Are all "top 100" picks really going to be solid starters?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

     

    All you have here is an agenda to prove that you are smarter than BB and everyone else and you can't do that without distorting everything.

     




    RESPONSE: Whatever...LOL!! When I ponder who is the greater fool...the fool himself or the one who follows the fool...I must conclude that you are an even greater fool than Rusty.

     



    I think the greatest fool is someone that professes to be a fan of a team but is never happy with what the team does. Not only is it foolish, it is down-right sad and pathetic.  

    And just to let you know, I don't follow anyone here. I have my own opinions. That they align with people on here other than you is coincidence.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to mia76's comment:

    I think there is no question that 'studs' are more likely in the top 15 than in the last 5 picks of round one. But the cost of moving from say #29 into say #12 is either the whole rest of you draft picks, or gutting your future drafts. And the cost to move even higher is devastating to your draft for years to come. So I think we can pretty well forget BB doing that kind of trade.

    The trades that are available at more reasonable costs are the ones like last year moving up 5 or 7 picks later in round #1, but even those moves gutted the rest of the draft and were only possible because BB had so much extra draft cap in that year. So they are going to happen pretty rarely.

    And by pick 29 the quality of player based on evaluation in most years is probably little different from what is available at 40 so if you can find a trade back for good additional value it makes a ton of sense. There are no guaranteed studs at pick 29.



    I agree the 5-7 pick move up makes the most sense if a player is available and there might not be a large difference between 29-40 (though it does depend on year like in 09') but moving from 29 to 52 might make a differnce. Especially if those extra picks don't end up making a contribution. I've said before and I'll say again, I had no trouble with him moving back what I had trouble with is how far back he traded. That's where I think a lot of peoples biggest fears come into play. Same as moving up too much can cause you to gut your draft moving back too much for extra picks could land you in an area where the players you get don't make a large enough impact that you couldn't have found similar players via FA or in UDFA (Pats seem to have a good UDFA scouting department). It's a fine line to walk and sometimes the Pats have come out on the better end and sometimes they shot them selves in the foot. But before dismissing moving up look at a team like Atl. They've moved up to get players they want a couple times now, the main difference between them and the Pats? Ryan vs Brady. Switch the QBs and is there any doubt that Atl would be in championship games every year. Sometimes you need to move up to get impactful players and sometimes you need to build quality depth, this year imo we were a couple players away so I'd rather have the impactful player though I'm pretty excited to see what Collins and Dobson can bring to the table and MB was pretty high on Ryan so I trust his opinion. The rest I could take or leave and have no real strong feeling towards them in the least. I'm pretty high on Moe right now though and Sudfeld (I'm telling you guys to watch this kid esp if Gronk might miss sometime early in the season)

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     


    RESPONSE: Well well well...if it isn't my good friend, Tanass! Thank you for yet another informative post...LOL!!! 

     

     




    Is "Tanass" the best you can come up with? Are you out of grade school yet? Seriously, get on some meds....life really isn't so miserable because you didn't get your way....I know your world is ending over 1 draft pick....but maybe some therapy might help you? The Lions called, and want to know if you might be interested in joining their fan club....Just be yourself, you'll blend right in.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

     

    All you have here is an agenda to prove that you are smarter than BB and everyone else and you can't do that without distorting everything.

     




    RESPONSE: Whatever...LOL!! When I ponder who is the greater fool...the fool himself or the one who follows the fool...I must conclude that you are an even greater fool than Rusty.

     


    I'd pat myself on the back for my prescient comments about the way TP operates if he hadn't demonstrated such tactics so frequently before, but it is important to point out that his first response since my comments did exactly what I said.  The guy is more predictable and obvious than the sun on a cloudless day. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    I hate to be a "piler on", but what the heck.  Its always fun to see TP go silent.  He's as obnoxious as they come when the arguments begin.

    RESPONSE: Dog(ggggg), after all the times I've caught you in lies, embarrassed, and humiliated you here...your react is quite understandable...LOL!!!  

    When he's lost his footing he responds with the "off-subject" distractions (e.g. the hockey playoffs), possibly some ad hominems, and then frequently finishes with a "whatever you say. LOL!!!". 

    RESPONSE; That's rich! This from a guy who has admitted to misdirecting and misquoting posters here, in order to re-direct discussions, and buttress his illogical, ignorant arguments...LOL!!!

