Dude, Reese and Colbert just missed the playoffs. Thompson's Packers' D is WORSE than ours was in 2011 or 2012. That's like the second time in the last 3 or 4 years and go check their last 2 drafts. Not very good past 1 draft pick or so.
Nobody has a great draft every year . . . all I'm saying is these guys have done pretty good jobs of building competitive teams. BB's strategy tends to produce remarkable consistency (more so than any other GM) but there's an argument that such consistency could also be the Pats' problem. The alternative strategy may be to "binge and purge" a bit . . . spending and drafting for top talent, then having to let some guys go and rebuild to get back in balance with the cap. I'm not convinced one strategy is better than the other. They both have had their successes though, and Reese and Cobert have two super bowls each in recent years, so even if they missed the playoffs last year, they both have also won the big game more than once recently. The Ravens have even more success--being pretty good every year and arguably more successful in the playoffs over the last half dozen years than the Pats.
We've been over this. If Ray Lewis doesn't announce his retirement, does Balt get hot after a crappy finish to their season? Who knows? So, good job by Ray Lewis to announce it and the team to rally around it. BUt, that doesn't make Ozzie Newsome anywhere near as accomplished as BB.
I think there was a lot more to their success than Ray Lewis's announcement. A lot of their slump was due to midseason injuries. They looked good early in the season and late in the season. In-between it really was mostly the fault of injuries. It looks like Newsome may have navigated a challenging offseason this year pretty well too. We'll know come regular season.
DO they have better resumes than BB? Absolutely not. Not even remotely close. The ONLY reason why the media or now you are even mentioning those names is literally because our own teams lost to those GMs in some fashion in recent years.
It's the "not even remotely close" that I can't agree with. I think they are close. Not necessarily better, but pretty darn close.
The fact is, a Tyree catch, a high throw from Brady or Welker drop, etc, means Reese's name doesn't even become a whisper next to BB. Big Ben's SB 40 play was horrrendous, too. To this day the officiating for Cowher in that game is incredibly suspicious.
BB cannot control Tyree's hands or what Brady and Welker do when executing in games. Do you understand this? Those plays are not tied to BB the GM or Reese, Colbert, Newsome, etc.
You can point to all sorts of freak plays that benefitted the Pats too. How about the missed field goal in the AFC championship game in 2011? What about the tuck rule play against Oakland in 2001?
BB has built 5 SB teams. FIVE. If the cap doesn't exist and BB said to Kraft in 2006 "co to SB an we just pay Branch a bit more" with Kraft easily agreeing, we likley g0 to SB 41 and beat Rex Grossman's Bears.
This is exactly the issue though. Why didn't the Pats get Branch signed? Same with Samuel. And maybe they should have kept Seymour.
Same deal in 2009 or 2010 with Seymour. It could have easily been 7 SB built teams. Do you think BB wanted to deal Moss in 2010? Probably not. I kept saying if he just keeps his mouth shut and is a decoy most of the time, with those TEs and BJGE running behind Crumpler, etc, they have a great chance to win it all even with a handful of kids starting on D. But, Moss wanted his deal before the lockout because he knew he'd get squeezed after it and he did.
So, we're talking 6 or 7 SB appearances that we were capable of without a salary cap! That's insane! ANd, that doesn't even count this past year's debacle by our offense again.
The main difference between the Giants or Ravens, Steelers, Packers, etc is they were further along in their teambuilding than we were. Why is this is so hard to understand and why isn't BB allowed to wisely and correctly rebuild on the fly? This is what is annoying about fans like you.
You want to snap your finger and see a veteran, locked down D and it just is impossible to do in the cap era.
ANd Ted Thompson? His plan with Rodgers, trading Favre, etc took guts and turned out great, but they've been 1 and done two years in a row in the postseason and we'll see if they can win another because they really are scrambling these last 2 drafts. He's playin catch up because they lost a slew of FAs all at once after 2010, a la the Giants, Steelers and Ravens.
Do the math.
BB isn/t losing large swaths of personnel off his roster losing mass continuity.
When BB blew up the defensive line in the preseason in 2011 that was a sign that his plan wasn't going well and he had to radically change direction. There are plenty of units on this team that have been treading water for several years. That includes the defensive backfield, the defensive line, and the wide receivers. This despite lots of picks used on those positions, especially the defensive backfield.
BB is clearly superior. Any GM can be a GM of a SB winning team. Bill Polian is one. But, look at the hiccups of said GMs and teams. He hid behind Manning and Manning's toys for a decade and barely escaped for one ring.
Ironically, the QB you excuse or the system he prefers, are the exact root causes of WHY we lost SB 42 and SB 46, or even the AFC title game in 2006. All leads blown, quite frankly, because we couldn't sustain more than 1 drive or score just 1 FG more. 1 FG. Think about that. You can't just lose momentum constantly due to bad offense and expect it not to hurt.
Go look at our second half offenses in each. They score 1 TD in the second half of those games, but the amount of time wasted, momentum losses, field position losses, etc, are all rooted in that preferred base offense.
In my opinion this just supports my opinion that the talent hasn't been there. It's not Brady. It's the lack of great runners and enough great receivers.
I am telling ya. I've been correct this whole time. What's it going to take for fans like you? Another SB loss with 40+ passes, Brady and the offense fading? Why? Why do you want to see it another time?
Again, give Brady more and better targets and get better backs than BJGE and Woodhead. Without Gronk, the offense really suffers. That's the real problem--we're way too dependent on one or two guys. We need more quality weapons so we're not that dependent on so few.
I literally get sick to my stomach watching it happen because I know the result. I knew we'd lose the AFC title game once I saw the hurry up combined with the shotguns and subbing of Ridley on and off with Vereen. I am watching the 2010 Jets vs Stellers right now on NFLN, and the only Sanchez looks decent is because they establish a run for him every single game. Brady actually needs that too as great as Brady is. Gomer needs it in Denver.
Every other pink helmet that has been brainwashed by the anti-BB media comes racing in to blame BB's young D, but that hasn't been the main reason. It's been the secondary reason, because the common denominator in 2007 or 2012 is the pass first base offense.
Also, mediocre Ds aren't stout run stoppes or leading the NFL in turnovers created almost every year for 3 straight seasons. Sorry, your word choice is off. It's a good, solid D with a pass D flaw and some bad luck with injuries (Carter in 2011, Taliba and Jones in 2012).
The D is great against the run, but most good teams throw on 55% to 65% of their offensive plays. If you can't defend more than half the plays effectively, you're not going to be an overall good defense. A pass D flaw is significant in a passing league!
Our D would be better or appear better to fans like you if the above offense I just explained was used LESS.
You're just going to have to get over it, Prolate. I was talking about his after the Week 3 Buffalo debacle for a reason in 2011. It had been lingering for a couple years and it wasn't going away. It was proof positive of the root problem even if our discombobulated, young D off a lockout with no camp blew the lead late. It's rooted EARLIER in those kinds of games. Rooted earlier, on offense.