The Belichick Draft Philosophy

[bucky]

It occurs to me that the single greatest statement of BB's draft philosophy is that he runs a complete independent scouting operation, rather than subscribing to one of the big services. IOW forget consensus rankings, forget conventional wisdom and look at the value to the Patriots.

Yes, a very important draft philosophy that often gets overlooked.

Here's another one - the earlier in the draft, the more BB prefer to draft players with the highest floor, as opposed to those with the highest ceiling. The thinking, IMO is as follows:

high floor + good coaching + good work ethic = good player, with some chance to become great, and low risk of failure.

low floor + high ceiling + good coaching = boom or bust, with some chance of coming out in the middle.

I also think that quite often, many of the high floor players tend to exhibit good work ethic while some of the high ceiling guys have gotten by on talent and may lack the necessary work ethic to become great.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Marino was a very unique situation........you can always find that sort of aberration in the general rule of thumb......you can have all the top QB's that you want, but if you don't have the line play, you're not going to win it all.....

the problem with the dolphins is that while they drafted marino, they could not draft defensive players to save their lives. and even on OL, they got lucky one year by drafting webb and sims.......

can't get anywhere without line play........you can make it look fun, though

Hmm, you seem to be arguing that having a great QB isn't enough to win a championship, I never argued that it was, only that more return on invest is possible by drafting a non-line position over a lineman.

Let me put this another way, would you rather have Peyton Manning and a good line or JaMarcus Russell and a great line?

 

[mgteich]

It is hard to believe that Dez Bryant didn't have the highest perceived ceiling at the time of the draft.

McCourty clearly had a high projected ceiling, but not as high as Bryant.

I think that the floor for both was indeed important.

Yes, a very important draft philosophy that often gets overlooked.

Here's another one - the earlier in the draft, the more BB prefer to draft players with the highest floor, as opposed to those with the highest ceiling. The thinking, IMO is as follows:

high floor + good coaching + good work ethic = good player, with some chance to become great, and low risk of failure.

low floor + high ceiling + good coaching = boom or bust, with some chance of coming out in the middle.

I also think that quite often, many of the high floor players tend to exhibit good work ethic while some of the high ceiling guys have gotten by on talent and may lack the necessary work ethic to become great.

 

[Spiral]

From reading Patriot Reign and Education of a Coach, you can see that BB evaluates potential draftees against his current roster at least as much as he evaluates draftees against each other. After all, once the player is drafted, this is really the only comparison that matters. Under this scenario, value is determined by the potential ability of the draftee to upgrade the roster at one or more positions. This is how need factors into his value analysis. The weaker the Patriots are at guard, for example, the higher the value for guards in the draft. It's also why he values position flexibility.

The other component is knowing what the other teams are likely to do in the draft. That's a key to being able to trade down without losing the opportunity to get a high-value player a few spots later.

 

[dryheat44]

Okay...a few thoughts on a fairly interesting thread:

you have it backwards......value is a part of need. Richard Seymour was a need. Daniel Graham was a need. Ty Warren was a need. Vince Wilfork was a need. Ben Watson was neither. Mankins was a need, Maroney was a need. Meriweather, Mayo........they were all needs. value comes in picking the right player........maroney was poor value compared to deangelo williams....the need was the same

No, I'm afraid you have it backwards. Just take a step back and consider what these words mean. Value typically implies a formula. Need is what it is -- a lack of resources. Value doesn't impact a need at all. By the same token, the Patriots clearly need a guard. They're still not going to draft Clint Boling at #17 -- because it's poor value. Staying on theme....

The reality is that the first round pick has been for need since Belichick arrived. Obviously, we poor mortals did not see the need for a pass-catching TE when Watson was drafted.

Only in as much as a need drives up the value calculation. As above, we might need a starting guard or a backup quarterback or wide receiver or a kicker. But the better value might be in using the first pick on a linebacker that BB has put his highest grade on in 10 years.

The need and scarcity component changes as the draft unfolds.

Exactly. If a team's draft board is static, they're not going to have a successful draft after the second round or so. Belichick might have two players rated equally -- say Brady and Rattay. After drafting one though, the value on the other is going to drop enough due to the need component being drastically lessened.

This may be overly simplistic, but BPA + Need = Value.

Agreed. Value is going to be some mish-mash of Need, College Production, Future potential, Contract requirements, Ability to take hard coaching, Football intelligence, Presence or Lack thereof of other players in the draft who play that position, NFL agency pool, Next year's projected draft class. Importance of position in scheme, and various other tangibles and intangibles.