    And then he walks away. I have no doubt that he may be attempting to put together a reseached retort, but original research has never been TP's M.O.  He seeks insight from other writers'/pundits' material, so we may just have silence until he finds a new subject he likes.  My bet is that it will come from Coldhardfootballfacts.com. 

    RESPONSE: So...your upset because I back up my opinions from time to time with facts, and articles written by knowledgable folks? Quite unlike you...who makes stuff up, and then comically back-peddles faster than Darrelle Revis when caught in a lie...LOL!!! 

     




     

     



    TP!! - Welcome back, and thank you for validating my post. 

     

    Citing opinion articles written by others does not constitute backing up your own opinions with facts.  IMO, you rarely have an original opinion.  Generally, your opening posts to a discussion include articles you've read.  You parrot the writer's opinion claiming it as your own, but it really isn't.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to mia76's comment:

     

    I think there is no question that 'studs' are more likely in the top 15 than in the last 5 picks of round one. But the cost of moving from say #29 into say #12 is either the whole rest of you draft picks, or gutting your future drafts. And the cost to move even higher is devastating to your draft for years to come. So I think we can pretty well forget BB doing that kind of trade.

    The trades that are available at more reasonable costs are the ones like last year moving up 5 or 7 picks later in round #1, but even those moves gutted the rest of the draft and were only possible because BB had so much extra draft cap in that year. So they are going to happen pretty rarely.

    And by pick 29 the quality of player based on evaluation in most years is probably little different from what is available at 40 so if you can find a trade back for good additional value it makes a ton of sense. There are no guaranteed studs at pick 29.

     



    I agree the 5-7 pick move up makes the most sense if a player is available and there might not be a large difference between 29-40 (though it does depend on year like in 09') but moving from 29 to 52 might make a differnce. Especially if those extra picks don't end up making a contribution. I've said before and I'll say again, I had no trouble with him moving back what I had trouble with is how far back he traded. That's where I think a lot of peoples biggest fears come into play. Same as moving up too much can cause you to gut your draft moving back too much for extra picks could land you in an area where the players you get don't make a large enough impact that you couldn't have found similar players via FA or in UDFA (Pats seem to have a good UDFA scouting department). It's a fine line to walk and sometimes the Pats have come out on the better end and sometimes they shot them selves in the foot. But before dismissing moving up look at a team like Atl. They've moved up to get players they want a couple times now, the main difference between them and the Pats? Ryan vs Brady. Switch the QBs and is there any doubt that Atl would be in championship games every year. Sometimes you need to move up to get impactful players and sometimes you need to build quality depth, this year imo we were a couple players away so I'd rather have the impactful player though I'm pretty excited to see what Collins and Dobson can bring to the table and MB was pretty high on Ryan so I trust his opinion. The rest I could take or leave and have no real strong feeling towards them in the least. I'm pretty high on Moe right now though and Sudfeld (I'm telling you guys to watch this kid esp if Gronk might miss sometime early in the season)

     



    I do agree that the 5-7 move can be impactful, but it is hard to do year after year as you are stripping out the middle round players that build depth (and occasional positive surprises.) This year I think you hit it in terms of those three Collins, Dobson, Ryan, and I would add Boyce. I think in Dobson/Boyce double dip BB hit a huge need, and I like them as much as any WRs available from 29 on. And I think Collins and Ryan have the potential to be really good as well. So if BB doesn't trade back you get only three of those positions filled, and that doesn't include Harmon who I suspect will be the best safety taken after the middle of the third round. Who knows if he will be good enough, but I'll trust BB to chose at least an intriguing player.

    A trade up would have cut the pciks to two, and I think BB wasn't all that excited about prospects available at 29.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    I hate to be a "piler on", but what the heck.  Its always fun to see TP go silent.  He's as obnoxious as they come when the arguments begin.

    RESPONSE: Dog(ggggg), after all the times I've caught you in lies, embarrassed, and humiliated you here...your react is quite understandable...LOL!!!  

    When he's lost his footing he responds with the "off-subject" distractions (e.g. the hockey playoffs), possibly some ad hominems, and then frequently finishes with a "whatever you say. LOL!!!". 

    RESPONSE; That's rich! This from a guy who has admitted to misdirecting and misquoting posters here, in order to re-direct discussions, and buttress his illogical, ignorant arguments...LOL!!!

    And then he walks away. I have no doubt that he may be attempting to put together a reseached retort, but original research has never been TP's M.O.  He seeks insight from other writers'/pundits' material, so we may just have silence until he finds a new subject he likes.  My bet is that it will come from Coldhardfootballfacts.com. 

