Re: Steelers ship Santonio to the Jets

I think that the 2001 Patriots beating the 2001 Rams is one of examples ever of scheme defeating talent.
I dont know what would lead you to search for right or wrong in a statement that begins with PERHAPS.
I think if you lined up the so-called 'homers' and 'Chicken Littles' you would find that most homers attribute the success to BB and most Chickne Littles to the players. I think you would also find the Chicken Littles more apt to consider the 2000s 4 years of success followed by 5 bordering on failure and the 'homers' seeing a 9 year run of success.
As I said, you created the idea that there is a causal relationship, but you would not be able to determine whether it was a false dichotmony unless you obtained the opinion of all so-called 'homers' and 'Chicken Littles' to the question.

You need talent and football smarts to execute scheme....take a look at last year.

 

[Ring 6]

Lets keep this thread on track.

So do the Jets use Holmes as a #2 or a slot?

Braylon at #1? How would BB use these 3 receivers?

I am thinking move Cotchery to the slot. With 3 WR's sets does one have to play the slot?

I don't know how Braylon Edwards and his 3 catches could be considered anyones #1. I wouldn't be surprised if he is traded away now, isn't their a contract question with him?

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Steelers ship Santonio to the Jets

You need talent and football smarts to execute scheme....take a look at last year.

What about last year? Winning the division? People talk like the PAts were 2-14.
Of course scheme without talent is useless, but scheme when applied to the realitvely equal talent throughout the league makes the difference.

The point wasn't about outcoaching a more talented team anyway.

The point was whether the success of the Patriots in the 2000s was based upon philosophy, structure, decision-making, coaching etc or the players, or more simplisitically the front office or the paid talent.

 

[Sicilian]

Re: Steelers ship Santonio to the Jets

1.) No, I think the team starting out losing with Bledsoe and then winning it all with Brady shows talent over scheme. The scheme was failing until BB found the right talent to execute it. This is not meant as a knock on Bledsoe or BB, or anyone else. It's just the reality of playing sports with schemes, styles and/or game plans.

Whatever the truth, two games is not a big enough sample size to say that the scheme was failing. However it turned out in the following years, in 2001 Kurt Warner was more talented and experienced than Brady, and the Rams had more overall talent. We won because we had a good scheme, AND our players played their butts off in the Super Bowl.

 

[Gunnails]

I don't know how Braylon Edwards and his 3 catches could be considered anyones #1. I wouldn't be surprised if he is traded away now, isn't their a contract question with him?

==================================================

I believe the Jets gave Edwards a first round tender, as his contract has expired, I do know that Edwards signed the tender.

So Edwards is playing for a new contract.

I would also add that I like Braylon a lot for the skill set he brings to the Jets, a whole lot, and I think the drops are a bit overated.

 

[jmt57]

Lets keep this thread on track.

So do the Jets use Holmes as a #2 or a slot?

Braylon at #1? How would BB use these 3 receivers?

I am thinking move Cotchery to the slot. With 3 WR's sets does one have to play the slot?

That's what I would do with the current Jets roster; Edwards on one side, Holmes on the other and Cotchery in the slot.

However, will that run counter to the type of offense Ryan is comfortable with? Seems like he'd prefer to run the ball more often than most other NFL teams. How often did the Jets run a 3WR formation last year? Will Green, LdT, Washington, Edwards, Holmes, Cotchery and Keller all get enough touches to stay happy?

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Steelers ship Santonio to the Jets

Whatever the truth, two games is not a big enough sample size to say that the scheme was failing. However it turned out in the following years, in 2001 Kurt Warner was more talented and experienced than Brady, and the Rams had more overall talent. We won because we had a good scheme, AND our players played their butts off in the Super Bowl.

It wasn't 2 games, Sicilian. There was also 2000 leading up to the switch.....