Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

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

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Comparing BB's 10 best players picked (based on PFR's CarAV rating, rounds 1-4), from the 2006 to the 2012 draft, to the best 10 picks of the SB teams since 2006 and/or the teams that made the playoffs this year.

     

    49ers 436

    Packers 435

    Ravens 433

    Broncos 420

    Saints 401

    Panthers 390

    Bengals 384

    Chiefs 364

    Steelers 347

    Seahawks 326

    Chargers 322

    Eagles 307

    BB 296

    Cardinals 293

    Giants 274

    Bears 274

    Colts 267

     

    So BB comes in 13th out of the 17 teams compared. He has performed about the same as the Cardinals.

     

    There's the facts, now let the homer spin begin.

      




    I'm not sure what your point is.

    With the teams that he has put together, during that span, he has managed to get to two Super Bowls.  In both of those games, his teams were winning with only a couple of minutes remaining.  The reason those teams lost was not about poor drafting (IMO), it was about poor execution.

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

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

    Here is all I need to know about this AV rating being a meaningless stat.

    Brandon Tate - 2009 3rd round pick 

    career - 38 catches 649 yards 4 TDs  

    Player AV = 11

     

    Julian Edelmann - 2009 7th round pick

    career - 174 catches 1770 yards 10 TDs

    Player AV = 10




    I don't know where you're getting this.

    Edelman's career AV is 20, not 10.



    I pulled it directly from Pro Football Reference

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

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

    Here is all I need to know about this AV rating being a meaningless stat.

    Brandon Tate - 2009 3rd round pick 

    career - 38 catches 649 yards 4 TDs  

    Player AV = 11

     

    Julian Edelmann - 2009 7th round pick

    career - 174 catches 1770 yards 10 TDs

    Player AV = 10

     




    I don't know where you're getting this.

     

    Edelman's career AV is 20, not 10.



    I pulled it directly from Pro Football Reference




    He had 9 this year alone. The draft list probably hasn't been updated for this year since it just completed. It's the only really significant year Edelman has had so it being missing is dramatic for him.

     

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

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    OK, then how about this, its got Favre and Manning tied as the all time 'value' leaders, with Elway and Tarkenton also ahead of Brady at 12 and has Joe Montana tied for 27th. It is a stat ho rating.

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

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

    OK, then how about this, its got Favre and Manning tied as the all time 'value' leaders, with Elway and Tarkenton also ahead of Brady at 12 and has Joe Montana tied for 27th. It is a stat ho rating.




    No rating system is perfect. Intangibles are impossible to measure.

    What should we go by, your opinion?

    Over the broad spectrum of 17 teams, 170 draft picks,  spanning 7 years I think their system gives a fairly accurate picture of the relative draft performance. It's not like they are deliberately rating BB's players lower.

    You would probably think it was a great rating system if BB was #1, eh?

     

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

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    Any system that approximates the 'value' of Manning, who was taken with the number one overall pick, should have been expected to be the QB who led his team to multiple super bowl victories, and has been consistently the highest paid player in the league while perfoming poorly at the most ciritcal times, at 34% greater than Brady, who was drafted number 199 and who actually did lead his team to 3 super bowl victories while performing masterfully in crunch time, is fundamentally flawed, not 'imperfect'.

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

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

    Any system that approximates the 'value' of Manning, who was taken with the number one overall pick, should have been expected to be the QB who led his team to multiple super bowl victories, and has been consistently the highest paid player in the league while perfoming poorly at the most ciritcal times, at 34% greater than Brady, who was drafted number 199 and who actually did lead his team to 3 super bowl victories while performing masterfully in crunch time, is fundamentally flawed, not 'imperfect'.




    Meh. These ratings are based on the regular season. He has been a great player in that regard.

    Trashing the rating system because they aren't including the playoffs is pretty nit picky.

    Like I said, what else will we use, your opinion?

     

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

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

    Any system that approximates the 'value' of Manning, who was taken with the number one overall pick, should have been expected to be the QB who led his team to multiple super bowl victories, and has been consistently the highest paid player in the league while perfoming poorly at the most ciritcal times, at 34% greater than Brady, who was drafted number 199 and who actually did lead his team to 3 super bowl victories while performing masterfully in crunch time, is fundamentally flawed, not 'imperfect'.




