Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatFanInBA2. Show PatFanInBA2's posts

    Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    Here is a dilemma..Patriots have been consistently good for the past decade+. They made playoffs every year (except one), but have not won the big one in a long time. 

    Because we make the playoffs and more often than not, go deep, one of the issues is that we have been forced to pick in the tail end. This in turn means BB has to gamble.

    On the other hand, NYG wins the SB in 2007 then they tank, get good picks and come back to win the SB again.

    So.. given a choice between being perennially good (but not winning the SB) and constantly moving  between being great and terrible, what would you pick?

     

     

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    the celtics forum is next door

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    When did the Giants tank? Between their two Super Bowls, their worst season was 8-8.

    SEA has the best defense in football. Outside of Thomas and Irvin (14th and 15th) they have no 1st round picks starting on D.

    This is kind of a dumb post. Patriots don't have to tank to become good. Here's a list of players in the third round and later, that if drafted by the Pats, could have made them significantly better:

     

    Geno Atkins, Richard Sherman, Alterraun Verner, Greg Hardy, Ladarius Webb, Jimmy Graham, Eric Decker, Jurrell Casey, Russel Wilson, Colin Kaepernick, Arian Foster, Navarro Bowman, etc.

    Don't discount cheap FA's either.

     

    Think about how man teams consistently pick at the top (i.w. Detroit, Oakland, Jax) and tell me how many of them became great.

     

    You have to hit on your picks and FA's...Doesn't matter if you're consistently drafting bottom 5 or top 5...There's talent all over the draft. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    In response to CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:

    the celtics forum is next door



    Haha. True. This subject applies more for the NBA

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    The big wild card in any NFL team's season is injuries.  Loading up for one year can be wasted if you get hit with a lot of injuries to key players.  I think it best to be perennially good rather than building for one possibly great year. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourjays30. Show fourjays30's posts

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    In response to PatFanInBA2's comment:

    Here is a dilemma..Patriots have been consistently good for the past decade+. They made playoffs every year (except one), but have not won the big one in a long time. 

    Because we make the playoffs and more often than not, go deep, one of the issues is that we have been forced to pick in the tail end. This in turn means BB has to gamble.

    On the other hand, NYG wins the SB in 2007 then they tank, get good picks and come back to win the SB again.

    So.. given a choice between being perennially good (but not winning the SB) and constantly moving  between being great and terrible, what would you pick?

     

     




    Actually your theory is spot on. That is the way the NFL is designed. When you win you are always picking in the draft at the bottom. Plus every team is only allowed to spend the same amount of money. To constantly be picking at the bottom of the draft and fielding a team that is always in at least the top 4 is truly amazing. On the flip side its amazing that teams like Cleveland, Detroit etc. never break through. I could see where others might want to load up spend all the money and wreck the team for many years after but I would prefer the way the organization is run now.

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    The question really boils down to this:

    Load up for a year, two at best, with the assumption that by doing so the team will not only make a SB appearance but win it.  And that is an assumption.

    OR

    Take the Kraft/BB approach and remain competitive year after year knowing when in the playoffs anything can happen.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourjays30. Show fourjays30's posts

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    The question really boils down to this:

    Load up for a year, two at best, with the assumption that by doing so the team will not only make a SB appearance but win it.  And that is an assumption.

    OR

    Take the Kraft/BB approach and remain competitive year after year knowing when in the playoffs anything can happen.




    +1

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    I think this does get at the difference between Belichick's team-building philosophy and many other GMs' philosophies.  I'm not sure anyone really wants to get strong and then tank in alternating years in rollercoaster fashion, but I do think some GMs are more willing to risk cap problems down the road to get a more complete and talented team in one or two years. For these GMs, making some big investments in talented individuals (and maybe even overpaying a bit) is a risk worth taking, even if it may make the team very dependent on those individuals delivering the expected performance and may make it very hard for the team to adjust if one or more of those individuals does not deliver. Belichick, on the other hand, prefers to preserve his flexibility to make moves and adjust to change, and therefore resists too many of these big, binding investments in individuals. The Belichick approach emphasizes depth and flexibility to change as needed.  Its downside is it may result in talent gaps (some which last for long times). The other approach emphasizes higher talent levels, but its downside is the lack of flexibility and the possibility of a significant decline if individuals fail to deliver because of age, injury, or declines in performance. 

