Pats sloughing picks??

[RayClay]

lots of stuff

on a team not known for developing QBs?

Had to LOL! on this one. Wasn't there a sixth round pick that was platooned in college?

Spahn?... We have a CB off and on named Spann.

Maybe Spach? Don't mean to be hypercritical, but that's a long ass post to start off like that.

Good luck with it.

 

[jeffbiologist]

Jeff, the reason people are jumping on you is that last year is the ONLY year you can say that about...and the Pats hated last year's entire draft class so much that they traded away their 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th round picks! You're looking at the one complete anomaly and declaring it a trend. Take a step back, look at the team, look at previous draft years, and you'll see they do in fact keep plenty of players from rounds 3 & below.

Let's just go back one year. Current roster players drafted 3-UDFA in 2006:

David Thomas
Stephen Gostkowski
Ryan O'Callaghan
LeKevin Smith
Willie Andrews
Pierre Woods

(plus BB famously tried like heck to keep Garrett Mills!)

Hey, I have been keeping track. This thread was to touch off a discussion not a bomb,lol. I have been a draft nut long before BB got here and will be after he is gone. No one is perfect, and this forum is nothing if not an outlet for WHAT IFs right?
Those guys from 06....are any of em lighting the world on fire? Thomas was a 3rd rd who was hurt, we will need him to grow into a role this year right? SG was a 4th, one of the few immediate starters I was talking about. OC is upgradable dont you think? Smith? Woods?? Did any of those 3 do anything on the field this year that would make me think that they deserve their jobs without competition? No, right?
Its accepted that we dont draft BPA. But going into day 2 on sunday we had 5 picks, in better position than anyone else pretty much right? I understand and stand behind the slight reach on Wheatley because he returns kicks....and in the 5th rd we draft a KR?? Why not a guy for competition on either one of the lines? And I think you see how I made an arguement to get J.Charles with that 3rd rd pick instead of that trade....If we need a RB next year when Morris' contract is up we will have to use that 2nd rd pick to get a guy like him anyways...and he wont have a year to learn how to block.
Our best drafts have happened when we get like 1 of everything.....and let the best players win the spots in camp. The worst drafts we have had is when we go all offense or all defense or MAYBE in this case all LB/CB. It might be coincidence, but the league has documented that drafting for need doesnt work. We have modified that to fit our value/trade system pretty well but the draft is the draft.
How a player develops has more to do with opportunity and coaching than talent in our system. I dont think its fair to compare drafts 2-3 years down the line because different players are given different opportunities with different coaches. There are just too many variables. No one can use a blanket statement to cover anything convincingly. It was the OPPORTUNITY part of this that I was trying to argue.
To an outsider(all of us)it would seem easy to say we can get a better guy than A,B,C.....but maybe BB is attached to these guys, maybe they have pictures of him naked or something. I dont know.

 

[DaBruinz]

Now I wont take that troll along the lines of asking for a personal attack,lol, nice try. You say that my research was flawed and that it was "SHOWN" to me....??? Still waiting....

If you are that ignorant that you are still waiting then you are beyond help and truly had NO interest in doing anything but being an idiot.

Am I making up the statistics? Leave GOD and my spelling out of this please(sarcasm). As far as KW goes, 19 balls in 3 years?

Listen, don't tell me what to do. You are the one making the idiotic claims that just are NOT backed up by facts. One of your claims was that Kelley Washington hadn't caught a ball in 3 years. It was a FALSE CLAIM and I showed you it. Then you said you did the research. You clearly hadn't since you couldn't spell a players name right and you didn't get your fact straight on Washington. As someone else said, you're now changing the rules. Its pathetic.

I was addressing the fact that last year we had one more WR, and that KW/Aiken/Slater might be battling it out for 1 ST spot.

You weren't addressing a damn thing. So please stop claiming you were. YOU made a bogus statement and it was proven WRONG.

BTW, Since you missed it, the Patriots were carrying 7 WRs (Moss, Welker, Gaffney, Stallworh, Brown, Jackson, and Washington) at one point last year. Its also extremely ignorant of you to think that there is ONLY 1 Special Teams slot available between the 3 of them. See, you have forgotten that Willie Andrews and Ray Ventrone are definitely NOT guaranteed a spot on this roster. Andrews because he's facing serious jail time for possession with intent to distribute and Ventrone because he's just not that good. So, if you take into consideration that Washington was on the team at the same time as Andrews and Ventrone, you could, in theory, have Washington, Aiken and Slater (who played more safety and CB and STs than he did WR) on the team at the same time without ANY issues.

Its not unheard of to have 2 pansy WRs hurt in the same game, never mind the same season. Maybe we bring back Bam again?? Maybe there was a WR in the 3rd rd that would be better??

Well, who are these two "PANSY" WRs you are talking about? Gaffney? Moss? Welker, maybe? Dude, you are floundering like a fish out of water, grasping for straws as you drown. Yes, there is the a possibility that 2 of the WRs could get hurt during the season. But, AGAIN, there is not enough positions (or cap space) to carry 5 starting WRs on the team. Also, since Washington made catches, he can also run routes. I actually watched him do it in TC last year and in the pre-season.

I wont argue ODonnell/Cassel, but my arguement of the trade in principal to SD wont net us much if anything.....and continues to show a sense of apathy instead of a point of concern. Trading picks away for future picks does not make us better now, we didnt win the SB(and even if we did), we need to get better/younger NOW.

Gee, did I miss where the Pats just drafted 7 players who are all 23 or younger. That's not making the TEAM younger? They also signed 5-7 UDFA who will be in TC. Isn't that also making the team younger?

Instead of being stupid and ignorant, how about you check the average age of the team right now instead of just spewing generalisms. OH WAIT. You can't be bothered because it totally destroys your "theory."

Your "argument" on the trade, in principal, with SD is as holed as a spaghetti strainer and shows your own lack of foresight. Seriously.

To have young backups ready to take over starting positions when the older guys do migrate on will save us $$ in FA and it will keep us from having to knee jerk a 1st round pick.

What "KNEE JERK" reaction? Again, I have to question whether you actually follow this team or not. BB and Pioli have not made any "knee jerk" reactions with the 1st round pick. And if you truly believe that, then you just continue to show your lack of intelligence on the matter.