    Meh. These ratings are based on the regular season. He has been a great player in that regard.

    Trashing the rating system because they aren't including the playoffs is pretty nit picky.

    Like I said, what else will we use, your opinion?

     



    Not claiming BB has been perfect with his drafting, but there are always multiple ways to view things. Should he have kept the picks he used for Welker and Moss and possibly taken players that may have pushed him up some made up 'approximate value' list? I think you be hard pressed to find anyone to say that the production they got from Moss and Welker for a 2, 4 and 7 was a bad decision. In any analysis of a players value, you would have to take into account things like where he was drafted, how much they payed him, and what he actually produced, not just in the regular season. Was Wilt Chamberlain better than Bill Russell? He put up better numbers for his career, I'd take Russell any day. Tell me this, would you rather have Manning than Brady because of his 'approximate value'?

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

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

    Any system that approximates the 'value' of Manning, who was taken with the number one overall pick, should have been expected to be the QB who led his team to multiple super bowl victories, and has been consistently the highest paid player in the league while perfoming poorly at the most ciritcal times, at 34% greater than Brady, who was drafted number 199 and who actually did lead his team to 3 super bowl victories while performing masterfully in crunch time, is fundamentally flawed, not 'imperfect'.




    Meh. These ratings are based on the regular season. He has been a great player in that regard.

    Trashing the rating system because they aren't including the playoffs is pretty nit picky.

    Like I said, what else will we use, your opinion?

     



    Not claiming BB has been perfect with his drafting, but there are always multiple ways to view things. Should he have kept the picks he used for Welker and Moss and possibly taken players that may have pushed him up some made up 'approximate value' list? I think you be hard pressed to find anyone to say that the production they got from Moss and Welker for a 2, 4 and 7 was a bad decision. In any analysis of a players value, you would have to take into account things like where he was drafted, how much they payed him, and what he actually produced, not just in the regular season. Was Wilt Chamberlain better than Bill Russell? He put up better numbers for his career, I'd take Russell any day. Tell me this, would you rather have Manning than Brady because of his 'approximate value'?




    Yeah, we all agree BB has made some good moves, RM and WW being a couple of them. If he was a better GM he would have made many more good moves and much less of the dozens of bad ones.

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

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    I will give the guy credit, I'd put Favre's value at just about the same as I value Manning...

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Over the broad spectrum of 17 teams, 170 draft picks,  spanning 7 years I think their system gives a fairly accurate picture of the relative draft performance. It's not like they are deliberately rating BB's players lower.



    Wouldn't the even broader spectrum of 32 teams, 320 draft picks, be even MORE accurate? Or is BB's drafting better than all of the 15 teams you conveniently omitted, and "13th out of 32" doesn't fit your preconceived narrative as well as "13th out of 17"?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to MattC05's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Over the broad spectrum of 17 teams, 170 draft picks,  spanning 7 years I think their system gives a fairly accurate picture of the relative draft performance. It's not like they are deliberately rating BB's players lower.



    Wouldn't the even broader spectrum of 32 teams, 320 draft picks, be even MORE accurate? Or is BB's drafting better than all of the 15 teams you conveniently omitted, and "13th out of 32" doesn't fit your preconceived narrative as well as "13th out of 17"?




    Sure it would. You're welcome to do that and get back to me.

    It took long enough to tabulate these 17 teams. I was just sort of looking for the "good" teams over that span. That would be BB's "competition", not the bad franchises. It was simple to include all the teams that have appeared in the SB over that time, and the current playoff teams. That seemed like it would give a fair sample of the better teams over the span.

    I wouldn't be shocked at all if BB came in 13th comparing all 32.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from phatcatvirginbuttbuster45. Show phatcatvirginbuttbuster45's posts

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to PhatVirgin's comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Jan 30th 2013.

    http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Whos-been-doing-the-best-job-of-drafting.html

     



    So you claim to support an evaluation that puts BB as a top 5 drafter in the past 10 years and a top 10 drafter in the past 5 years yet you think he is the worst GM in the league and should be fired.  I love this board.

     



    Maybe I'm missing something, but is there any information on how the ratings are calculated?