    As fourjays said above, the NFL system is designed to make it tough for the most talented teams to stay that way year after year.  The salary cap and draft rules force talented teams to give up some of that talent and make it hard for them to replace it with the same quality talent.  So tradeoffs are required.  The question becomes which is the better tradeoff?  Do you do what Belichick does and stay competitive year after year but maybe not competitive enough against the best teams to win a championship?  Or do you gamble on a big year, but risk being a bad team down the road?  I'm not sure there's a right answer.  I think it's a matter of preference. 

     

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    This is ridiculous. The Pats have made the playoffs every year since their last SB in 2004 except the 11-5 Cassell year. In order to win a SB you have to make the playoffs, once that happens it's anyones game. In 2007 they lost the SB on a freak one handed catch on the top of a helemet. In 2011 they lost  another SB because of a dropped pass. In 2012 they lost the AFC title game due to many reasons one being a momentum changing drop. This year they lost on the road to a  team that set all sorts of records offensively and if we want to assign a reason blame the coaching for the gane plan and lack of adjustments in game.

    Bottom line is I'll take the opportunity to have a chance. A few different bounces and who knows.

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    In any given year, some team could be super talented vs the rest of the league if the GM is willing to mortgage the future. In general I'd say more teams take this approach because the GM is there near term and has incentive to mortgage the future for the NOW since they're GM NOW and may very well not be in the future. The GM generally doesn't have an incentive to take a long term approach.

    With the patriots ownership and BB, they have the strategy of long term. I like this approach, makes the season more interesting and as long as you make playoffs you can be hopeful the team can string together a few great games (or opponent makes mistakes).

    Brady may only have 3 yrs or so left, but I'll still be a Pats fan after he's gone. After he's gone we'll probably need spend the $$ on a great free agent QB.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourjays30. Show fourjays30's posts

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    Typically your best qb's are from the draft not FA. Unless your the donkey's who never have drafted a decent QB. Now don't start talking about Elway as he and how he became a Bronco is one of the reason I don't like them.

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    Well the thing is you don't have to tank to be good, there is other ways aside from the draft alone, there is free agency. I believe we should of taken a risk and went for it at least once during the past 7 years since 07, because I believe it would of brought us a super bowl, i really do. The year before 07 ( the year we chose not to resign Branch and ended up with Reche Caldwell) was another example of how our budgeting cost us a super bowl. Remember that year? We were mere minutes away from winning in Indy, yet we blew a 20 point lead, how would that of gone if we were playing at home? How would it of gone if we had Branch instead Caldwell dropping balls that hit him right in the hands? Because we would of played Chicago in that Super Bowl and Chicago didn't represent the NFC well...hell even Manning didn't screw that up.

    What are we so worried about of as fans if we go for it? Let's say we spend big and the following year end up having to cut players or have to sign lower priced free agents for a year...do you watch what this team does anyway? That is exactly what we do virtually every year! How did our last three off seasons go, seriously? WE signed Fanene, Gregory, A. Wilson, Schiancoe, Fells, Lloyd, Shaun Ellis, Robert Gallery, Trevor Scott...hell even Andre Carter and Mark Anderson were bargain basement signings. So basically we already ARE operating as if we spent big and went for it, yet we haven't. 

    And let's not forget every year for the past 3-4 years this team has had to spend October and November trying out and signing street free agents...guys that weren't even in football, to come START on this team and play in our biggest games of the year. We literally march in and out 20 different guys from October till December. That is what you expect from teams that spent wildly in free agency and lost, but there is a flip side to it as well...this is what happens when you don't initially sign the right players and have to go to your 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th options to find someone who can play. Do you remember us doing this when the team was stacked with guys like Rodney Harrison, Seymore, Ty Law, Bruschi, McGinnest, Givens, Branch, Patten, Dillion, Vrabel? Hell no!

    If we are going to continue to shop in the bargain bin then at least sign the right guys, I don't have a lot of confidence that we can do that...which is why I'd love to see them take a calculated risk in the Macy department. I can live with the consequences of having to "pay" for that two years from now.

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    This is ridiculous. The Pats have made the playoffs every year since their last SB in 2004 except the 11-5 Cassell year. In order to win a SB you have to make the playoffs, once that happens it's anyones game. In 2007 they lost the SB on a freak one handed catch on the top of a helemet. In 2011 they lost  another SB because of a dropped pass. In 2012 they lost the AFC title game due to many reasons one being a momentum changing drop. This year they lost on the road to a  team that set all sorts of records offensively and if we want to assign a reason blame the coaching for the gane plan and lack of adjustments in game.