Yes, what I am trying to say is hypothetical, but thats not to say it cant or wont happen. I am not saying I am more or less intelligent than anyone, I am questioning why these things happen and developed a theory from this series of events. But whats this:
"What you did what float a hypothetical in attemp to make it a theory"???
You say I am whining at least twice. You say I am 100% wrong, yet you dont back it up.

You claim to be a scientist yet you don't know the difference between a hypothetical and a theory? Some scientist.

OK, you backed up KW, but thats it. To say I am wrong......is not either proving it or saying what is right,ok. I said I am not 100% right, but I am not 100% wrong either.

Your whole "theory" that BB and Pioli are "sloughing" the draft is WRONG and its been proven WRONG. I've torn your entire "theory" apart, putting more holes in it than you'd find in swiss cheese. Others have also pointed out the flaws in your thinking. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

Time will tell, no one knows right now but it makes for an interesting and timely arguement doesnt it? If it makes you feel any better my "binky" Wesley Woodyard went undrafted.....so gloat in my misery if thats what gets you off. Thanks for the time.

Actually, no, it doesn't make for an interesting argument. In fact, it shows a total lack of intelligence and a lack of understanding of everything that BB and Pioli have done over the last 8 years in drafting players.

As for your "binkie", Everyone has them. I actually liked Woodyard. I also like Goff for this team. Dryheat liked Quentin Demps. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[DaBruinz]

Hey, I have been keeping track. This thread was to touch off a discussion not a bomb,lol. I have been a draft nut long before BB got here and will be after he is gone. No one is perfect, and this forum is nothing if not an outlet for WHAT IFs right?

Forgive me for doubting the veracity of your comments. You've not shown anything to support that you are a draft nut.

Those guys from 06....are any of em lighting the world on fire? Thomas was a 3rd rd who was hurt, we will need him to grow into a role this year right? SG was a 4th, one of the few immediate starters I was talking about. OC is upgradable dont you think? Smith? Woods?? Did any of those 3 do anything on the field this year that would make me think that they deserve their jobs without competition? No, right?

Why do they have to be "lighting the world on fire," to be making a difference? They've only played 2 years so their true value isn't known yet. However, since you brought them up, lets review them:

Maroney - had some injuries his rookie year. Started off the year well, got hurt, but ended the year extremely well. Proved that he is a home run threat.

Jackson - Blew out his ACL on special teams in Jan 2007. The 2007/2008 season was a wash as he recovered from his injury.

Dave Thomas - Had a good rookie year. Got injured early in year 2. Looks to be a promising, all-around TE.

Garrett Mills - a player without a true position. Had great measurables. Was injured his rookie season. Pats tried to get him on to the practice squad, but Minnesota grabbed him.

Gostkowski - Has a tremendous leg on kick-offs. Is slowly gaining his field goal confidence.

Ryan O'Callaghan - As a rookie, started off the season at RT for the injured Kaczur. Then got injured himself, suffering a 2nd concussion inside of a year. Hasn't been the same player since.

Jeremy Mincey - Didn't try hard enough at camp because he thought he'd be given the whole season to develop and learn the system. He learned that BB expects 100% of every player all the time.

Dan Stevenson - Couldn't beat out Yates and Hochstein for a back-up position.

LeKevin Smith - Shows a lot of promise as a back-up DE in a similar role to Jarvis Green. Time will tell if he can make the next step to be like Jarvis.

That's a GOOD draft, whether or not you acknowledge it.

Its accepted that we dont draft BPA. But going into day 2 on sunday we had 5 picks, in better position than anyone else pretty much right? I understand and stand behind the slight reach on Wheatley because he returns kicks....and in the 5th rd we draft a KR??

They drafted a special teams ACE. Not just a guy who can return kicks. Slater is also a gunner on punt teams and he's in on kick coverage as well. He's also a reserve safety. Hmm.. Sounds a LOT like a replacement for Willie Andrews.

Why not a guy for competition on either one of the lines? And I think you see how I made an arguement to get J.Charles with that 3rd rd pick instead of that trade....

The problem is that your "argument" doesn't take into consideration several things. One of which is how the player is perceived by the Patriots. And whether or not he showed them that he can come in and review the plays and figure out where he made his mistakes and learn from them.

If we need a RB next year when Morris' contract is up we will have to use that 2nd rd pick to get a guy like him anyways...and he wont have a year to learn how to block.

So, Morris is gone? The Pats take a 2nd round RB or sign a RB who is out there. How do you know that the guy will be like Morris and not like Faulk? Why won't he have a year to learn how to block? Is Kevin Faulk going to suddenly retire? And you are discounting the idea that Morris may, god forbid, re-sign with the Patriots or the Patriots might find someone else BETTER in free agency.

Our best drafts have happened when we get like 1 of everything.....and let the best players win the spots in camp. The worst drafts we have had is when we go all offense or all defense or MAYBE in this case all LB/CB. It might be coincidence, but the league has documented that drafting for need doesnt work. We have modified that to fit our value/trade system pretty well but the draft is the draft.

Really? The best drafts have happened when they got 1 of everything? So, the year that they took Mankins and Kaczur wasn't a good year? Hmm.. 2004 was a good year and the Pats took 2 safeties in Scott and Reid. Who were both busts. 2003 was one of the best years. That was when Belichick took Samuel and Wilson. Not to mention Ty Warren and Dan Klecko.

None of the Patriots drafts have been all offense or all defense. NONE. In fact, one of the better drafts (probably about 3rd) was the 2002 draft when they got Graham, Branch, Green and Givens. All of them were significant pieces of the 2003 and 2004 SBs.

Your summationsare just horrid and definitely not researched.

How a player develops has more to do with opportunity and coaching than talent in our system. I dont think its fair to compare drafts 2-3 years down the line because different players are given different opportunities with different coaches. There are just too many variables. No one can use a blanket statement to cover anything convincingly. It was the OPPORTUNITY part of this that I was trying to argue.

Then why are you doing so? You are doing exactly what you say people can't do. And this opportunity you mention that you've failed to argue every step of the way. Because you can't prove, in any way, shape or form, that the players you think they should have taken would have been better in this situation than the players they did take.

To an outsider(all of us)it would seem easy to say we can get a better guy than A,B,C.....but maybe BB is attached to these guys, maybe they have pictures of him naked or something. I dont know.

UGH. Again with the stupid comments. BB isn't emotionally attached to these players. Its a business. Its how he's treated it every step of the way.

 

[jeffbiologist]

If you are that ignorant that you are still waiting then you are beyond help and truly had NO interest in doing anything but being an idiot.