    RESPONSE: So...your upset because I back up my opinions from time to time with facts, and articles written by knowledgable folks? Quite unlike you...who makes stuff up, and then comically back-peddles faster than Darrelle Revis when caught in a lie...LOL!!! 

     

    TP!! - Welcome back, and thank you for validating my post.

    RESPONSE: Your posts are vnever validated.Just tolerated. Don't you have some stables to clean, or something? 

     Citing opinion articles written by others does not constitute backing up your own opinions with facts.

    RESPONSE: Typical Doggie-do. Lying, misquoting, and misdirecting. Here's what I said: "...I back up my opinions from time to time with facts, and articles written by knowledgable folks..." Articles do in fact buttress an opinion, when they are based upon facts, and written by knowledgable people...which, of course, does not include the likes of Rusty, or yourself.

    IMO, you rarely have an original opinion.

    RESPONSE: We all know just how much weight your opinion carries around here. By the way, congratulations on your pre-draft job wit the Colts, as "Director of Misinformation"...LOL!!

     Generally, your opening posts to a discussion include articles you've read.  You parrot the writer's opinion claiming it as your own, but it really isn't. 

    RESPONSE: Parroting Rusty now, are we?? Really Dog(ggggg)...are you so desperate to try to get at me that you formed an alliance with Rusty?? How pathetic is that...LOL!!!   




     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to mia76's comment:

     

    I do agree that the 5-7 move can be impactful, but it is hard to do year after year as you are stripping out the middle round players that build depth (and occasional positive surprises.) This year I think you hit it in terms of those three Collins, Dobson, Ryan, and I would add Boyce. I think in Dobson/Boyce double dip BB hit a huge need, and I like them as much as any WRs available from 29 on. And I think Collins and Ryan have the potential to be really good as well. So if BB doesn't trade back you get only three of those positions filled, and that doesn't include Harmon who I suspect will be the best safety taken after the middle of the third round. Who knows if he will be good enough, but I'll trust BB to chose at least an intriguing player.

     

    A trade up would have cut the pciks to two, and I think BB wasn't all that excited about prospects available at 29.



    Yes you are correct you can't do that every year and it depends on your current depth situation. In the Pats case, with exception of WR and CB I looked at this team as having solid depth all around while needing to add a couple of impactful players in the pass rush, WR area. As such when I looked at the trade I was perfectly happy to move back and gain an extra pick in the 3rd but only if the move didn't put then too far back with solid pickups and this one was pushing it for me. In the range they ended up picking really it comes down to that they could of had Collins, Dobson, and Ryan without moving so to me the question marks become what Harmon, Boyce, and Collins provide vs what you could have gotten by staying at #29. If for instance (given the release of Deadrick and Love) they picked up Short, Hankins, or Carradine instead of the combo of those 3 and still ended up with Ryan and Dobson which package would have been better. Now Boyce and Harmon have to provide more then solid depth to me because solid depth players at those positions they could have gotten via FA (they have the cap room and need to spend it or lose it this year) or via UDFA (Moe and now Harrison competing against Boyce). If Boyce becomes a legit #3 WR and Harmon becomes a rotational player with Wilson then that's good enough for me to say it was a win but if Boyce never gets higher then a #4 WR and Harmon becomes a STer and dime S then that's not something I'd feel like we couldn't have gotten in some other manner. All in all to me this whole trade was a fairly sizable gamble on BB's part (just because of how far back he moved and the players taken) and I'm not sure the players he received back for that gamble will make it worth the trade but they haven't played yet so while have to wait and see for now.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Are all

    TexasPat is seeking an employment opportunity in the Obama Administration's Communications office. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Are all

    I've said this so many times my jaw and fingers are getting sore; BB has managed to turnover his roster from a dynasty team to a team that routinely makes the playoffs (take a look at 2004 roster, then 2007 roster then 2012 roster). Like any GM he has his hits and misses, all of which is trumped by the fact that he gets his team to the post-season with a roster that is different every year. He does all this despite the fact that, with scheduling, a salary cap, and draft positioning the league rules mandate parity. And you know where most  impactful players are drafted in the top 15. Impact is also one of those terms that can be loosely defined did Talib make an impact (draft choice traded)or did Dennard (7th round) make an impact or is that term only applied to the Luck and RG III 's of the draft (high picks that overwhelmingly succeed).  Pretty difficult to attain perfection in a game that is designed to be imperfect.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to UD6's comment:

    TexasPat is seeking an employment opportunity in the Obama Administration's Communications office. 




    http://www.cagle.com/2013/05/benghazi-talking-points/

     

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to JohnHannahrulz's comment:

    I've said this so many times my jaw and fingers are getting sore; BB has managed to turnover his roster from a dynasty team to a team that routinely makes the playoffs (take a look at 2004 roster, then 2007 roster then 2012 roster). Like any GM he has his hits and misses, all of which is trumped by the fact that he gets his team to the post-season with a roster that is different every year. He does all this despite the fact that, with scheduling, a salary cap, and draft positioning the league rules mandate parity. And you know where most  impactful players are drafted in the top 15. Impact is also one of those terms that can be loosely defined did Talib make an impact (draft choice traded)or did Dennard (7th round) make an impact or is that term only applied to the Luck and RG III 's of the draft (high picks that overwhelmingly succeed).  Pretty difficult to attain perfection in a game that is designed to be imperfect.



    Good question. I would consider impact someone who is an improvement over the person they replace while making either enough steady plays to effect the outcome or the couple game changing plays that effect the outcome. With that in mind impactful players can come from anywhere (including UDFA) but the odds of finding these types of players increase the closer you do get to pick #1. As such imo you can find a impactful player anywhere but that doesn't mean you should be looking just anywhere.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Are all

    Agree Patseng to some degree. The situation is different when you have a veteran "incumbant" heavy roster. At no point did I think Oscar Lua and Shawn Crable were going to replace Bruschi and Vrabal in the line-up. Also think that BB favors character/high football I.Q. players over impressive combine numbers. There is no point in running 4.5 if you're  always in the wrong place to make a play. This could mean that potential draftees are passed on ( Janoris Jenkins would be fairly recent example of character red flags). Not saying BB is the only one who does it this way only that teams evaluate players deifferently.

    Rusty. Agree BB never puts the team in cap hell and seldom goes all in free agents just to create a two or three year window to make the playoffs (see Jets). BB is taking a long term building approach as opposed to a short term fix. As stated, for me it all comes down to how well you allocate your money and resources. Waters was good signing for the money, Adalius Thomas was not.

    Like most I think a healthy Gronk for an entire post-season would serve the Pats well even if it means giving Ballard snaps on running plays. The margin of error in the post-season decreases; you can't turn the ball over three times and expect to win unless the other team turns the ball over five times.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to JohnHannahrulz's comment:

    Agree Patseng to some degree. The situation is different when you have a veteran "incumbant" heavy roster. At no point did I think Oscar Lua and Shawn Crable were going to replace Bruschi and Vrabal in the line-up. Also think that BB favors character/high football I.Q. players over impressive combine numbers. There is no point in running 4.5 if you're  always in the wrong place to make a play. This could mean that potential draftees are passed on ( Janoris Jenkins would be fairly recent example of character red flags). Not saying BB is the only one who does it this way only that teams evaluate players deifferently.

    Rusty. Agree BB never puts the team in cap hell and seldom goes all in free agents just to create a two or three year window to make the playoffs (see Jets). BB is taking a long term building approach as opposed to a short term fix. As stated, for me it all comes down to how well you allocate your money and resources. Waters was good signing for the money, Adalius Thomas was not.

    Like most I think a healthy Gronk for an entire post-season would serve the Pats well even if it means giving Ballard snaps on running plays. The margin of error in the post-season decreases; you can't turn the ball over three times and expect to win unless the other team turns the ball over five times.



    I agree with this, hence why pick them? Wouldn't the picks been better spent being used to move up and get a slightly better player? It's one of those things where if they have the vets and depth then moving up and increasing the chances at a higher talent player should be the goal unless you get a great package to move back where the drop in pick is insignificant to where you were picking in the first place (ie 29 to say inside 40's area) or the value for the following year is too good (ie a mid-late 2nd for a 1st next year). BB also does value combine numbes just different ones then most. Look at 3 cone and 20 shuttle and you'll find a lot of familar names

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to JohnHannahrulz's comment:

     

    Agree Patseng to some degree. The situation is different when you have a veteran "incumbant" heavy roster. At no point did I think Oscar Lua and Shawn Crable were going to replace Bruschi and Vrabal in the line-up. Also think that BB favors character/high football I.Q. players over impressive combine numbers. There is no point in running 4.5 if you're  always in the wrong place to make a play. This could mean that potential draftees are passed on ( Janoris Jenkins would be fairly recent example of character red flags). Not saying BB is the only one who does it this way only that teams evaluate players deifferently.