    Bottom line is I'll take the opportunity to have a chance. A few different bounces and who knows.



    Ghost, I'm fine with Belichick's approach.  In fact, I'm mostly interested in watching good football, so a team like the Pats is great for me even if they don't win it all.  The place where I do disagree with you a bit, though, is the highlighted statement.  I don't think the teams that make the playoffs really have equal chances.  Sure, "on any given Sunday . . ."  but going into the playoffs this year I thought the Pats were a longshot to win it all because of the injuries.  In 2011, once Gronk got injured, I also thought we had a poor chance of winning in the Super Bowl, despite the luck of a relatively weak NFC opponent.  Really, the Giants in 2011 were a mediocre Super Bowl team, which a good AFC team should have beaten handily.  The fact that the game was so close was only because the Pats' defense was atrocious that year and our offense without Gronk was pretty lame.  We weren't very competitive in 2009, 2010. In 2012, we were fine against paper tigers like the Texans but were brutally overmatched by the Ravens. 

    I'm not complaining about Belichick's approach, but I am realisitic about the tradeoffs.  We've had some real piecemeal units since 2007--the secondary and the WRs, in particular, and those weak units have hurt us in some big games. 

     

     

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    Belichick is never in the position of "win this year or get fired".  BB doesn't have to mortgage the future of the franchise in order to win now at any cost.

    It's the badly run franchises that go for broke then sink to the bottom.

    The moon, the sun and the stars have to align to win it all.  If a team stays consistently competitive, eventually things will fall into place.

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    For me the issue goes to heart of failing to win a 4th title post 2007. You all know that I don't preach at the same church as the national sports media but it is what it is. It angers me to no end when I travel around and the "friendly" abuse I put up with once I'm Identified as a Pats fan.

    The wasted chances irk me to no end....and not for the lack of a 4th bling for another finger but for the chance to tell some of the folks around the country to S T F U..........

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    Constantly trading back and selecting chit, no one ever heard of, because you think you're the smartest guy in the room has nothing to do with winning.  It's a failed approach by a failed coach/GM who has been riding the coat tails of the greatest QB to ever play the game.  

    Unfortunately BB has cost us as many Super Bowls as he's won With Parcells and Carroll's guys.

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    This is ridiculous. The Pats have made the playoffs every year since their last SB in 2004 except the 11-5 Cassell year. In order to win a SB you have to make the playoffs, once that happens it's anyones game. In 2007 they lost the SB on a freak one handed catch on the top of a helemet. In 2011 they lost  another SB because of a dropped pass. In 2012 they lost the AFC title game due to many reasons one being a momentum changing drop. This year they lost on the road to a  team that set all sorts of records offensively and if we want to assign a reason blame the coaching for the gane plan and lack of adjustments in game.

    Bottom line is I'll take the opportunity to have a chance. A few different bounces and who knows.



    Ghost, I'm fine with Belichick's approach.  In fact, I'm mostly interested in watching good football, so a team like the Pats is great for me even if they don't win it all.  The place where I do disagree with you a bit, though, is the highlighted statement.  I don't think the teams that make the playoffs really have equal chances.  Sure, "on any given Sunday . . ."  but going into the playoffs this year I thought the Pats were a longshot to win it all because of the injuries.  In 2011, once Gronk got injured, I also thought we had a poor chance of winning in the Super Bowl, despite the luck of a relatively weak NFC opponent.  Really, the Giants in 2011 were a mediocre Super Bowl team, which a good AFC team should have beaten handily.  The fact that the game was so close was only because the Pats' defense was atrocious that year and our offense without Gronk was pretty lame.  We weren't very competitive in 2009, 2010. In 2012, we were fine against paper tigers like the Texans but were brutally overmatched by the Ravens. 

    I'm not complaining about Belichick's approach, but I am realisitic about the tradeoffs.  We've had some real piecemeal units since 2007--the secondary and the WRs, in particular, and those weak units have hurt us in some big games. 

     

     

    I understand no team is perfect including teams that win the SB.

    I look at it this way. If you are good enough to make the playoffs and win games then you have opportunity.

    2005 - 6th seed SB winner

    2006 - 3 seed SB winner

    2007 - 5th seed SB winner

    2008 - 2 seed SB winner

    2009 - 1st seed SB winner 

    2010 - 6th seed SB winner

    2011 - 4th seed SB winner

    2012 - 4th seed SB winner

    2103 - will be a 1st seed

    Bottom line for me is if you can get to the dance the opportunity is there especially with a well run consistent organization. 