Still waiting, you are only calling me names.....

Listen, don't tell me what to do. You are the one making the idiotic claims that just are NOT backed up by facts. One of your claims was that Kelley Washington hadn't caught a ball in 3 years. It was a FALSE CLAIM and I showed you it. Then you said you did the research. You clearly hadn't since you couldn't spell a players name right and you didn't get your fact straight on Washington. As someone else said, you're now changing the rules. Its pathetic.
I WILL tell you what to do, calm down, and have a rational arguement with facts and dont quit when kick a field goal. I said you were right, maybe you dont get to hear it often but there you go. Its not pathetic, you made one small point, it doesnt smear the whole theory.Check my statistics....oh ya, they are right. You cant argue them. If I tell you to write the rules of football down right now, do you think you will get them all right the first time? Does that mean you are wrong or dont know what you are doing?? NO.


BTW, Since you missed it, the Patriots were carrying 7 WRs (Moss, Welker, Gaffney, Stallworh, Brown, Jackson, and Washington) at one point last year. Its also extremely ignorant of you to think that there is ONLY 1 Special Teams slot available between the 3 of them. See, you have forgotten that Willie Andrews and Ray Ventrone are definitely NOT guaranteed a spot on this roster. Andrews because he's facing serious jail time for possession with intent to distribute and Ventrone because he's just not that good. So, if you take into consideration that Washington was on the team at the same time as Andrews and Ventrone, you could, in theory, have Washington, Aiken and Slater (who played more safety and CB and STs than he did WR) on the team at the same time without ANY issues.

This statement only backs up my claim that we should carry more than 4 wr's doesnt it? YOU ARE WRONG YOU ARE WRONG, see I can do it too you child,lol.
Well, who are these two "PANSY" WRs you are talking about? Gaffney? Moss? Welker, maybe? Dude, you are floundering like a fish out of water, grasping for straws as you drown. Yes, there is the a possibility that 2 of the WRs could get hurt during the season. But, AGAIN, there is not enough positions (or cap space) to carry 5 starting WRs on the team. Also, since Washington made catches, he can also run routes. I actually watched him do it in TC last year and in the pre-season.
AGAIN, YOU ARE WRONG. There is plenty of room for 5 wr's, and it wasnt too long ago that Brady was setting records throwing to like 25 guys in a game...and exageration, you get no points for correcting me there,lol. PUTZ.You could catch a ball in TC, that doesnt mean anything...Only real games count. YOU ARE FLOUNDERING LIKE A BRUIN GOALIE IN MONTREAL


Gee, did I miss where the Pats just drafted 7 players who are all 23 or younger. That's not making the TEAM younger? They also signed 5-7 UDFA who will be in TC. Isn't that also making the team younger?
Drafting a guy doesnt get him on the team, in the lineup or in Canton. Do you want to bet that this team will be OLDER than last year on day 1 of the regular season--when it counts?? I will take that bet!Instead of being stupid and ignorant, how about you check the average age of the team right now instead of just spewing generalisms. OH WAIT. You can't be bothered because it totally destroys your "theory."
Who is being stupid and arrogant? YOU cant throw out generalisms either---and NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with my theory...its a waste of time and space....Checking the average age now is not that of the team, its not set yet.
Your "argument" on the trade, in principal, with SD is as holed as a spaghetti strainer and shows your own lack of foresight. Seriously.
My argument has holes? Lack of foresight? Where is the EVIDENCE, proof that you have an arguement besides calling me names...I dont see it.
What "KNEE JERK" reaction? Again, I have to question whether you actually follow this team or not. BB and Pioli have not made any "knee jerk" reactions with the 1st round pick. And if you truly believe that, then you just continue to show your lack of intelligence on the matter.
Waiting til your starting ILBs are 39 and 3 years after having had a stroke to draft one isnt exactly knee jerk I will give you that....But letting the problem get to the point that even FA cant fix it is lack of foresight. We drafted Mankins AFTER we were left without a G when Andruzzi left--but thats not knee jerk. Tell me, if Andruzzi is here do we still make that pick? And if you believe that you have no intelligence at all...[/B]You claim to be a scientist yet you don't know the difference between a hypothetical and a theory? Some scientist.
A hypothesis is a reason for a question, the theory IS the question. In case you didnt know. I covered both rather well I thought. Some DABRUINZ.
Your whole "theory" that BB and Pioli are "sloughing" the draft is WRONG and its been proven WRONG. I've torn your entire "theory" apart, putting more holes in it than you'd find in swiss cheese. Others have also pointed out the flaws in your thinking. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

Again, PROVE me wrong. Your swiss cheese is in messy string form that covers anything you try to argue about. Where is your evidence? Can you tell me that we do such a great job of drafting that we can justify 3 picks like Slater and Ruud(cost us 3 picks). Like I said, if Slater makes the roster and is the next Devin Hester, I was so so so wrong. But the fact remains that 5th rd picks make this team less than 10% of the time, and no 6th rounder has EVER made a BB team....seems like a fair bet to me. I aknowledge the fact that there is a 90% chance they wont make the team,have you?
Actually, no, it doesn't make for an interesting argument. In fact, it shows a total lack of intelligence and a lack of understanding of everything that BB and Pioli have done over the last 8 years in drafting players.
Lacking intelligence? I am not being outscored 100-3 and admiring my field goal there boss. I aknowledge BB/SP, but they are human and therefore fallible. Great job last year...almost. As for your "binkie", Everyone has them. I actually liked Woodyard. I also like Goff for this team. Dryheat liked Quentin Demps. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

All this aside, imagine being Woodyard for a second. All he did was lead the SEC in tackles, over 100 every year for the last 3 years. He goes to the senior bowl and has Singletary and all the coaches singing his praises. He goes to the combine and blows it away, the 2nd fastest LB. The talking heads are crowing about him. Come the draft, without any off the field problems,2 days go by and he hears the names of all the one year wonders he tackled.....pot heads, guys that couldnt hold his JOCK get drafted....He is my binky, and to my knowledge he still hasnt signed on as a FA. We can argue semantics, this guy is out of a job because he doesnt fit the stereotype our gratious BB/SP hold so dear. Defend them at your own risk.