    BUST-CHISEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Did you think I wouldn't do my job for this board and let them know you are the one and only BUST-CHISE, the world’s biggest and most ridiculous NY Jets Troll? That you hunt for the backsides of your neighbors kitties at night? That you carry an old rag, a torn up Mark Sanchez Jets T-Shirt, and a bottle of chloroform which you use to incapacitate your young feline victims and that it's the reason you call this BUST-CHISE persona "Phat Virgin"?

    You will be known whenever you come here….this I swear to this board….the NY Jets are the worst franchise in the history of the NFL…44 years of laughable failure and ridicule, like Kellen “Vaseline Jazz Hands” Winslow….RUB-A-DUB-DUB, BUST-CHISE, RUB -A--DUB-DUB

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


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

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    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.



    This is a good past Low Football IQ.  I think you are absolutely correct that no team could win as much of the Pats without being talented.  Coaching and schemes are very important in football, but talent still wins games.  And the Pats are very talented.  Brady, Mankins, Gronk, Welker, Wilfork, Mayo, Talib, and even (as a Special Teams guy) Slater are elite players in the league.  Other guys like Vollmer, McCourty, Chandler Jones, Ghostkowski are knocking at the door.  And BB has lots of good mid-tier players, some with potential to be better (Vereen, Ridley, Solder, Edelman, Hightower, Nink, maybe Dennard, and probably some others).

     

    Still, if you are an objective observer of the team, I don't know how you can deny that talent gaps have hurt the team in the playoffs starting in 2009. (2007 is different--in my opinion that was a very good team that caught a bad match-up at the wrong time, with an ageing and dinged up offensive line having to face a young and very talented defensive front playing its best.)  The biggest issue through most of the last five seasons has been a very poor secondary.  It's better with Talib in the mix, but before Talib it was awful.  The stats in 2010, 2011, and the parts of 2012 without Talib don't lie.  The defense gave up big pass plays in droves, often to very bad QBs (remember Orlovsky against them?).  The team won because it scored points in droves too.  The explosive O'Brien offenses (despised by many here, despite being very good) compensated for the poor pass defense.  The problem on offense, however, has been limited weapons in the skill positions beyond Gronk and Welker.  Take Gronk out of the game and the explosive offense tends to fizzle.  That was the case in 2011, 2012, and 2013. The lack of a decent, larger outside receiver has been a continuing problem for the Pats since Moss started to decline in 2009 / 2010.  If you pull Gronk out of the line-up, they really have no one in the passing game who wins one-on-one match-ups in tight coverage, nor have they had anyone who is a truly good downfield receiver who take the top off the defense when they need to force safeties back. The Denver playoff game this year was a perfect example--Denver's defense loaded up the box all first half, leaving just one safety back because they had absolutely no respect for our receivers.  We lost the Denver game mostly because our defense couldn't disrupt the timing of the Manning-led passing game, but we were lame on offense because our receivers simply weren't good enough to force the Denver defense back from the LOS. 

    Over the past five seasons, you can point out other, less significant weakness in talent too, which also contributed to playoff losses: the LBs and DLs have not been consistently strong (with journeyman starters like Gary Guyton and Tully Banta Cain and Kyle Love and Derrick Burgess).  And the offensive line has had weaknesses on the interior.  Injuries, of course, make the situation worse, but there are underlying talent weaknesses that become more significant when key players who cover for those weaknesses (like Gronk or Talib) are hurt.

     

    I'm not saying Belichick is a bad GM because of these weaknesses--every team has weaknesses--but let's not pretend the weaknesses aren't there.  Talent wins games . . . and lack of talent loses them.  It's undeniable that we've lacked sufficient talent in many of our playoff games since 2009.  Injury (especially to Gronk) may have been the key factor in leaving us deficient in talent, but you can't totally ignore the problems building the secondary (lots of failed draft picks) or the lack of attention to the outside WR position (more a choice, I think). 