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    The question really boils down to this:

    Load up for a year, two at best, with the assumption that by doing so the team will not only make a SB appearance but win it.  And that is an assumption.

    OR

    Take the Kraft/BB approach and remain competitive year after year knowing when in the playoffs anything can happen.




    OR

    Make intellgent decisions on draft day and in free agency consistently, and dominate.

    C'mon, what are the chances of one person being the best coach and best GM? Zilch.

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    This is ridiculous. The Pats have made the playoffs every year since their last SB in 2004 except the 11-5 Cassell year. In order to win a SB you have to make the playoffs, once that happens it's anyones game. In 2007 they lost the SB on a freak one handed catch on the top of a helemet. In 2011 they lost  another SB because of a dropped pass. In 2012 they lost the AFC title game due to many reasons one being a momentum changing drop. This year they lost on the road to a  team that set all sorts of records offensively and if we want to assign a reason blame the coaching for the gane plan and lack of adjustments in game.

    Bottom line is I'll take the opportunity to have a chance. A few different bounces and who knows.



    Ghost, I'm fine with Belichick's approach.  In fact, I'm mostly interested in watching good football, so a team like the Pats is great for me even if they don't win it all.  The place where I do disagree with you a bit, though, is the highlighted statement.  I don't think the teams that make the playoffs really have equal chances.  Sure, "on any given Sunday . . ."  but going into the playoffs this year I thought the Pats were a longshot to win it all because of the injuries.  In 2011, once Gronk got injured, I also thought we had a poor chance of winning in the Super Bowl, despite the luck of a relatively weak NFC opponent.  Really, the Giants in 2011 were a mediocre Super Bowl team, which a good AFC team should have beaten handily.  The fact that the game was so close was only because the Pats' defense was atrocious that year and our offense without Gronk was pretty lame.  We weren't very competitive in 2009, 2010. In 2012, we were fine against paper tigers like the Texans but were brutally overmatched by the Ravens. 

    I'm not complaining about Belichick's approach, but I am realisitic about the tradeoffs.  We've had some real piecemeal units since 2007--the secondary and the WRs, in particular, and those weak units have hurt us in some big games. 

     

     

    I understand no team is perfect including teams that win the SB.

    I look at it this way. If you are good enough to make the playoffs and win games then you have opportunity.

    2005 - 6th seed SB winner

    2006 - 3 seed SB winner

    2007 - 5th seed SB winner

    2008 - 2 seed SB winner

    2009 - 1st seed SB winner 

    2010 - 6th seed SB winner

    2011 - 4th seed SB winner

    2012 - 4th seed SB winner

    2103 - will be a 1st seed

    Bottom line for me is if you can get to the dance the opportunity is there especially with a well run consistent organization. 



    Making the playoffs is certainly better than not making them.  Still, I sometimes wonder if the Pats could have been more competitive if they had invested just a bit more in some quality free agents and higher draft picks.  It's so obvious what a difference Talib made.  Why, though, did we only get a guy like that when we were desperate and there was an unusual (and somewhat lucky) opportunity to get a player like him cheap?  What if we had made the investment in a decent corner going into 2011?   What about WR?  This year the lack of depth in the receiver corp really hurt us against Denver.  What if we had invested in a true quality guy back in 2010 after Moss left rather than wasting time with Branch and Stallworth and Lloyd and Ochocinco and then having to hope some mid round draft picks this year would develop into quality receivers fast?

     

     

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    This is ridiculous. The Pats have made the playoffs every year since their last SB in 2004 except the 11-5 Cassell year. In order to win a SB you have to make the playoffs, once that happens it's anyones game. In 2007 they lost the SB on a freak one handed catch on the top of a helemet. In 2011 they lost  another SB because of a dropped pass. In 2012 they lost the AFC title game due to many reasons one being a momentum changing drop. This year they lost on the road to a  team that set all sorts of records offensively and if we want to assign a reason blame the coaching for the gane plan and lack of adjustments in game.

    Bottom line is I'll take the opportunity to have a chance. A few different bounces and who knows.