 

[RayClay]

All this aside, imagine being Woodyard for a second. All he did was lead the SEC in tackles, over 100 every year for the last 3 years. He goes to the senior bowl and has Singletary and all the coaches singing his praises. He goes to the combine and blows it away, the 2nd fastest LB. The talking heads are crowing about him. Come the draft, without any off the field problems,2 days go by and he hears the names of all the one year wonders he tackled.....pot heads, guys that couldnt hold his JOCK get drafted....He is my binky, and to my knowledge he still hasnt signed on as a FA. We can argue semantics, this guy is out of a job because he doesnt fit the stereotype our gratious BB/SP hold so dear. Defend them at your own risk.

Are you that silly? If they thought the guy would improve their team they'd pick him. This isn't miss congeniality.

http://www.nfldraftdog.com/2008_nfl_draft/wesley_woodyard.htm

I wouldn't lie, I just googled the last name and this is the first site i saw. They loved the guy but.....

Few linebackers Woodyard’s size succeed in the NFL. The chances of Woodyard having a long career are slim to none. He needs to add mass and strength without compromising his speed, which is nothing spectacular to begin with. There is a long list of college linebackers who were outstanding, but just don’t meet the physical criteria of what it takes to be NFL linebackers. Come off-season workouts, many teams will see that too. He should be drafted, but it likely he will be a Day-2 pick.

Time to take a deep breath and come back to earth. The game show part of the program is over. The real games start in September.

 

[Ungeheuer]

All this aside, imagine being Woodyard for a second. All he did was lead the SEC in tackles, over 100 every year for the last 3 years. He goes to the senior bowl and has Singletary and all the coaches singing his praises. He goes to the combine and blows it away, the 2nd fastest LB. The talking heads are crowing about him. Come the draft, without any off the field problems,2 days go by and he hears the names of all the one year wonders he tackled.....pot heads, guys that couldnt hold his JOCK get drafted....He is my binky, and to my knowledge he still hasnt signed on as a FA. We can argue semantics, this guy is out of a job because he doesnt fit the stereotype our gratious BB/SP hold so dear. Defend them at your own risk.

You want evidence that your theory is wrong? Just look at the makeup of the roster, and the direction it's moving in.

We won a Super Bowl in 2001 with a team made up largely of veteran free agents who were castoffs from other clubs. The defense was built around old vets -- Bobby Hamilton, Anthony Pleasant, Bryan Cox, Roman Phifer, Otis Smith, Lawyer Milloy. Sure there were some young guys (Seymour, notably) but on the whole it was an old defense. On offense it was sort of the same thing. Light was the only young player on the line. Brady was the only skill player still in the first half of his career (Faulk was in his prime). The roster had a lot of young players on it, but few of them played significant roles.

Fast forward to now: the team wins two more Super Bowls, and in the process gets younger across the board. On offense, Brady, Faulk, Morris and Moss are older, as is Matt Light -- but the rest of the line is home-grown and young. You have young talent still looking up at its best years at almost every position: Watson and Thomas at tight end, Chad Jackson and Welker at wideout, Maroney at running back, Kaczur, Neal, Koppen, Mankins and O'Callghan on the line, Cassel at quarterback. The only thing really missing on offense is a young left tackle prospect. On defense it's the same thing. The line is all either in its prime or looking up at it: Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Green, Wright, LK Smith. We had a problem with the linebacking corps, but now we have Mayo, Crable, and Hobson as younger players to go with Pierre Woods, who might still be a player, and AD Thomas, who's still in his prime.

In the secondary, we're now undergoing the second revamping since the Milloy-Jones-Smith-Law days. We got younger with Wilson, Samuel and Gay before; those players matured and left at premium prices (a direct result of the team playing so well) and now we're replacing them all over again with Hobbs, Sanders, Meriweather, Wheatley and Wilhite. Almost all of these players on both sides of the ball are home-grown and came through the draft. The Pats went to four Super Bowls in seven years with several sets of home-grown tackles: Light-Robinson-Randall, Light-Ashworth, Light-Gorin, Light-Kaczur/O'Callaghan. They made it with four different sets of corners, with only Poole and O-Smith not home-grown. The point is that instead of clinging to an aging core and plugging the holes with older players/free agents -- which is what you seem to think they've done -- they've done exactly the opposite, jettisoning older vets along the way and replacing them as much as possible with younger players. The 2007-8 team was therefore in most ways a younger team than the 2001 and 2003 teams. They were only old in the back seven on D, and they just spent this past year fixing that problem. They go into next year with good youth at every position group, even at linebacker. Even their specialists are getting younger: Gostkowski replaces Vinatieri, and maybe now Dragosavich replaces Hanson. They've done what nobody else has done, stay good while getting younger through the draft.

Your complaint seems to be that the Pats didn't get guys like Manningham, Jamaal Charles and Wesley Woodyard, and overdrafted for need. How do you know? What's your basis for saying the guys we drafted won't help? Last year's draft was strange, I'll give you that -- they seemed disinterested in the whole draft -- but it sure looked like they drafted players they hoped would pan out this year. Slater, if he pans out, fits a definite need. The team hasn't had stability at the KR position in ages, and with Izzo getting older they need a young special teams ace (yes, you have to inject youth into the special teams unit, too). Ruud is a draftable player at a position where they don't have a good backup. Why not take him? You'd prefer Wesley Woodyard (who weighs what, 220 pounds?) playing inside linebacker in a 3-4 defense? Who knows, maybe you're right -- but you can't look at the Pats roster and argue that they don't care about the low rounds. The low rounds are what made this team.

As for the trade with SD... the Pats do this every year and it almost always pans out. They did it last year and got Mayo out of it. They did it with Baltimore and we got Vince Wilfork out of it. If you're the Pats next year and you have four picks in the first three rounds as opposed to three, that might be the difference between getting that first-round stud and not getting him. No other team has gotten more out of these kinds of trades. It's bizarre to me that you would even question them.

 

[BKBroiler]

The FO now scares away traders. Using the accepted value chart we lost out in value in every trade yesterday. One at a time:
1-we wanted Mayo. We knew we could trade back for him. We knew Ellis was the 2nd best DL in the draft, we had to know there was more than one team willing to trade up for him. Maybe Cincy is braindead, but why not get them into a bidding war for Ellis? We talked to NO prior to the draft about this scenario....they then offer KC 2 1sts and a 2nd for #5....and all we got from them was essentially a 4th(3rd minus 5th)?? Better than nothing I guess...we got our guy and paid him less.....but not good value.

I'm sorry but saying that the front office could've gotten more value when they traded back to 10 is the one thing that people have been critcizing that bugs me the most.