    Finally, just a comment on the playoff games themselves.  While it's true the Pats lost a very close Super Bowl game in 2011, the fact that that game was close is, in my opinion, symptomatic of the talent issues when Gronk is out.  I think that Giants team was a fairly weak Super Bowl opponent.  Of course, any Super Bowl team is good, but the Giants were one of the weaker Super Bowl teams in years.  They didn't have  a particularly good record that year and fell apart right after the Super Bowl.  The Pats made that Super Bowl with a lot of luck--having to face a lame Tebow-led offense in their first game, then getting very lucky to beat Baltimore in the AFC Championship game.  In 2009, the Pats were blown out, with poor defensive plays and an offense that could do nothing with a heavy reliance on a declining Moss and the lack of a decent running game.  In 2010, we had bonehead plays by secondary players who were drafted with high picks (Chung on the punt and Merriweather in the second half).  In 2012, with Gronk and Talib out, we were absolutely manhandled at home by the Ravens.  And last year, we beat a Colts team with a poor defense and then got destroyed by the Broncos.  

    A lot of people say we lost two Super Bowls because of one or two lucky bounces.  But if a game comes down to just one or two lucky plays, then you really haven't played well enough to earn your victory.  Seattle, for instance, could have withstood multiple lucky bounces against Denver and still won.  Similarly, Denver could have withstood multiple lucky bounces by the Pats and won in the AFC Championship.  Going back to the Pats Super Bowl victory against Carolina, that's exactly what the Pats did.  They dominated on defense for three quarters and when things got crazy in the fourth quarter, they were able to survive the Panther's getting a few lucky plays and still win the game.  When I look at the playoff losses starting in 2009, I see three games that were blowouts where the Pats had little chance.  I see two games--Jets in 2010 and Giants in 2011--where the Pats were close, but against mediocre playoff teams.  This isn't, in my mind, a terribly impressive set of playoff games.  And in all those games I see the primary reason for the losses as gaps in talent which led to execution failures. 

    I certainly don't agree with what certain posters seem to think: that we lost because of the use of the shotgun or because we didn't run enough.  Playcalling isn't the issue in my opinion.  In the end, the teams that beat us were more talented, had more advantageous match-ups against us, and simply executed better.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:



    This is a good past Low Football IQ.  I think you are absolutely correct that no team could win as much of the Pats without being talented.  Coaching and schemes are very important in football, but talent still wins games.  And the Pats are very talented.  Brady, Mankins, Gronk, Welker, Wilfork, Mayo, Talib, and even (as a Special Teams guy) Slater are elite players in the league.  Other guys like Vollmer, McCourty, Chandler Jones, Ghostkowski are knocking at the door.  And BB has lots of good mid-tier players, some with potential to be better (Vereen, Ridley, Solder, Edelman, Hightower, Nink, maybe Dennard, and probably some others).

     

    Still, if you are an objective observer of the team, I don't know how you can deny that talent gaps have hurt the team in the playoffs starting in 2009. (2007 is different--in my opinion that was a very good team that caught a bad match-up at the wrong time, with an ageing and dinged up offensive line having to face a young and very talented defensive front playing its best.)  The biggest issue through most of the last five seasons has been a very poor secondary.  It's better with Talib in the mix, but before Talib it was awful.  The stats in 2010, 2011, and the parts of 2012 without Talib don't lie.  The defense gave up big pass plays in droves, often to very bad QBs (remember Orlovsky against them?).  The team won because it scored points in droves too.  The explosive O'Brien offenses (despised by many here, despite being very good) compensated for the poor pass defense.  The problem on offense, however, has been limited weapons in the skill positions beyond Gronk and Welker.  Take Gronk out of the game and the explosive offense tends to fizzle.  That was the case in 2011, 2012, and 2013. The lack of a decent, larger outside receiver has been a continuing problem for the Pats since Moss started to decline in 2009 / 2010.  If you pull Gronk out of the line-up, they really have no one in the passing game who wins one-on-one match-ups in tight coverage, nor have they had anyone who is a truly good downfield receiver who take the top off the defense when they need to force safeties back. The Denver playoff game this year was a perfect example--Denver's defense loaded up the box all first half, leaving just one safety back because they had absolutely no respect for our receivers.  We lost the Denver game mostly because our defense couldn't disrupt the timing of the Manning-led passing game, but we were lame on offense because our receivers simply weren't good enough to force the Denver defense back from the LOS. 