    Ghost, I'm fine with Belichick's approach.  In fact, I'm mostly interested in watching good football, so a team like the Pats is great for me even if they don't win it all.  The place where I do disagree with you a bit, though, is the highlighted statement.  I don't think the teams that make the playoffs really have equal chances.  Sure, "on any given Sunday . . ."  but going into the playoffs this year I thought the Pats were a longshot to win it all because of the injuries.  In 2011, once Gronk got injured, I also thought we had a poor chance of winning in the Super Bowl, despite the luck of a relatively weak NFC opponent.  Really, the Giants in 2011 were a mediocre Super Bowl team, which a good AFC team should have beaten handily.  The fact that the game was so close was only because the Pats' defense was atrocious that year and our offense without Gronk was pretty lame.  We weren't very competitive in 2009, 2010. In 2012, we were fine against paper tigers like the Texans but were brutally overmatched by the Ravens. 

    I'm not complaining about Belichick's approach, but I am realisitic about the tradeoffs.  We've had some real piecemeal units since 2007--the secondary and the WRs, in particular, and those weak units have hurt us in some big games. 

     

     

    I understand no team is perfect including teams that win the SB.

    I look at it this way. If you are good enough to make the playoffs and win games then you have opportunity.

    2005 - 6th seed SB winner

    2006 - 3 seed SB winner

    2007 - 5th seed SB winner

    2008 - 2 seed SB winner

    2009 - 1st seed SB winner 

    2010 - 6th seed SB winner

    2011 - 4th seed SB winner

    2012 - 4th seed SB winner

    2103 - will be a 1st seed

    Bottom line for me is if you can get to the dance the opportunity is there especially with a well run consistent organization. 



    Making the playoffs is certainly better than not making them.  Still, I sometimes wonder if the Pats could have been more competitive if they had invested just a bit more in some quality free agents and higher draft picks.  It's so obvious what a difference Talib made.  Why, though, did we only get a guy like that when we were desperate and there was an unusual (and somewhat lucky) opportunity to get a player like him cheap?  What if we had made the investment in a decent corner going into 2011?   What about WR?  This year the lack of depth in the receiver corp really hurt us against Denver.  What if we had invested in a true quality guy back in 2010 after Moss left rather than wasting time with Branch and Stallworth and Lloyd and Ochocinco and then having to hope some mid round draft picks this year would develop into quality receivers fast?

     

     



    I wouldn't argue that some mistakes were made because obviously there were some made... Some very costly ones. It is easy to look back and wonder what if... that is our luxury. The brain trust doesn't have that luxury... they are sitting in planning meetings looking at the depth chart, looking at the salary cap, looking out multiple years roster wise and cap wise and then trying to decide how to build a 53 man roster under league mandated financial limitations. They have to decide based on their current roster where they need to stop gap, where they need to build for future years and how they are going to make it work.

    The bottom line it is very easy for us as fans to look at eveything in a vacuum... which I am guilty of just as much as the next fan but for the orginization the model they have built does not afford them that opportunity. I understand that some fans do not like that approach and they have every right as fans to voice their criticism. IMHO I believe they give themselves the best opportunity year in and year out to win... which they could have easliy won 2 more SB's since 2004. Unfortunately it comes down to a few plays that determine the outcome of those games and they didn't make the plays or execute the plays needed. Again, IMHO not making those plays are not a result of the big picture planning.  You could argue that having the opportunity to make those plays can be a result of the big picture planning.

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    I understand no team is perfect including teams that win the SB.

    I look at it this way. If you are good enough to make the playoffs and win games then you have opportunity.

    2005 - 6th seed SB winner

    2006 - 3 seed SB winner

    2007 - 5th seed SB winner

    2008 - 2 seed SB winner

    2009 - 1st seed SB winner 

    2010 - 6th seed SB winner

    2011 - 4th seed SB winner

    2012 - 4th seed SB winner

    2103 - will be a 1st seed

    Bottom line for me is if you can get to the dance the opportunity is there especially with a well run consistent organization. 



    Ghost, those teams got hot at the right time, up'd their game, had talent in the right places to match up with their opponents.

    The main issue with the Pats is that what they are in the regular season is what they are in the postseason or more. They don't have the higher level talent to up their game like they did in the early 00's or don't have the talent to go much further then they have. Truth is Brady and BB (the coach) was the main reason they have gotten where they have. Even with them they have been blon out and out matched in a lot of the years they've made the playoffs since 07'. They weren't even in games with real talent most years because they didn't have the talent to match up.

    As far as you just have to make the playoffs to have a chance to win, would you say that to the Chargers or how about Cin? Face it not all teams are built equally. Some are built for the regular season and some are built for the playoffs. The Pats are essentially the Colts pre 06'. Great regular season team but come playoffs would fail. During that time period what were you saying about them? 