    Rusty. Agree BB never puts the team in cap hell and seldom goes all in free agents just to create a two or three year window to make the playoffs (see Jets). BB is taking a long term building approach as opposed to a short term fix. As stated, for me it all comes down to how well you allocate your money and resources. Waters was good signing for the money, Adalius Thomas was not.

    Like most I think a healthy Gronk for an entire post-season would serve the Pats well even if it means giving Ballard snaps on running plays. The margin of error in the post-season decreases; you can't turn the ball over three times and expect to win unless the other team turns the ball over five times.

     



    I agree with this, hence why pick them? Wouldn't the picks been better spent being used to move up and get a slightly better player? It's one of those things where if they have the vets and depth then moving up and increasing the chances at a higher talent player should be the goal unless you get a great package to move back where the drop in pick is insignificant to where you were picking in the first place (ie 29 to say inside 40's area) or the value for the following year is too good (ie a mid-late 2nd for a 1st next year). BB also does value combine numbes just different ones then most. Look at 3 cone and 20 shuttle and you'll find a lot of familar names

     



    This is a very fair question. What I assume BB would say is the problem with this is you can't do it regularly without having a very depleted set of picks.  They did it last year and ended up with very few picks this year, which actually kind of forced them to trade down.  So maybe you do it once in a while, but you can't do it every draft. 

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     


    This is a very fair question. What I assume BB would say is the problem with this is you can't do it regularly without having a very depleted set of picks.  They did it last year and ended up with very few picks this year, which actually kind of forced them to trade down.  So maybe you do it once in a while, but you can't do it every draft. 

     



    But the picks this year were used for:

    • 4th on Talib
    • 5th on Haynesworth
    • 6th on Ocho

    So moving up last year had no effect on the picks for this year. It was actually bad trades for vets (Talib being the only trade still on the team) that depleted the picks. So I would argue that if done right, depending on need, players in he draft, and depth currently on roster of course, you can effectively move up 5-10 spots in choosen rounds without depleting future picks at the cost of mid round picks in that year. Not a bad thing if you have good depth. However, if you need to build depth then moving back would be the right move and stock piling picks and players. Or, if you feel there is no player worth the pick moving into the following year (if possible) is the best option. To me you should only add extra mid round picks if you are targetting a specific falling player or unless you don't like any player at the time and you can't trade into next year.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Are all

    Still they gave up a third and fourth rounder last year to jump up a few spots.  Those picks could have been converted to higher picks this year if they had wanted.  If you trade up consistently, you will end up with fewer picks, which will not only limit your selections but also make it harder to trade up in future years or acquire veterans like Talib.  I'm not defending BB's strategy Eng because I share your same reservations.  But I can see the other side too.  Personally, I mostly like what BB has done to increase picks, but I think it also has its downside, which is a lot of midround picks used on a lot of mediocre players, many of whom provided little value in the end. I don't buy Rusty's hyperbole, but I also don't buy TexPat's constant complaining.  I see trade offs, which probably weigh slightly in favour of BB's strategy, but there are still some significant downsides associated with that strategy (as any look at our secondary over the past several years will make clear).

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Still they gave up a third and fourth rounder last year to jump up a few spots.  Those picks could have been converted to higher picks this year if they had wanted.  If you trade up consistently, you will end up with fewer picks, which will not only limit your selections but also make it harder to trade up in future years or acquire veterans like Talib.  I'm not defending BB's strategy Eng because I share your same reservations.  But I can see the other side too.  Personally, I mostly like what BB has done to increase picks, but I think it also has its downside, which is a lot of midround picks used on a lot of mediocre players, many of whom provided little value in the end. I don't buy Rusty's hyperbole, but I also don't buy TexPat's constant complaining.  I see trade offs, which probably weigh slightly in favour of BB's strategy, but there are still some significant downsides associated with that strategy (as any look at our secondary over the past several years will make clear).

     



    I think we are seeing the same thing and are on the same page. The next couple years though I'm more concerned with the closing Brady window and think we have good depth as it stands. I liked that they moved up to get players who couldhelp in their first and second years and hoped they would continue. From what I see, most mid round picks take 2-4 years to fully develop (with rare exception) so if I'm looking at 3-4 years in Bradys career left I'm not overly concerned about future picks or developing players but more so with getting players that can come in day 1 and contribute. I liked the strategy early in Brady's career (until all those vet signings that failed every year after 07') but unless Mallett is the next Young or we get a Rogers in the next couple years drafts I'd be willing to trade a little future performance for immediate help. Esp, considering the great young core and young depth we currently have. 