It is hard to believe that Dez Bryant didn't have the highest perceived ceiling at the time of the draft. McCourty clearly had a high projected ceiling, but not as high as Bryant. I think that the floor for both was indeed important.

Could be. It's also not hard to believe that Dez Bryant behaved like a diva at OSU and lied to the NCAA and as a result was not on the Patriots' board. He also had/has issues concerning his ability to understand complex NFL offenses.

Because...I...CAN.

~ Tom Brady ~ 6th Round
~ Joe Montana ~ 3rd Round
~ Johny Unitas ~ 9th Round
~ Bart Starr ~ 17th Round

At last, my friend who types with random capitalization, spacing, and font size and likes to make up names for NFL positions when perfectly serviceable and generally accepted ones exist....You've provided four quarterbacks from the last 45 years, including a third-rounder, which isn't generally considered a long shot. Are you seriously suggesting that the best way to find an NFL quarterback, especially in this age of advanced scouting, is to wait until the late rounds because historically speaking, some all-time greats came in the late rounds? Man, just go through the list of the "franchise" NFL QBs playing today. Brady is the only one I can think of who didn't come via the first 33 picks of the draft.

 

[patchick]

Man, just go through the list of the "franchise" NFL QBs playing today. Brady is the only one I can think of who didn't come via the first 33 picks of the draft.

Is that 33 carefully calibrated for Brees? Because if so, you can round it down -- he was drafted in a 31-team year.

But I totally agree. It's easy to find examples of great players at every position who were drafted low. In fact, you could field a world-beating team with UDFAs at every spot on the field. But of the 12 playoff QBs last year, only Brady and Cassel were drafted outside of the top 32 picks.

 

[Off The Grid]

You've been spending too much time talking to Snake Eyes, Fair One.

I did, indeed, remind that fellow that you CAN win with any old schmo at QB.

But in NO way did I recommend it.

As 1800 posts or so have made clear: Grizzlies are a PRIORITY with me.

...But not to the EXCLUSION of Blocking Backs.

I recommend drafting exemplary QB's...but LATE in the draft.

" Why??? For the love of God, WHY???"

Because...I...CAN.

~ Tom Brady ~ 6th Round
~ Joe Montana ~ 3rd Round
~ Johny Unitas ~ 9th Round
~ Bart Starr ~ 17th Round

May I join you?

Ok, so why not trade Brady for Seymour like Patchick mentioned? If it's all about the lines then we'd be WAY better off with Seymour, right? We have Hoyer and we could draft McElroy or just grab the guy who works behind the counter at 7-11 and throw him in at QB and we should be just fine as long as we're building those lines, right?

Your cheese has slid off your cracker, my friend.

 

[Off The Grid]

You've been spending too much time talking to Snake Eyes, Fair One.

I did, indeed, remind that fellow that you CAN win with any old schmo at QB.

But in NO way did I recommend it.

As 1800 posts or so have made clear: Grizzlies are a PRIORITY with me.

...But not to the EXCLUSION of Blocking Backs.

I recommend drafting exemplary QB's...but LATE in the draft.

" Why??? For the love of God, WHY???"

Because...I...CAN.

~ Tom Brady ~ 6th Round
~ Joe Montana ~ 3rd Round
~ Johny Unitas ~ 9th Round
~ Bart Starr ~ 17th Round

May I join you?

It's easy to find examples of great players at every position who were drafted low. In fact, you could field a world-beating team with UDFAs at every spot on the field. But of the 12 playoff QBs last year, only Brady and Cassel were drafted outside of the top 32 picks.

You're mistaking a supportive Argument for a main point.

The main point has been spelled out quite clearly, and has in fact been thematic throughout my posts in the year that I've frequented this fine forum, but as I could hardly presume to expect Instant Recall of you, for said theme, I will be more than happy to recap:

D Line: Draft Priority.

O Line: Draft Priority.

QB: Not as HIGH a Draft Priority, which ~ at least in THIS galaxy ~ does not translate to hiring bums off the street.

Great gems can be found in the 3rd and beyond.

History: OTG is CORRECT, by God!! Per usual!!

***

Also: your dismissal of the examples I provided is premature, my friend.

You can make a VERY strong argument that that short list includes 3 of the 4 best QB's EVER.

That really ought to tell you something, and I'm mystified that it doesn't.

Shall we calculate the ADP of the Super Bowl Winning QB, over the last 10 years??