    Over the past five seasons, you can point out other, less significant weakness in talent too, which also contributed to playoff losses: the LBs and DLs have not been consistently strong (with journeyman starters like Gary Guyton and Tully Banta Cain and Kyle Love and Derrick Burgess).  And the offensive line has had weaknesses on the interior.  Injuries, of course, make the situation worse, but there are underlying talent weaknesses that become more significant when key players who cover for those weaknesses (like Gronk or Talib) are hurt.

     

    I'm not saying Belichick is a bad GM because of these weaknesses--every team has weaknesses--but let's not pretend the weaknesses aren't there.  Talent wins games . . . and lack of talent loses them.  It's undeniable that we've lacked sufficient talent in many of our playoff games since 2009.  Injury (especially to Gronk) may have been the key factor in leaving us deficient in talent, but you can't totally ignore the problems building the secondary (lots of failed draft picks) or the lack of attention to the outside WR position (more a choice, I think). 

    Finally, just a comment on the playoff games themselves.  While it's true the Pats lost a very close Super Bowl game in 2011, the fact that that game was close is, in my opinion, symptomatic of the talent issues when Gronk is out.  I think that Giants team was a fairly weak Super Bowl opponent.  Of course, any Super Bowl team is good, but the Giants were one of the weaker Super Bowl teams in years.  They didn't have  a particularly good record that year and fell apart right after the Super Bowl.  The Pats made that Super Bowl with a lot of luck--having to face a lame Tebow-led offense in their first game, then getting very lucky to beat Baltimore in the AFC Championship game.  In 2009, the Pats were blown out, with poor defensive plays and an offense that could do nothing with a heavy reliance on a declining Moss and the lack of a decent running game.  In 2010, we had bonehead plays by secondary players who were drafted with high picks (Chung on the punt and Merriweather in the second half).  In 2012, with Gronk and Talib out, we were absolutely manhandled at home by the Ravens.  And last year, we beat a Colts team with a poor defense and then got destroyed by the Broncos.  

    A lot of people say we lost two Super Bowls because of one or two lucky bounces.  But if a game comes down to just one or two lucky plays, then you really haven't played well enough to earn your victory.  Seattle, for instance, could have withstood multiple lucky bounces against Denver and still won.  Similarly, Denver could have withstood multiple lucky bounces by the Pats and won in the AFC Championship.  Going back to the Pats Super Bowl victory against Carolina, that's exactly what the Pats did.  They dominated on defense for three quarters and when things got crazy in the fourth quarter, they were able to survive the Panther's getting a few lucky plays and still win the game.  When I look at the playoff losses starting in 2009, I see three games that were blowouts where the Pats had little chance.  I see two games--Jets in 2010 and Giants in 2011--where the Pats were close, but against mediocre playoff teams.  This isn't, in my mind, a terribly impressive set of playoff games.  And in all those games I see the primary reason for the losses as gaps in talent which led to execution failures. 

    I certainly don't agree with what certain posters seem to think: that we lost because of the use of the shotgun or because we didn't run enough.  Playcalling isn't the issue in my opinion.  In the end, the teams that beat us were more talented, had more advantageous match-ups against us, and simply executed better.  

     

     

     

     

     

     




    Pro, do you discount that it is impossible for 2 even teams with equal or similar talent to play an even game? For many reasons during the season and in the playoffs teams play very close games and it comes down to a handful of plays. Those plays can come down to execution, coaching or bounces. Using the example of 42 it came down to a miraculous catch by a no name WR and a missed INT by our supposedly best corner and in 46 our supposed best WR couldn't make a play and their middle of the road WR did. In both SB's  the I would say the  Giants outplayed the Pats in certain facets of the game but in total it was fairly even. What they did do was  execute the critical plays at the critical times and were the beneficiaries of some fortuitous bounces. Were the Giants more talented than the pats in either of those SB's? I don't think so I just think they out executed the Pats when it counted. I would even say in 46 the Pats had more top end talent than the Giants. Just my 2 cents on the subject.