    Would you want the Sox to be the Braves or would you want the Red Sox to win it like they did? How about the Celtics would you rather have seen them stuck in that weird NBA limbo or cash in all their chips for a couple higher end players and make a run at a trophy?

    I keep hearing don't mortage the future it's all about the future. Well the future is life without Brady and BB. They won't last forever and the window is closing fast. What happens after they are gone? Are you going to say well we are a .500 team now but at least we didn't waste this future?

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    I understand no team is perfect including teams that win the SB.

    I look at it this way. If you are good enough to make the playoffs and win games then you have opportunity.

    2005 - 6th seed SB winner

    2006 - 3 seed SB winner

    2007 - 5th seed SB winner

    2008 - 2 seed SB winner

    2009 - 1st seed SB winner 

    2010 - 6th seed SB winner

    2011 - 4th seed SB winner

    2012 - 4th seed SB winner

    2103 - will be a 1st seed

    Bottom line for me is if you can get to the dance the opportunity is there especially with a well run consistent organization. 



    Ghost, those teams got hot at the right time, up'd their game, had talent in the right places to match up with their opponents.

    The main issue with the Pats is that what they are in the regular season is what they are in the postseason or more. They don't have the higher level talent to up their game like they did in the early 00's or don't have the talent to go much further then they have. Truth is Brady and BB (the coach) was the main reason they have gotten where they have. Even with them they have been blon out and out matched in a lot of the years they've made the playoffs since 07'. They weren't even in games with real talent most years because they didn't have the talent to match up.

    As far as you just have to make the playoffs to have a chance to win, would you say that to the Chargers or how about Cin? Face it not all teams are built equally. Some are built for the regular season and some are built for the playoffs. The Pats are essentially the Colts pre 06'. Great regular season team but come playoffs would fail. During that time period what were you saying about them? 

    Would you want the Sox to be the Braves or would you want the Red Sox to win it like they did? How about the Celtics would you rather have seen them stuck in that weird NBA limbo or cash in all their chips for a couple higher end players and make a run at a trophy?

    I keep hearing don't mortage the future it's all about the future. Well the future is life without Brady and BB. They won't last forever and the window is closing fast. What happens after they are gone? Are you going to say well we are a .500 team now but at least we didn't waste this future?



    PatsEng read my last post in response to pro. The premise of the thread was about being consistently good. The model this team has chosen to follow no doubt is a contraversial one but it is subjective as to whether it is right or wrong. As I said in my post to pro they could have easily won 2 more SB's. As I also said in my post to pro we have the luxury of hindsight and and looking at the present in a vacuum they don't. Most fans overvalue the talent they had on the 2004 team especially Bruschi and Vrabel... they were gritty, tough good/smart players that bought into a sytem and played key roles in support of stars like Seymour and Harrison. Don't forget they won that SB with a 2nd year corner and an undrafted rookie. In my opinion and it is no better or worse than anyones here... the Pats have been good enough to win SB's since 2004 and they just haven't executed in critical spots, especially players we consider to be their stars.

    As I stated in a previous post... nobody can deny mistatkes were made but I just don't see any team being perfect and I certainly think in the 2 SB's they lost they were more than capable of beating the opponent.

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

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    I think I understand the Belichick approach . . . and I think it's generally a good one.  I love the team and love the fact that they play high-quality, highly competitive football year in and year out. I wouldn't trade them for any other team.

    My only point is that I think the OP is right that there are alternative approaches and the alternatives aren't necessarily bad.  They may result in less consistency from year to year, but the highs may be higher just as the lows are lower. 

    At times, I wonder if Belichick should be just a bit more willing to step out and get talent.  Maybe he learned his lesson just a tad too well with Adalius Thomas who cost a ton and didn't deliver.  But maybe he's become too risk averse since then with free agent signings and is being just a bit too cautious.  It's very hard to tell, because just a few bad decisions on expensive players can lead to major consequences.  I wouldn't criticize Belichick . . . but every once in a while I wonder if we should have signed just one or two more accomplished free agents.  Heck, maybe we should have gone ahead and given Welker a three year contract before franchising him.  We paid $9.5 million for him for one year, then lost him and had to replace him with Amendola this year at $4 million or so against the cap and seem stuck with Amendola next year for about $5 million against the cap.   Would signing Welker before we franchised him for three years at $20 million been so bad?

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share