The last 20??

ALL of them??

 

[Ron Sellers]

Shall we calculate the ADP of the Super Bowl Winning QB, over the last 10 years??

The last 20??

ALL of them??

That would be very interesting to look at.

But whatever that ADP is, in and of itself it would be meaningless.

Unless we also have the ADP of the 21 other starters of the Super Bowl winning teams from whatever time period is chosen, there's nothing to compare it to.

Without having those stats in front of me I'm guessing that it is safe to say that recent stats are skewed downward at the QB position thanks to one Tom Brady.

On the other hand, since referees were instructed to flag defenders more closely - the 'Polian rule' - how many teams have advanced or been successful without an early round QB?

Brady may have to be thrown out of these type of stats due to the politics that were happening in Michigan when he was there in regards to the QB position. Perhaps if he had been given a fair shot at the playing time he deserved, he would have been drafted much earlier. Take him out of the equation, and how many late round quarterbacks have been successful in the NFL over the last ten or fifteen years?

Bottom line is that I'm reluctant to throw out the importance of a quarterback in today's NFL based on the success of Brady, or the success of a player from as long ago as Unitas or Starr.

 

[Off The Grid]

You're mistaking a supportive Argument for a main point.

The main point has been spelled out quite clearly, and has in fact been thematic throughout my posts in the year that I've frequented this fine forum, but as I could hardly presume to expect Instant Recall of you, for said theme, I will be more than happy to recap:

D Line: Draft Priority.

O Line: Draft Priority.

QB: Not as HIGH a Draft Priority, which ~ at least in THIS galaxy ~ does not translate to hiring bums off the street.

Great gems can be found in the 3rd and beyond.

History: OTG is CORRECT, by God!! Per usual!!

***

Also: your dismissal of the examples I provided is premature, my friend.

You can make a VERY strong argument that that short list includes 3 of the 4 best QB's EVER.

That really ought to tell you something, and I'm mystified that it doesn't.

Shall we calculate the ADP of the Super Bowl Winning QB, over the last 10 years??

The last 20??

ALL of them??

That would be very interesting to look at.

But whatever that ADP is, in and of itself it would be meaningless.

Unless we also have the ADP of the 21 other starters of the Super Bowl winning teams from whatever time period is chosen, there's nothing to compare it to.

Without having those stats in front of me I'm guessing that it is safe to say that recent stats are skewed downward at the QB position thanks to one Tom Brady.

On the other hand, since referees were instructed to flag defenders more closely - the 'Polian rule' - how many teams have advanced or been successful without an early round QB?

Brady may have to be thrown out of these type of stats due to the politics that were happening in Michigan when he was there in regards to the QB position. Perhaps if he had been given a fair shot at the playing time he deserved, he would have been drafted much earlier. Take him out of the equation, and how many late round quarterbacks have been successful in the NFL over the last ten or fifteen years?

Bottom line is that I'm reluctant to throw out the importance of a quarterback in today's NFL based on the success of Brady, or the success of a player from as long ago as Unitas or Starr.

How conveniently you omit Joe Montana.

Yes, by all means: reject any data that...um...destroys your preconceptions.

And by all means: join those who continue to "interpret" my clearly scribed words as meaning that I "throw out" ~ your fabricated words ~ the importance of QuarterBacks.

All I'm talking about is Draft Strategy: It's hard to fathom how clearly intelligent people persist in getting that wrong, when I repeatedly spell it out for you.

***

~ The Packers of the 60's won 5 Championships, led by a remarkable 17th Rounder.
~ The Fish won 2 Championships, "led" by the remarkably unremarkable Bob Griese.
~ The Steelers won 4 Super Bowls, "led" by the remarkably unremarkable Terry Bradshaw.
~ The CowBoys won 2 Super Bowls, led by a remarkable 10th Rounder.
~ The Miners won 4 Super Bowls, led by an absolutely amazing 3rd Rounder.
~ The RedSkins won 3 Super Bowls, led by 3 different guys, all of them remarkably unremarkable.
~ The CowBoys won 3 more, "led" by the remarkably unremarkable Troy Aikman.
~ The Broncos won 2 Super Bowls, led by Alex Gibbs, NOT John Elway.
~ The Patriots won 3 Super Bowls ~ and counting ~ led by an EPIC 6th Rounder.

***

Dan Marino won NOTHING, Peyton Manning hasn't won anything that wasn't officially stolen from US, and the grave yards are LITTERED with the names of JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, and a cast of thousands.