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

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:



    A lot of people say we lost two Super Bowls because of one or two lucky bounces.  But if a game comes down to just one or two lucky plays, then you really haven't played well enough to earn your victory.  Seattle, for instance, could have withstood multiple lucky bounces against Denver and still won.  Similarly, Denver could have withstood multiple lucky bounces by the Pats and won in the AFC Championship.  Going back to the Pats Super Bowl victory against Carolina, that's exactly what the Pats did.  They dominated on defense for three quarters and when things got crazy in the fourth quarter, they were able to survive the Panther's getting a few lucky plays and still win the game.  When I look at the playoff losses starting in 2009, I see three games that were blowouts where the Pats had little chance.  I see two games--Jets in 2010 and Giants in 2011--where the Pats were close, but against mediocre playoff teams.  This isn't, in my mind, a terribly impressive set of playoff games.  And in all those games I see the primary reason for the losses as gaps in talent which led to execution failures. 

     

     




    Pro, do you discount that it is impossible for 2 even teams with equal or similar talent to play an even game? For many reasons during the season and in the playoffs teams play very close games and it comes down to a handful of plays. Those plays can come down to execution, coaching or bounces. Using the example of 42 it came down to a miraculous catch by a no name WR and a missed INT by our supposedly best corner and in 46 our supposed best WR couldn't make a play and their middle of the road WR did. In both SB's  the I would say the  Giants outplayed the Pats in certain facets of the game but in total it was fairly even. What they did do was  execute the critical plays at the critical times and were the beneficiaries of some fortuitous bounces. Were the Giants more talented than the pats in either of those SB's? I don't think so I just think they out executed the Pats when it counted. I would even say in 46 the Pats had more top end talent than the Giants. Just my 2 cents on the subject.



    Yes, and it happens all the time that two close teams are separated mostly by luck. All I'm saying is that in the playoffs since 2009, the Pats have been knocked out of the playoffs in games where they had no chance because they were less talented or where they had a chance but only because the opponent wasn't that strong.  I don't think they've been very competitive against the best playoff teams during these years. They've been a good team, but not an elite one, especially wihen Gronk is out.

     

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:



    A lot of people say we lost two Super Bowls because of one or two lucky bounces.  But if a game comes down to just one or two lucky plays, then you really haven't played well enough to earn your victory.  Seattle, for instance, could have withstood multiple lucky bounces against Denver and still won.  Similarly, Denver could have withstood multiple lucky bounces by the Pats and won in the AFC Championship.  Going back to the Pats Super Bowl victory against Carolina, that's exactly what the Pats did.  They dominated on defense for three quarters and when things got crazy in the fourth quarter, they were able to survive the Panther's getting a few lucky plays and still win the game.  When I look at the playoff losses starting in 2009, I see three games that were blowouts where the Pats had little chance.  I see two games--Jets in 2010 and Giants in 2011--where the Pats were close, but against mediocre playoff teams.  This isn't, in my mind, a terribly impressive set of playoff games.  And in all those games I see the primary reason for the losses as gaps in talent which led to execution failures. 

     

     




    Pro, do you discount that it is impossible for 2 even teams with equal or similar talent to play an even game? For many reasons during the season and in the playoffs teams play very close games and it comes down to a handful of plays. Those plays can come down to execution, coaching or bounces. Using the example of 42 it came down to a miraculous catch by a no name WR and a missed INT by our supposedly best corner and in 46 our supposed best WR couldn't make a play and their middle of the road WR did. In both SB's  the I would say the  Giants outplayed the Pats in certain facets of the game but in total it was fairly even. What they did do was  execute the critical plays at the critical times and were the beneficiaries of some fortuitous bounces. Were the Giants more talented than the pats in either of those SB's? I don't think so I just think they out executed the Pats when it counted. I would even say in 46 the Pats had more top end talent than the Giants. Just my 2 cents on the subject.



    Yes, and it happens all the time that two close teams are separated mostly by luck. All I'm saying is that in the playoffs since 2009, the Pats have been knocked out of the playoffs in games where they had no chance because they were less talented or where they had a chance but only because the opponent wasn't that strong.  I don't think they've been very competitive against the best playoff teams during these years. They've been a good team, but not an elite one, especially wihen Gronk is out.