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Still they gave up a third and fourth rounder last year to jump up a few spots.  Those picks could have been converted to higher picks this year if they had wanted.  If you trade up consistently, you will end up with fewer picks, which will not only limit your selections but also make it harder to trade up in future years or acquire veterans like Talib.  I'm not defending BB's strategy Eng because I share your same reservations.  But I can see the other side too.  Personally, I mostly like what BB has done to increase picks, but I think it also has its downside, which is a lot of midround picks used on a lot of mediocre players, many of whom provided little value in the end. I don't buy Rusty's hyperbole, but I also don't buy TexPat's constant complaining.  I see trade offs, which probably weigh slightly in favour of BB's strategy, but there are still some significant downsides associated with that strategy (as any look at our secondary over the past several years will make clear).

     

     



    I think we are seeing the same thing and are on the same page. The next couple years though I'm more concerned with the closing Brady window and think we have good depth as it stands. I liked that they moved up to get players who couldhelp in their first and second years and hoped they would continue. From what I see, most mid round picks take 2-4 years to fully develop (with rare exception) so if I'm looking at 3-4 years in Bradys career left I'm not overly concerned about future picks or developing players but more so with getting players that can come in day 1 and contribute. I liked the strategy early in Brady's career (until all those vet signings that failed every year after 07') but unless Mallett is the next Young or we get a Rogers in the next couple years drafts I'd be willing to trade a little future performance for immediate help. Esp, considering the great young core and young depth we currently have. 

     

     




    Dude, look:   Brady has to play better in the postseason. So his "closing window" is as much about how he plays than it is 52 other players on the roster kissing his butt because he's going ot the HOF.

     

    Just get over it. He's been subpar in the postseason and average at best in these postseason games of late.

    I am more worried on if his head is screwed on right in key situations than I am with ANY young player he's drafted here in recent years.

    Brady has been given so many free passes by you and others in recent years, I just can't even believe it.

    Mt Hurl, just yesterday, called his play in the postseason lately playing at "a high level".

    My oh my. Oh my.

    I cannot take anyone seriously who says things like that. Can't do it.



    I trust BB knows what he's doing by putting Brady out there. Are you questioning BB that Brady shouldn't be the QB because you feel he can't get it done?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

     

    All you have here is an agenda to prove that you are smarter than BB and everyone else and you can't do that without distorting everything.

     




    RESPONSE: Whatever...LOL!! When I ponder who is the greater fool...the fool himself or the one who follows the fool...I must conclude that you are an even greater fool than Rusty.

     

     



    I think the greatest fool is someone that professes to be a fan of a team but is never happy with what the team does. Not only is it foolish, it is down-right sad and pathetic.  

    RESPONSE: What a pathetic homer...LOL!!!

    And just to let you know, I don't follow anyone here. I have my own opinions. That they align with people on here other than you is coincidence.

    RESPONSE: When you find yourself agreeing with Rusty on a regular basis, it's time to seek help, my friend.




     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to UD6's comment:

    TexasPat is seeking an employment opportunity in the Obama Administration's Communications office. 



    RESPONSE: Is this the best you've got, Dog(ggggg)?? LOL!!! 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to tanbass' comment:

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     


    RESPONSE: Well well well...if it isn't my good friend, Tanass! Thank you for yet another informative post...LOL!!! 

     

     




    Is "Tanass" the best you can come up with?

    RESPONSE: Yes! LOL!!!

    Are you out of grade school yet?

    RESPONSE: In grad school, I was taught to deal with people on their level...LOL!!

    Seriously, get on some meds...

    RESPONSE: Gee Tanass...how original! Is that the best you could come up with??...LOL!!!

    .life really isn't so miserable because you didn't get your way....I know your world is ending over 1 draft pick....but maybe some therapy might help you?

    RESPONSE: You're the one losing sleep over my commentary. I'm the one laughing at your commentary. Tell me, now...which of us needs help??? LOL!!

    The Lions called, and want to know if you might be interested in joining their fan club....Just be yourself, you'll blend right in.

    RESPONSE: You're such a pathetic homer...LOL!!!

     




     

Share