1.) New Orleans offered 2 1's and a 2 for the fifth pick because they wanted Glenn Dorsey. With the Chiefs also being interested in Dorsey, New Orleans was going to need to offer a king's ransom to persuade KC to trade out.

2.) Although NO liked Sedrick Ellis, it is obvious who they really coveted based on what they offered to move up to get Ellis.

3.) Cincy may not have ever wanted Sedrick Ellis or Rivers and Ellis could have graded out the same on their draft board. Heck, they may have even been interested in Harvey at 9, which may have prompted the Jags to trade up. Any of these situations would result in Cincy staying put at 9. None of us know unless a report leaks out. If that was the case, there was no way to get them into a bidding war to trade up.

4.) Be happy with the 3rd round pick. Although it may not meet your value chart, I would say the Pats received good value because they were able to save some money by trading down. Also, the pick was used to take an OLB Crable who should turn into a rotational player at the worst. Finally it made the earlier third rounder expendable allowing the Pats to acquire a 2nd next year. Based on projections, that should give them 1 1st, 2 2nd's and 2 3rd's next year, which gives them flexibility again.

 

[ausbacker]

You want evidence that your theory is wrong? Just look at the makeup of the roster, and the direction it's moving in.

We won a Super Bowl in 2001 with a team made up largely of veteran free agents who were castoffs from other clubs. The defense was built around old vets -- Bobby Hamilton, Anthony Pleasant, Bryan Cox, Roman Phifer, Otis Smith, Lawyer Milloy. Sure there were some young guys (Seymour, notably) but on the whole it was an old defense. On offense it was sort of the same thing. Light was the only young player on the line. Brady was the only skill player still in the first half of his career (Faulk was in his prime). The roster had a lot of young players on it, but few of them played significant roles.

Fast forward to now: the team wins two more Super Bowls, and in the process gets younger across the board. On offense, Brady, Faulk, Morris and Moss are older, as is Matt Light -- but the rest of the line is home-grown and young. You have young talent still looking up at its best years at almost every position: Watson and Thomas at tight end, Chad Jackson and Welker at wideout, Maroney at running back, Kaczur, Neal, Koppen, Mankins and O'Callghan on the line, Cassel at quarterback. The only thing really missing on offense is a young left tackle prospect. On defense it's the same thing. The line is all either in its prime or looking up at it: Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Green, Wright, LK Smith. We had a problem with the linebacking corps, but now we have Mayo, Crable, and Hobson as younger players to go with Pierre Woods, who might still be a player, and AD Thomas, who's still in his prime.

In the secondary, we're now undergoing the second revamping since the Milloy-Jones-Smith-Law days. We got younger with Wilson, Samuel and Gay before; those players matured and left at premium prices (a direct result of the team playing so well) and now we're replacing them all over again with Hobbs, Sanders, Meriweather, Wheatley and Wilhite. Almost all of these players on both sides of the ball are home-grown and came through the draft. The Pats went to four Super Bowls in seven years with several sets of home-grown tackles: Light-Robinson-Randall, Light-Ashworth, Light-Gorin, Light-Kaczur/O'Callaghan. They made it with four different sets of corners, with only Poole and O-Smith not home-grown. The point is that instead of clinging to an aging core and plugging the holes with older players/free agents -- which is what you seem to think they've done -- they've done exactly the opposite, jettisoning older vets along the way and replacing them as much as possible with younger players. The 2007-8 team was therefore in most ways a younger team than the 2001 and 2003 teams. They were only old in the back seven on D, and they just spent this past year fixing that problem. They go into next year with good youth at every position group, even at linebacker. Even their specialists are getting younger: Gostkowski replaces Vinatieri, and maybe now Dragosavich replaces Hanson. They've done what nobody else has done, stay good while getting younger through the draft.

Your complaint seems to be that the Pats didn't get guys like Manningham, Jamaal Charles and Wesley Woodyard, and overdrafted for need. How do you know? What's your basis for saying the guys we drafted won't help? Last year's draft was strange, I'll give you that -- they seemed disinterested in the whole draft -- but it sure looked like they drafted players they hoped would pan out this year. Slater, if he pans out, fits a definite need. The team hasn't had stability at the KR position in ages, and with Izzo getting older they need a young special teams ace (yes, you have to inject youth into the special teams unit, too). Ruud is a draftable player at a position where they don't have a good backup. Why not take him? You'd prefer Wesley Woodyard (who weighs what, 220 pounds?) playing inside linebacker in a 3-4 defense? Who knows, maybe you're right -- but you can't look at the Pats roster and argue that they don't care about the low rounds. The low rounds are what made this team.

As for the trade with SD... the Pats do this every year and it almost always pans out. They did it last year and got Mayo out of it. They did it with Baltimore and we got Vince Wilfork out of it. If you're the Pats next year and you have four picks in the first three rounds as opposed to three, that might be the difference between getting that first-round stud and not getting him. No other team has gotten more out of these kinds of trades. It's bizarre to me that you would even question them.

This is a fantastic post. Kudos to you!

 

[alvinnf]

Forget the football nonsense of this thread, who does'nt finish their beer, that's what I would like to know

 

[Vern]

The scientific approach is refreshing, but it demands actual data. You started with a very random 1st vs. "all the rest" comparison. Well, here's the ACTUAL 2007 squad by round, starters are in Bold.

2007 Roster by Patriots Draft Round (% of roster)
1 - 7 players, 13% - Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Watson, Mankins, Maroney, Merriweather
2 - 4 players, 7.5% - Faulk, Light, Wilson, C. Jackson
3 - 4 players, 7.5% - Bruschi, Kaczur, Hobbs, D. Thomas

4 - 5 players, 9.4% - Samuel, Sanders, J. Green, Gostkowski, K. Brown
5 - 2 players, 3.8% - Koppen, O'Callaghan
6 - 2 players, 3.8% - Brady, L. Smith
7 - 2 players, 3.8% - Cassel, W. Andrews
8 - 1 player, 1.9% - T. Brown!
UDFA - 12 players, 22.6%

At first glance it looks more or less just like what you would expect, a long tail distribution by round.

A few more ways to slice that shows:
6 1st round starters (of 7 picks)
9 2nd to 7 round starters

15 "day one" players or 28.3% of the roster
12 "day two" players or 22.6% of the roster
12 UDFA players or 22.6% of the roster

Sure, they are getting a much higher percent success in terms of players (or starters) per pick in the first round, but in terms of the total roster, its VERY balanced, almost ridiculously so.