But by all means: continue to attack my "Let's not fall all over ourselves to spend 1st Rounders on QB's!!" game plan.

Good luck with that.

 

[Snake Eyes]

How conveniently you omit Joe Montana.

Yes, by all means: reject any data that...um...destroys your preconceptions.

And by all means: join those who continue to "interpret" my clearly scribed words as meaning that I "throw out" ~ your fabricated words ~ the importance of QuarterBacks.

All I'm talking about is Draft Strategy: It's hard to fathom how clearly intelligent people persist in getting that wrong, when I repeatedly spell it out for you.

***

~ The Packers of the 60's won 5 Championships, led by a remarkable 17th Rounder.
~ The Fish won 2 Championships, "led" by the remarkably unremarkable Bob Griese.
~ The Steelers won 4 Super Bowls, "led" by the remarkably unremarkable Terry Bradshaw.
~ The CowBoys won 2 Super Bowls, led by a remarkable 10th Rounder.
~ The Miners won 4 Super Bowls, led by an absolutely amazing 3rd Rounder.
~ The RedSkins won 3 Super Bowls, led by 3 different guys, all of them remarkably unremarkable.
~ The CowBoys won 3 more, "led" by the remarkably unremarkable Troy Aikman.
~ The Broncos won 2 Super Bowls, led by Alex Gibbs, NOT John Elway.
~ The Patriots won 3 Super Bowls ~ and counting ~ led by an EPIC 6th Rounder.

***

Dan Marino won NOTHING, Peyton Manning hasn't won anything that wasn't officially stolen from US, and the grave yards are LITTERED with the names of JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, and a cast of thousands.

But by all means: continue to attack my "Let's not fall all over ourselves to spend 1st Rounders on QB's!!" game plan.

Good luck with that.

Yes, many not so great QBs won championships there are also many Multi-millionaires who go that way by winning the lottery, does that make buying lotto tickets the most sound investing strategy?

Many of those examples you point to also won during a time when the running game was where it was at, if we're discussing drafting players today, then it pays HUGE dividends to have a very competent QB at the helm. I don't think just waiting until the late rounds to grab someone is sufficient because one is throwing early pics at the O&D lines.

Would the 2001 Ravens have been better off with a rookie Marino/Manning clone or would they have been better off drafting a lineman?

There are the Ryan Leafs of the world but there are also the Peyton Mannings, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Phillip Rivers, Matt Ryan, and Sam Bradford (who is looking like a Stud in the making) and a very long list of excellent QBs that were drafted early. It's also not like there haven't been lineman busts as well, so that's not foolproof wither.

You can talk about cheese and crackers all you want, the fact remains that by your reasoning we should be better off trading Brady for Seymour, it's all about the lines, right? You've clearly contradicted yourself with your previous statements.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Your enthusiasm is appreciated but please check your facts.
-Bob Griese drafted #4 in the 1st round of the 1967 draft.
-Troy Aikman drafted #1 overall in the 1989 draft.
-Terry Bradshaw drafted #1 overall in the 1970 draft.
-Alex Gibbs was an assistant coach for the Denver Broncos from 1995 to 2003.

Half of your examples are flat out incorrect. Please do a a little research before touting your facts in support of the theory of the 'late round pick' QB.

You may do some draft fact finding here at the NFL's own website.

~ The Packers of the 60's won 5 Championships, led by a remarkable 17th Rounder.
~ The Fish won 2 Championships, "led" by the remarkably unremarkable Bob Griese.
~ The Steelers won 4 Super Bowls, "led" by the remarkably unremarkable Terry Bradshaw.
~ The CowBoys won 2 Super Bowls, led by a remarkable 10th Rounder.
~ The Miners won 4 Super Bowls, led by an absolutely amazing 3rd Rounder.
~ The RedSkins won 3 Super Bowls, led by 3 different guys, all of them remarkably unremarkable.
~ The CowBoys won 3 more, "led" by the remarkably unremarkable Troy Aikman.
~ The Broncos won 2 Super Bowls, led by Alex Gibbs, NOT John Elway.
~ The Patriots won 3 Super Bowls ~ and counting ~ led by an EPIC 6th Rounder.

***

Dan Marino won NOTHING, Peyton Manning hasn't won anything that wasn't officially stolen from US, and the grave yards are LITTERED with the names of JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, and a cast of thousands.

But by all means: continue to attack my "Let's not fall all over ourselves to spend 1st Rounders on QB's!!" game plan.