     



    I don't disagree especially this year and in the 2 Baltimore playoff loses. The crux of the argument boils down to the roster and the players selected to be on the roster. Have mistakes been made in the draft and free agency? Absolutely, but both the draft and free agency are not sciences and I don't know one team that is perfect in either discipline. heck, the Seahawks won the SB with 20+ UDFA on the roster.

     

     

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    A lot of people say we lost two Super Bowls because of one or two lucky bounces.  But if a game comes down to just one or two lucky plays, then you really haven't played well enough to earn your victory.


    I don't buy this argument.  Just getting to the Super Bowl is a huge achievement in itself, and the Pats eeked out a few playoff victories along the way just to get to the SB.  If you dominate on one side of the ball like the Seahawks -- great.  That SB was never in doubt and the Seahawks proved they were a better squad.  But if you win by 1 point or 30, you're still the SB champ and you probably had some luck along the way to get to the top of the mountain.  Football will forever be a game where one bad bounce, one drop or 1 yard changes the game.   

    The NY D-line owned the Pats in their two SB matchups.  The Pats were in position to win both of those games, but the Giants made the plays at crucial times and the Pats didn't.  You could argue that the Tyree miracle catch, the Samuel dropped INT, the Welker drop, etc. changed the outcome of the game.  But even had the Pats had prevailed, would we be saying it was a hollow victory because the Giants' D line dominated the Pats?  I wouldn't be saying that, I doubt anyone would be saying that.  Because the Giants had some fortunate plays in their first SB matchup(Tyree, Samuel) doesn't mean they didn't deserve to win because the game was a close one.  The winner is the winner. 

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

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:



    A lot of people say we lost two Super Bowls because of one or two lucky bounces.  But if a game comes down to just one or two lucky plays, then you really haven't played well enough to earn your victory.  Seattle, for instance, could have withstood multiple lucky bounces against Denver and still won.  Similarly, Denver could have withstood multiple lucky bounces by the Pats and won in the AFC Championship.  Going back to the Pats Super Bowl victory against Carolina, that's exactly what the Pats did.  They dominated on defense for three quarters and when things got crazy in the fourth quarter, they were able to survive the Panther's getting a few lucky plays and still win the game.  When I look at the playoff losses starting in 2009, I see three games that were blowouts where the Pats had little chance.  I see two games--Jets in 2010 and Giants in 2011--where the Pats were close, but against mediocre playoff teams.  This isn't, in my mind, a terribly impressive set of playoff games.  And in all those games I see the primary reason for the losses as gaps in talent which led to execution failures. 

     

     




    Pro, do you discount that it is impossible for 2 even teams with equal or similar talent to play an even game? For many reasons during the season and in the playoffs teams play very close games and it comes down to a handful of plays. Those plays can come down to execution, coaching or bounces. Using the example of 42 it came down to a miraculous catch by a no name WR and a missed INT by our supposedly best corner and in 46 our supposed best WR couldn't make a play and their middle of the road WR did. In both SB's  the I would say the  Giants outplayed the Pats in certain facets of the game but in total it was fairly even. What they did do was  execute the critical plays at the critical times and were the beneficiaries of some fortuitous bounces. Were the Giants more talented than the pats in either of those SB's? I don't think so I just think they out executed the Pats when it counted. I would even say in 46 the Pats had more top end talent than the Giants. Just my 2 cents on the subject.



    Yes, and it happens all the time that two close teams are separated mostly by luck. All I'm saying is that in the playoffs since 2009, the Pats have been knocked out of the playoffs in games where they had no chance because they were less talented or where they had a chance but only because the opponent wasn't that strong.  I don't think they've been very competitive against the best playoff teams during these years. They've been a good team, but not an elite one, especially wihen Gronk is out.

     



    I don't disagree especially this year and in the 2 Baltimore playoff loses. The crux of the argument boils down to the roster and the players selected to be on the roster. Have mistakes been made in the draft and free agency? Absolutely, but both the draft and free agency are not sciences and I don't know one team that is perfect in either discipline. heck, the Seahawks won the SB with 20+ UDFA on the roster.

     

     



    Yeah, and like I said, I think BB does a good job.  I might quibble at times with his value focus, but overall there's nothing to complain about. Still, I see no reason not to call it as I see it, and if you ask me the number one reason they've lost in the playoffs since 2009, I'd say gaps in talent, mostly on defense, but also among the receivers.  Some of that is due to injury and some due to team building decisions.  It's not an attack on Belichick, it's just the fact of life in the NFL where it's not easy to build teams with elite talent in all units.