If you add in the trades and FA signings (but alot them by where THOSE players were originally drafted) you get ...

1st - 11 players, 21% - above + Moss, Seau, Stallworth, K. Brady
2nd - 5 players, 9.4% - above + Gaffney
3rd - 7 players, 13.2% - above + Vrable, K. Washington, H. Evans

4th - 6 players, 11.3% - above + Colvin
5th - 6 players, 11.3% - above + Harrison, Hochstein, Britt, Morris
6th - 3 players, 5.7% - above + A. Thomas
7th - 2 players, 3.8% - above
8th - 1 player, 1.9% - above
UDFA - 12 players, 22.6%

Totals:
9 1st round starters
13 2-7 round starters

The only thing really noticeable is a strange "dip" in 2nd (and possibly 3rd) round players. They have a few "busts" in that round but have done so spectacular (6 of 7) in the first round to easily make up for it.

The Pats have a higher percentage of "day two" and UDFA players on their team than any other team in the NFL. It seems inconsistent to suggest you can end up with that and be intentionally sloughing late round picks.

Indeed, I think a much more plausible explanation is that the Pats are unusually willing to ditch higher round draftees (particularly 2nd and 3rd) should any late round, udfa, or other waiver/fa type beat them out in camp. On other teams, you get more of a focus on the pedigree, and a sort of lock-in on players because of where they were drafted. On the Pats, once the draft is over, it's over. They don't worry about whether not signing you means they "blew" a draft pick on you.

Finally, what do you think the AVERAGE success rate is for draft picks by round league wide? as starters? just making the roster?

 

[Clonamery]

I dont know.

This is the only intelligent thing you wrote.

 

[WhiZa]

People have to realize (especially the medidiots) that last years draft picks (2,4, and 7) netted Moss and Welker. With those two alone we became the greatest offense in NFL history. I don't know about you, but that does not make it an unsuccessful draft.

 

[DaBruinz]

Still waiting, you are only calling me names.....

Sorry, I am stating MY opinion. Sorry that you don't like it.

I WILL tell you what to do, calm down, and have a rational arguement with facts and dont quit when kick a field goal. I said you were right, maybe you dont get to hear it often but there you go. Its not pathetic, you made one small point, it doesnt smear the whole theory.Check my statistics....oh ya, they are right. You cant argue them. If I tell you to write the rules of football down right now, do you think you will get them all right the first time? Does that mean you are wrong or dont know what you are doing?? NO.

Its pretty laughable that you think you have me worked up. Nice big ego you have there. I have made perfectly rational arguments with actual FACTS to back them up. Unlike you, who claims to be a scientist, yet you can't be bothered to do research and make sure your facts are in order.

What stats? You provided nothing. I provided the stats and they proved you wrong. But, you seem to be delusional or something.

This statement only backs up my claim that we should carry more than 4 wr's doesnt it? YOU ARE WRONG YOU ARE WRONG, see I can do it too you child,lol.

You are delusional. It does NOT back up your claims. Quite the opposite. It proves you WRONG on all counts. Especially when you look at the reality that Jackson was still recovering from his ACL and Troy was a non-factor.

AGAIN, YOU ARE WRONG. There is plenty of room for 5 wr's, and it wasnt too long ago that Brady was setting records throwing to like 25 guys in a game...and exageration, you get no points for correcting me there,lol. PUTZ.You could catch a ball in TC, that doesnt mean anything...Only real games count. YOU ARE FLOUNDERING LIKE A BRUIN GOALIE IN MONTREAL

You are delusional. The 4th and 5th WR spots are for ones who ALSO play on special teams . Yes, they need to be able to run routes. And they do. That doesn't mean that the Patriots need MORE than that. The Patriots were just fine with the 5 they had last year. Or did you miss them setting records for scoring?

Sorry, but you are the only one floudering Jeff.

Drafting a guy doesnt get him on the team, in the lineup or in Canton. Do you want to bet that this team will be OLDER than last year on day 1 of the regular season--when it counts?? I will take that bet!I

You really are that obtuse, aren't you. Yes, while drafting a guy doesn't get him on the team, I can pretty much assure you that Mayo, Wheatley, O'Connell, and Crable will make the team. In fact, since BB has been here, no pick above the 5th round has been cut prior to the start of the season.

As for the "average age" increasing, yeah, it might. But answer me this. How many of the players will be 30 and younger and how many will be 31 and older? By my count, there are currently 53 players on the roster who are 30 and under. That leave 17 players who are 31 and over.

Who is being stupid and arrogant? YOU cant throw out generalisms either---and NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with my theory...its a waste of time and space....Checking the average age now is not that of the team, its not set yet.

So, let me get this straight. You think its a waste of time to look at how many players are 30 and under and how many are 31 and older? And you think that has NO BEARING on what the average age of this team will be?

My argument has holes? Lack of foresight? Where is the EVIDENCE, proof that you have an arguement besides calling me names...I dont see it.

Of course you don't see it. Its because you refuse to see it. Its out there in plain sight. You just chose to ignore it. Because you can't be bothered to acknowledge the facts. Facts that proved you wrong. And not just with Kelley Washington and the fact you couldn't even bother to research the players names and get them correct.

Waiting til your starting ILBs are 39 and 3 years after having had a stroke to draft one isnt exactly knee jerk I will give you that....But letting the problem get to the point that even FA cant fix it is lack of foresight. We drafted Mankins AFTER we were left without a G when Andruzzi left--but thats not knee jerk. Tell me, if Andruzzi is here do we still make that pick? And if you believe that you have no intelligence at all...

So, you think that BB and PIOLI willingly let the problem get to this point? You don't think that they tried to correct the issues at LB previously?

Actually, the Patriots were fine with moving Hochstein into the starting rotation next to Koppen. He's started at guard in 2 SuperBowls for the Pats and played very well.

Yes, even if Andruzzi was still with the Patriots they would have made Mankins the pick. If you were even half the "draft nut" you claimed to be you'd know by now that the Patriots modus operandi for the draft is to take players a year in advance of when they are needed. If they step up ahead of time, its a bonus. Like Wilson and Samuel stepping up as rookies.

A hypothesis is a reason for a question, the theory IS the question. In case you didnt know. I covered both rather well I thought. Some DABRUINZ.