 

[Husse]

Sorry for the bump, but I kind of wanted get this down.

Purely in the interest of whatever, I actually looked up the draft pick for all the starting SB QBs ever.

I started counting drafted QBs from 1965, to get the QBs drafted a time to grow into the league.

Results:

QBs Drafted

1st Round: 90
Rest: 428
Total: 518

SB Starting QBs

Round 1: 46
Rest: 44

SB Winning QBS

Round 1: 25
Rest: 20

With these numbers we can surmise that for every 1.96 QB drafted in Round 1, and every 9,73 in the rest of the rounds, you will appear in the SB.

Every 3,6 QB drafted in Round 1 and every 21,4 in the rest will win the SB.

Average Draft Position:

To appear in SB: Round 3.6 Pick 64.4

Winners: Round 3,42 Pick 59,47
Losers: Round 3,78 Pick 69,42

Right here we can see that SB winning QBs has a lower average and there fore were picked higher.

But I don't really think an average is a good way to evaluate the draft position since higher picks will have more effect on the average than low picks will. So I'll also use median.

Draft pick median

To appear in SB: Round 1 Pick 23

Winners: Round 1 Pick 12
Losers: Round 2 Pick 29

We can see that over half of the SB winning QBs were drafted in the top 12 picks of the draft. That is a very close interval compared to the rest of the draft.

Disclaimer: Steve Young was drafted in the Supplemental draft. Kurt Warner and Jake Delhomme went undrafted, so I just added +1 to both round # and pick # the year they would have been drafted as their draft position.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Sorry for the bump, but I kind of wanted get this down.

Purely in the interest of whatever, I actually looked up the draft pick for all the starting SB QBs ever.

I started counting drafted QBs from 1965, to get the QBs drafted a time to grow into the league.

Results:

QBs Drafted

1st Round: 90
Rest: 428
Total: 518

SB Starting QBs

Round 1: 46
Rest: 44

SB Winning QBS

Round 1: 25
Rest: 20

With these numbers we can surmise that for every 1.96 QB drafted in Round 1, and every 9,73 in the rest of the rounds, you will appear in the SB.

Every 3,6 QB drafted in Round 1 and every 21,4 in the rest will win the SB.

Average Draft Position:

To appear in SB: Round 3.6 Pick 64.4

Winners: Round 3,42 Pick 59,47
Losers: Round 3,78 Pick 69,42

Right here we can see that SB winning QBs has a lower average and there fore were picked higher.

But I don't really think an average is a good way to evaluate the draft position since higher picks will have more effect on the average than low picks will. So I'll also use median.

Draft pick median

To appear in SB: Round 1 Pick 23

Winners: Round 1 Pick 12
Losers: Round 2 Pick 29

We can see that over half of the SB winning QBs were drafted in the top 12 picks of the draft. That is a very close interval compared to the rest of the draft.

Disclaimer: Steve Young was drafted in the Supplemental draft. Kurt Warner and Jake Delhomme went undrafted, so I just added +1 to both round # and pick # the year the would have been drafted for them.

Welcome!

It might be a better measure for evaluating if you looked only at SB winning QBs in the salary cap era, 1994 to present (hopefully if the two sides can get back to the table). Earlier SB teams had the opportunity to collect talent and grow a team more, after the salary cap came in, there was more player movement requiring a number of changes to team management. Indianapolis was a contender all the last decade because they had Peyton Manning, but NE and Pit won more Super Bowls because they use a much different approach to building a contender that doesn't starve other positions or team depth in order to build an offensive juggernaut around the QB (NE came close in a fourth, but defensive depth came into play at the end the same as had often happened to Indianapolis - a very tricky balancing act).

 

[Snake Eyes]

It might be a better measure for evaluating if you looked only at SB winning QBs in the salary cap era, 1994 to present

Also, in previous decades the running game was much more predominant, which lessened the need for a very good QB.

 

[Husse]

Welcome!

It might be a better measure for evaluating if you looked only at SB winning QBs in the salary cap era, 1994 to present (hopefully if the two sides can get back to the table). Earlier SB teams had the opportunity to collect talent and grow a team more, after the salary cap came in, there was more player movement requiring a number of changes to team management. Indianapolis was a contender all the last decade because they had Peyton Manning, but NE and Pit won more Super Bowls because they use a much different approach to building a contender that doesn't starve other positions or team depth in order to build an offensive juggernaut around the QB (NE came close in a fourth, but defensive depth came into play at the end the same as had often happened to Indianapolis - a very tricky balancing act).

