Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.
posted at 2/5/2014 12:49 PM EST
I would only ask the following questions for those that think BB doesn't know what he is doing as a GM.
If BB the GM does not think much of a player to draft him or want him as a FA, what exactly makes you think BB the coach would want the player to play for him?
They might be different titles but are the same person making the same football ability decisions. It is one person with the exact same mindset.
If there was a different GM that everyone wanted and he brought in players instead of BB but then BB cuts half of them because he can't use them because they are not what he is looking for in his system, or they are excellent talents but stupid do you think he plays them? What prevents him from cutting them if he does not think much of them? Do you think he does not eventually pull a Bill Parcells and say hey if they want you to cook the meal they should let you buy the groceries?
Are the people that complain about him as a GM trying to say that a real GM just collects talent and potential in a vacuum, without a coaches marching ordersof what he's looking for? Even if the GM had the final decision he often shares the same vision of the coach and tries to find what the coach is looking for. Do they not realize that BB, and most likely most coaches who know what they are doing, try and find players that fit not only specific roles, but also the team culture and what qualities the coach values in a player? Not just who is the best athlete or has the best CFB stats? If you are questioning the later few things then you are not questioning BB the GM at all. You are questioning BB the coach. That is fine as well, anyone should feel free to question anything they like without ridicule but don't kid yourself or anyone else as to what you are actually questioning.
Anyone can go google and find any report, graph, or table from a dozen sites that will have some opinion based on some specific set of data and requirements that they created to try and put some sort of difinitive stamp of what organizations have done what in regards to team building/drafting, etc.
They are ALL completely subjective to what value is placed on what criteria. Is it more important how many players you drafted are on your team currently? Is it more important how many years each player you drafted stayed on your team? Is it most important how many players you drafted stayed in the league on any team, and for how long? Is it most important how many probowlers or all pro players you drafted, whether they are still on your team or not? Is the number of players who stayed the healthiest and played in the most total number of games in the NFL the most important? Is it most important that a player drafted was successful in any system he played in, for any team, rather than only in specific roles or systems with a specific team? The subjectivity is absolutely endless.
I read most often on here that you can't win without great players. In large part there is a lot of truth to that. At least you can't win without your best players playing or playing their best. No matter how good of a coach you are you also have to have good players playing and playing excellent to win. So if we agree those statements are true, how would people explain away the following?
Since 2005 (9 seasons since Pats won SB last)
patriots 2 seasons of 10 wins or less (both 10 win seasons)
Colts 2 seasons of 10 wins or less (one 10 win season)
ravens 5 seasons of 10 wins or less (one 10 win season)
Steelers 5 seasons of 10 wins or less (one 10 win season)
Packers 5 seasons of 10 wins or less (one 10 win seasons)
Saints 5 seasons of 10 wins or less (one 10 win seasons)
Seahawks 6 seasons of 10 wins or less (one 10 win season)
Bears 6 seasons of 10 wins or less (one 10 win season)
49ers 6 seasons of 10 wins or less (zero 10 win seasons)
Broncos 6 seasons of 10 wins or less (zero 10 win seasons)
Giants 7 seasons of 10 wins or less (two 10 win seasons)
eagles 8 seasons of 10 wins or less (three 10 win seasons)
Cardinals 9 seasons of 10 wins or less (two 10 win seasons)
So even after 3 superbowls in 4 years the Patriots have still never had a single season with less than 10 wins.
Not one organization that has played in a superbowl since 2004 can say that. NOT one.? Other than the Patriots.
How do they win so much? They must have talent. I know BB and Brady and great but we just agreed you can't win without talent. People can not have the argument both ways. This is NOT to say BB as a GM is "the best". I do not think there is anyone who can quantify that or say that any GM is this or that as any sort of fact.
However, you do not win at that rate, or have an undefeated regular season, or make it to two more superbowls without doing very well for yourself in the team building department.
To put a final stamp of my two cents on the subject let's look at the two superbowl losses.
In each case the game was able to be pretty much be sealed away by arguably some of or the most talented players on the team.
2007 Harrison and Samuel, at the time beloved by Patriots fans and widely accepted as excellent players. Samuel by simply holding on to a pass thrown into his hands and Harrison by simply pulling a mans single arm away from his body while using both his arms to do so. Both failed miserably. This was NOT a lack of the GM not having talent on the team. It was a epic failure by exceptional talent in the biggest moment.
2011 Brady and Welker have a broken coverage play and only need to complete an easy pitch and catch to most likely seal the game. Brady either grips that ball too tightly or gets too excited and rushes it. He throws a horrendous pass and Welker, although needing to twist in the air and slam to the ground upside down, has his hands on it and can not maintain possession from the impact. Both players arguably the single best players in the league, at the time, at their respective positions. Again, that was NOT a lack of the GM not having talent on the team. It was a epic failure by exceptional talent in the biggest moment.
To be clear, I am NOT saying those things are the reasons for the losses. Only that they were game defining moments of the games that were failed by the best of talents not the weakest of talents. Remember what I said, you can not win without your best players playing in the bigs games AND playing exceptional.
I honeslty do not know how anyone of sane mind can not look at the data, difficulties of sustainability in a parity/salary cap era, etc and come to the conclusions that BB as a GM is awful, stinks, or even just average. He's clearly proven otherwise. Even if you only wanted to say he was the 10th best. That still seems better than average to me and a heck of a lot better than awful, stinks or even the worst.