You've already proven that you don't actually think beyond your own little box. So, please forgive me that I put absolutely no credence in your claims that you've proven both rather well. All you've done is fallen flat on your face and ignored all the arguments that you've been shown. Both by myself and by others.

Again, PROVE me wrong. Your swiss cheese is in messy string form that covers anything you try to argue about. Where is your evidence? Can you tell me that we do such a great job of drafting that we can justify 3 picks like Slater and Ruud(cost us 3 picks). Like I said, if Slater makes the roster and is the next Devin Hester, I was so so so wrong. But the fact remains that 5th rd picks make this team less than 10% of the time, and no 6th rounder has EVER made a BB team....seems like a fair bet to me. I aknowledge the fact that there is a 90% chance they wont make the team,have you?

You have been proven wrong. You just refuse to admit it. I have provided PLENTY of evidence showing how you are wrong. So have others. You just refuse to recognize it or you change your statements in an attempt to dodge what is being said.

Really? No 6th round pick has ever made this team? TOM BRADY says HI. So does Leonard Myers. So does LeKevin Smith. Oh, so does Antwan Harris. ALL of them were 6th round picks. ALL of them made this team under Belichick.

As for the % of 5th round picks that make this team, your math is wrong. Under Belichick, there have been 7 picks ( Jeff Marriott, Hakim Akbar, Dan Koppen, PK Sam, Ryan Claridge, Ryan O'Callaghan, and Clint Oldenburg) taken in the 5th round, not including this year. If you include Akbar, who played in 6 games for the Pats in 2001, that is 3 players (Koppen and O'Callaghan) who made the team. Calculations say that 3 of 7 is 42.857%. Even if you don't include Akbar, its still 28.571%. That is nearly triple the 10% you claimed.

What was that you said about you actually using facts?

Lacking intelligence? I am not being outscored 100-3 and admiring my field goal there boss. I aknowledge BB/SP, but they are human and therefore fallible. Great job last year...almost.

Hmm.. You are criticizing the Patriots for last year's draft when they felt that it was a talent poor draft and they did everything they could to trade away picks for this year and for players to help the team?

You do realize that the Patriots had a full roster with established vets and very little room for rookies last year, right?

All this aside, imagine being Woodyard for a second. All he did was lead the SEC in tackles, over 100 every year for the last 3 years. He goes to the senior bowl and has Singletary and all the coaches singing his praises. He goes to the combine and blows it away, the 2nd fastest LB. The talking heads are crowing about him. Come the draft, without any off the field problems,2 days go by and he hears the names of all the one year wonders he tackled.....pot heads, guys that couldnt hold his JOCK get drafted....He is my binky, and to my knowledge he still hasnt signed on as a FA. We can argue semantics, this guy is out of a job because he doesnt fit the stereotype our gratious BB/SP hold so dear. Defend them at your own risk.

Tackles, taken by themselves, is not a sign of anything. How many of those tackles were for losses?

While your excuse is plausible, I believe its much more likely that Woodyard is "out of a job" because he has no real position in the NFL. He's too small to play LB in the 3-4. So, that makes him an OLB in the 4-3. Or he can make a move to safety and help out there and on special teams. How did he do on special teams in college? Also, how good is he at breaking down film and retaining plays from the safety position? How good is his technique for playing safety? How good is his agility and change of direction? Those are questions you can't answer unless you've were there asking the questions during his interviews. Those are questions that I am sure BB and Pioli know most of the answers to and why the Pats didn't draft him.

As I said, I liked Woodyard. But I also understand that college stats don't necessarily equal pro production. Particularly on a guy without a true position.

 

[DW Toys]

Thanks for the personal attacks guys, but how about the THEORY? Like I said, as a scientist we propose theories all the time, there is nothing wrong with questioning the man....its done all the time every day on this board. Seperate out what I say and why I say it from who I am please, no one likes personal attacks.
That said, looking at the team unemotionally and wanting to improve it, what exactly was wrong in my research? If you can accept the research what is it exactly that I am theorizing incorrectly? I may have generalized once or twice, but as I read it my statistics arent being questioned but my theory. I even question it, as I stated this wasnt going to be a gatorade type of thread. But isnt it ok to question it? Dont others when you say player 1 is better than player 2? I have nothing to gain one way on another.
KW is a ST guy, he hasnt caught a ball in like 3 years. I will go on the record here and now to say that Manningham has a better season than Slater, KW and Aiken COMBINED. If he doesnt I will gladly leave the forum forever. We have Moss,Welker,Gaffney,and CJ what happens if 2 of those guys get hurt? Big Vince is our only true NT, Red Bryant(best NT available in every draft report)went in the 4th rd. If Vince gets hurt who backs him up? We play against SD in the championship game next year and Hester scores the winning touchdown.....that is what I am talking about.
Its a bigger theory. Yes, some of it is out of frustration but we are all questioning some of these moves not just me. I just took a step back to look at the whole picture and tried to put it together differently. I praise BB as a coach, but in this era of the salary cap where rookies are so much cheaper than vets....you have to do your best with the rookies that you can. Thats what I meant. FAs are in fact about twice as popular as rookies....say the statistics. He has demonstrated that what he is doing works for sure, but arent they more $$?
If you want to dismiss me dismiss my research. Show me facts that say they will give a 6th rounder a chance to make the team or a 3rd rounder to start. I am not saying it doesnt happen, I cited you the statistics. Dont be mad at me, be mad at the statistics. I am not whining, I am just trying to look at things differently. Now I KNOW I am not 100% right, but I also know I am not 100% wrong....and wanted to have a civil arguement. That is what this site is for right?? Sorry if I offended you guys, dont take this personal.....

I appreciate your work here even if I do not agree with everything, it still took time and thought. Thank you. You must understand that most of the negatives you will receive are from the same people that will shout you down in a work or party conversation to make a point. They feel good if they can try and make you feel bad. Most of these are not even high school grads and they pick out spelling and grammar mistakes. Didn't know we are being graded on these but I could figure out what you were talking about.
I agree that there are some glaring draft issues the last two years anyway. It is scouts that drop the information off to be analyzed. They have been the weak point the last on 06 and 07.
The 06 draft was a waste. Yes, I guarantee most of the readers on this site could have done better in 06 reading player reports from the silly draft "rags". Anybody doubt that?
Just because the the player has a name, doesn't mean we should be afraid to draft him. I agree with N/T Bryant et. al. We needed a safety and we passed on some decent ones. Barrett? We don't take a UDFA flyer on Silva? Come on!
That's not BB. That is bad scout work. Yes, draft the best player possible but keep an eye on the prize.
My disappointment is not in who they drafted, it is where they did. Slater taken after a moving up? Who did that?
DW Toys

 

[VJCPatriot]

First of all... learn to use paragraphs. What, biologists don't have to use punctuation? Where did you go to school again? Now on to your questions.