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from phatricosbuttbuster45. Show phatricosbuttbuster45's posts

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

     

    BUST-CHISEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Did you think I wouldn't do my job for this board and let them know you are the one and only BUST-CHISE, the world’s biggest and most ridiculous NY Jets Troll? That you hunt for the backsides of your neighbors kitties at night? That you carry an old rag, a torn up Mark Sanchez Jets T-Shirt, and a bottle of chloroform which you use to incapacitate your young feline victims and that it's the reason you call this BUST-CHISE persona "Phat Virgin"?

    And how about all your other names BUST-CHISE ?

    Among them are:

    Bustify

    Uncle Rico

    Manning Rules

    Meadowland Mike

    Mile High Mike

    Bungalo Bill

    Wewerrdat

    You will be known whenever you come here….this I swear to this board….the NY Jets are the worst franchise in the history of the NFL…44 years of laughable failure and ridicule, like Kellen “Vaseline Jazz Hands” Winslow….RUB-A-DUB-DUB, BUST-CHISE, RUB -A--DUB-DUB

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from phatricosbuttbuster45. Show phatricosbuttbuster45's posts

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to PhatVirgin's comment:

    Dick, I guess your still hopping mad about being Rusty Trombone.  You have to admit, it was funny.




     

    BUST-CHISEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Did you think I wouldn't do my job for this board and let them know you are the one and only BUST-CHISE, the world’s biggest and most ridiculous NY Jets Troll? That you hunt for the backsides of your neighbors kitties at night? That you carry an old rag, a torn up Mark Sanchez Jets T-Shirt, and a bottle of chloroform which you use to incapacitate your young feline victims and that it's the reason you call this BUST-CHISE persona "Phat Virgin"?

    And how about all your other names BUST-CHISE ?

    Among them are:

    Bustify

    Uncle Rico

    Manning Rules

    Meadowland Mike

    Mile High Mike

    Bungalo Bill

    Wewerrdat

    Fletcherbrook

    Footballexpert45

    You will be known whenever you come here….this I swear to this board….the NY Jets are the worst franchise in the history of the NFL…44 years of laughable failure and ridicule, like Kellen “Vaseline Jazz Hands” Winslow….RUB-A-DUB-DUB, BUST-CHISE, RUB -A--DUB-DUB

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from kjfitone. Show kjfitone's posts

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Comparing BB's 10 best players picked (based on PFR's CarAV rating, rounds 1-4), from the 2006 to the 2012 draft, to the best 10 picks of the SB teams since 2006 and/or the teams that made the playoffs this year.

     

    49ers 436

    Packers 435

    Ravens 433

    Broncos 420

    Saints 401

    Panthers 390

    Bengals 384

    Chiefs 364

    Steelers 347

    Seahawks 326

    Chargers 322

    Eagles 307

    BB 296

    Cardinals 293

    Giants 274

    Bears 274

    Colts 267

     

    So BB comes in 13th out of the 17 teams compared. He has performed about the same as the Cardinals.

     

    There's the facts, now let the homer spin begin.

     

     

     i used to look forward to the draft almost as much as a game. not any more though because you know its going to be a huge let down. name a pick that was worse than tavon wilson... there are guys that are busts but usually they are at least good in college and seem like nfl talent. tavon wilson stunk in college and wasnt on any teams draft board. bb used a second round pick on the guy while passing on sure pro bowlers. it may be the worst pick in nfl history and left even casual fans scratching their heads. looks almost like bb was trying to sabotage the team. the only reason hes still on the team is to save face. not to pick on wilson   there are dozens of more terrible picks. he had so many picks that the patriots could be  a juggernaught right nowm unfortunately most of them were wasted.

     

     

     

     




     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Comparing BB's drafting to the competition.

    In response to kjfitone's comment:

     i used to look forward to the draft almost as much as a game. not any more though because you know its going to be a huge let down.

     



    So true. We are simply watching the slow death of a behemoth thanks to poor decision making.

     

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share