Thank you.

Personally, I think these stats are mostly useless except for maybe showing a trend and can definitely not be taken as an end all-be all statement. In all team sports there are so many variables adding up to a win that there is no way just one player can win it all by himself. Sure, having the best QB might help the most, but having the best RB, Pass rusher, O-Line, and so on helps a lot too.

Having said that, I'll crunch the numbers starting at the 1994 Draft and SB 29(XXIX) just for fun. The number inside the parenthesis is the number from the all-time calculation

Results

QBs Drafted

1st Round: 40
Rest: 156
Total: 196

SB Starting QBs

Round 1: 17
Rest: 17

SB Winning QBS

Round 1: 10
Rest: 7

With these numbers we can surmise that for every 2,35(1,96) QB drafted in Round 1, and every 9,18(9,73) in the rest of the rounds, you will appear in the SB.

Every 4(3,6) QB drafted in Round 1 and every 22,29(21,4) in the rest will win the SB.

Average Draft Position:

To appear in SB: Round 3.24 Pick 80

Winners: Round 2,88 Pick 68,82
Losers: Round 3,59 Pick 91,18

Draft pick median

To appear in SB: Round 1,5 (17 1st and 17 Rest) Pick 28

Winners: Round 1 Pick 11
Losers: Round 3 Pick 70

Disclaimer: Steve Young was drafted in the Supplemental draft. Kurt Warner and Jake Delhomme went undrafted, so I just added +1 to both round # and pick # the year they would have been drafted as their draft position.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

The numbers still don't help me, but then I'm handicapped that way! I like the approach NE has taken using late round picks to develop a quality reserve behind Tommy and waiting to see if they have that little extra (Cassel) which will make them a competitive QB when given the chance. I think Hoyer, if he unfortunately got more playing time, would make the grade as a competitive starter in the NFL. I like Dalton, Kaepernick, Weber, and Froman as projects for NE in this draft, I'd love to see them get Kellen Moore in next year's draft to compete for a reserve slot behind Tommy.

 

[Off The Grid]

Good Lord: THIS thread, again.

I'd immediately + completely wiped this from my mind, based on the quality of the responses.

by your reasoning we should be better off trading Brady for Seymour, it's all about the lines, right?

I've made it crystal clear that that notion is far too insane to merit serious response, 3 times, now, but it clearly has continued to fail to sink in.

Good luck with that.

 

[Off The Grid]

Addendum, to 3rd Parties reading all the responses that ensue

THIS is my original post, responding to another poster's suggestion that we invest heavily in O Line + D Line:

AMEN, Brother!! :rocker:

I honestly think it is JUST that simple.

There are other ways to build Championships teams, for sure...

But that way IS the time-honored MOST effective way, going ALL the way back.

I cannot FATHOM how this innocent, enthusiastic, and uncharacteristically conservative statement has touched off such a twisted Storm ~ and deeply bent allegations of wanting to trade Tom Brady ~ But I want no more of it.

I'm truly bewildered that this has taken the turn it has.

Call me crazy, but I thought we were all on the same side.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Addendum, to 3rd Parties reading all the responses that ensue

THIS is my original post, responding to another poster's suggestion that we invest heavily in O Line + D Line:



I cannot FATHOM how this innocent, enthusiastic, and uncharacteristically conservative statement has touched off such a twisted Storm ~ and deeply bent allegations of wanting to trade Tom Brady ~ But I want no more of it.

I'm truly bewildered that this has taken the turn it has.

Call me crazy, but I thought we were all on the same side.

This is great stuff, you do realize that you're trying to change your argument midstream, yes?

There is an enormous difference between investing heavily in the lines, which everyone here, including myself, seems to be in favor of, and blindly using picks from rounds 1 & 2 on the lines 'until they cannot be upgraded anymore'.

Let's take a look at your previous statements, shall we?

I did, indeed, remind that fellow that you CAN win with any old schmo at QB.

But in NO way did I recommend it.

As 1800 posts or so have made clear: Grizzlies are a PRIORITY with me.

If Grizzlies are a priority why wouldnt you trade a non-Grizzly for a Grizzly? *CONTRADICTION Alert*

What impact was that?

Marino was jolly good fun, but he didn't win any rings, now, did he?

Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, and COUNTLESS other mediocre QB's, on the other hand, HAVE won Championships.

Ok, so are you saying that unless one has a ring they cannot be considered an "impact player"?