KW is a ST guy, he hasnt caught a ball in like 3 years. I will go on the record here and now to say that Manningham has a better season than Slater, KW and Aiken COMBINED. If he doesnt I will gladly leave the forum forever.

Manningham has character issues. There's a reason he fell that far down in the draft despite his talent level. The Pats care about character. It is wiser to invest in a guy who won't be out of the league in a year because of off the field issues such as Pacman Jones, right?

We have Moss,Welker,Gaffney,and CJ what happens if 2 of those guys get hurt?

What would happen if Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison got hurt? They'd be screwed, that's what. Or how about Boldin and Fitzgerald? Let's get real. You can only afford to PAY so much for one position. You can't have 4 #1's ready to play. I think that the Pats not drafting an extra receiver is because A) they have one of the best receiving corps in the league already and B) this is an encouraging sign that they have confidence in Chad Jackson to develop into a 2nd/3rd WR and like Gaffney as their 3rd/4th receiver and Washington as a 4th/5th WR.

Big Vince is our only true NT, Red Bryant(best NT available in every draft report)went in the 4th rd. If Vince gets hurt who backs him up? We play against SD in the championship game next year and Hester scores the winning touchdown.....that is what I am talking about.

Wilfork's backup? Meet Mike Wright. If Bryant fell all the way to the 4th round, obviously there were reasons. That means a lot of teams passed FOUR times on Bryant. He's probably not as 'beast' as you think.

You are drastically overrating Hester. The dude is a fullback. You don't draft fullbacks high when your system doesn't have much of a role for them. For the Pats that would be the equivalent of spending an early 3rd rounder on a punter. Besides Hester won't even see as many carries as Sproles in that Charger system, especially not with LT eating up all the carries. Hester was drafted to replace Lorenzo Neal, a FB. Blocking fullbacks are a dime a dozen and are usually UDFAs. That's right, FACT, the #1 source of NFL fullbacks is UDFA, not the draft.

If you want to dismiss me dismiss my research. Show me facts that say they will give a 6th rounder a chance to make the team or a 3rd rounder to start.

I don't really see your point. The Pats DO prefer veterans in general. And draft prospects taken after the first day tend to have a much lower chance of sticking to team rosters. That's just statistics. What you are trying to imply however is that the Pats purposefully discriminate against later day draft picks. What logical reason would they have to do that?

Has it ever ocurred to you that... later day picks tend to be less talented and thus have a LOWER chance of making the roster? In addition has it ocurred to you, that whenever the Pats try to sneak a late round rookie onto their practice squad that all the teams in the NFL seem to pounce at them like choice morsels of meat? That would IMPLY to me that the Pats are making some pretty good late draft choices, but their roster is too DEEP to accommodate all these late round picks, and when they do try to send em to the practice squad, they simply get poached.

I am not saying it doesnt happen, I cited you the statistics. Dont be mad at me, be mad at the statistics. I am not whining, I am just trying to look at things differently. Now I KNOW I am not 100% right, but I also know I am not 100% wrong....and wanted to have a civil arguement. That is what this site is for right?? Sorry if I offended you guys, dont take this personal.....

No personal offense taken at all. Just happen to disagree with your entire line of thinking. See above for explanation.

 

[spacecrime]

Has it ever ocurred to you that... later day picks tend to be less talented and thus have a LOWER chance of making the roster? In addition has it ocurred to you, that whenever the Pats try to sneak a late round rookie onto their practice squad that all the teams in the NFL seem to pounce at them like choice morsels of meat? That would IMPLY to me that the Pats are making some pretty good late draft choices, but their roster is too DEEP to accommodate all these late round picks, and when they do try to send em to the practice squad, they simply get poached.

This is it in a nutshell. People who complain that few of the Pats late round draftees make the team miss the point. Many are in the NFL, just on other teams. The Pats roster is tight. It isn't easy for a player to stick. All the detractors seem to forget that BB/SP terrible player acquisition policies netted us the best team in the NFL during their tenure. I'm not sure what more anyone could ask for.

 

[dryheat44]

You are drastically overrating Hester. The dude is a fullback. You don't draft fullbacks high when your system doesn't have much of a role for them. For the Pats that would be the equivalent of spending an early 3rd rounder on a punter. Besides Hester won't even see as many carries as Sproles in that Charger system, especially not with LT eating up all the carries. Hester was drafted to replace Lorenzo Neal, a FB. Blocking fullbacks are a dime a dozen and are usually UDFAs. That's right, FACT, the #1 source of NFL fullbacks is UDFA, not the draft.

I'll bet they slide Hester into the Michael Turner role...giving him 5-6 carries a game. Hester doesn't block...he can't be a true fullback like Lorenzo Neal.

This is it in a nutshell. People who complain that few of the Pats late round draftees make the team miss the point. Many are in the NFL, just on other teams. The Pats roster is tight. It isn't easy for a player to stick. All the detractors seem to forget that BB/SP terrible player acquisition policies netted us the best team in the NFL during their tenure. I'm not sure what more anyone could ask for.

We've been spoiled. If the Patriots don't win the Super Bowl every year, it's because Belichick doesn't know what he's doing. My God....we really have become the NFL version of Yankees fans.

 

[DW Toys]

I'll bet they slide Hester into the Michael Turner role...giving him 5-6 carries a game. Hester doesn't block...he can't be a true fullback like Lorenzo Neal.



We've been spoiled. If the Patriots don't win the Super Bowl every year, it's because Belichick doesn't know what he's doing. My God....we really have become the NFL version of Yankees fans.

Excellent comment on the Yankees statement. I too am guilty of that.
DW Toys

 

[spacecrime]

We've been spoiled.

Yes, but isn't it fun? Who want to returns to the Marcus Allen Bowl days, when we battled the 1-14 Colts for the right to the first pick in the draft?

IIRC correctly, we lost the game and "won" the first pick, but screwed it up by picked Ken Simms.

Nope, I'd rather be spoiled.

But that doesn't mean I think I'm smarter than the front office who is spoiling me with seasons I could not have imagined in 1981. Or 1990. Now that was a year to remember.