Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

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

    For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    For you Doom And Gloomers,

    I can recall two years ago having to defend myself for leaving Gabe Cirimi off my board (rameakap sound familiar?) and placing Solder as my top rated offensive player/tackle in the draft.  

    Kiper, McShay and the rest built this guy up, now he is on the bubble and likely to be cut... This is a bust, not some third round player who couldn't catch on with the best team in the NFL.

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/14/gabe-carimi-is-only-bear-to-skip-first-day-of-otas/

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    Well said.

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    Someone once said "It is what it is."  Seems to apply here.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    People use the word bust in various ways to support their own arguments on BOTH sides. 

    From a high first I expect probowls. A second half first a standout player at least. 

    Second rounders must be starters.

    Third rounders should at least be on the team as contributors/downs guys. Special teamers.

    Fourth/Fifth, I'm happy if they are depth/competition for a few seasons. 

    6-7 Just make it through camp and provide competition. 

    For someone to truly be a "BUST" not an argument bust, they really have to fall beneath my expectations by three levels. 

    Freak injuries on players without a history, of course, don't make them busts. They are just unfortunate selections. Players drafted for "value" because they have an injury they are recovering from or a history of nagging injuries are in my opinion busts if injuries derail their career because your GM took that gamble. 



    +1 great definition

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    People use the word bust in various ways to support their own arguments on BOTH sides. 

    From a high first I expect probowls. A second half first a standout player at least. 

    Second rounders must be starters.

    Third rounders should at least be on the team as contributors/downs guys. Special teamers.

    Fourth/Fifth, I'm happy if they are depth/competition for a few seasons. 

    6-7 Just make it through camp and provide competition. 

    For someone to truly be a "BUST" not an argument bust, they really have to fall beneath my expectations by three levels. 

    Freak injuries on players without a history, of course, don't make them busts. They are just unfortunate selections. Players drafted for "value" because they have an injury they are recovering from or a history of nagging injuries are in my opinion busts if injuries derail their career because your GM took that gamble. 



    I would agree with everything you state except for your classification of second rounders must be starters. I would add  "or specialist". As in a "rush specialist" or a wr that is not a starter but plays a significant number of snaps.

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    People use the word bust in various ways to support their own arguments on BOTH sides. 

    From a high first I expect probowls. A second half first a standout player at least. 

    Second rounders must be starters.

    Third rounders should at least be on the team as contributors/downs guys. Special teamers.

    Fourth/Fifth, I'm happy if they are depth/competition for a few seasons. 

    6-7 Just make it through camp and provide competition. 

    For someone to truly be a "BUST" not an argument bust, they really have to fall beneath my expectations by three levels. 

    Freak injuries on players without a history, of course, don't make them busts. They are just unfortunate selections. Players drafted for "value" because they have an injury they are recovering from or a history of nagging injuries are in my opinion busts if injuries derail their career because your GM took that gamble. 

     




    Agreed with this rationale.  The word "bust" is used way too liberally around this place.  Guys like Maroney, Watson and Meriweather were useful players for a while - hardly busts.  Guys like second and third rounders C. Jackson,  Wheatley, Butler, Crable, Price, etc. can be considered busts, and their lacks of contribution likely hurt this team a bit.  But what is the overall success rate and what is the methodology to declaring "draft success" or "failure"?  BB has always found guys where others didn't see the talent or were scared about their fit or attitude -  Mankins, Vollmer, Hernandez, Dennard, Edelman, Cassell, etc., so that mitigates against the Butlers of the world.   

    In the draft, you win some, you lose some, and cherry picking certain guys to make an argument either way ignores the overall context of draft success.  More than a few analysts and publications put the Pats toward the top of those teams that have been successful in the draft over the long haul.  Maybe there are other objective studies that say they are mediocre, but I haven't seen them.  Sure, there have been bad picks, but again, it's a big picture argument, not a player-by-player argument.  

    My $.02.       

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    People use the word bust in various ways to support their own arguments on BOTH sides. 

    From a high first I expect probowls. A second half first a standout player at least. 

    Second rounders must be starters.

    Third rounders should at least be on the team as contributors/downs guys. Special teamers.

    Fourth/Fifth, I'm happy if they are depth/competition for a few seasons. 

    6-7 Just make it through camp and provide competition. 

    For someone to truly be a "BUST" not an argument bust, they really have to fall beneath my expectations by three levels. 

    Freak injuries on players without a history, of course, don't make them busts. They are just unfortunate selections. Players drafted for "value" because they have an injury they are recovering from or a history of nagging injuries are in my opinion busts if injuries derail their career because your GM took that gamble. 

     




    Agreed with this rationale.  The word "bust" is used way too liberally around this place.  Guys like Maroney, Watson and Meriweather were useful players for a while - hardly busts.  Guys like second and third rounders C. Jackson,  Wheatley, Butler, Crable, Price, etc. can be considered busts, and their lacks of contribution likely hurt this team a bit, but what is the overall success rate and what is the methodology to declaring "draft success"?  BB has always found guys where others didn't see the talent or were scared about their fit or attitude -  Mankins, Vollmer, Hernandez, Dennard, Edelman, Cassell, etc., so that mitigates against the Butlers of the world.   

     

    In the draft, you win some, you lose some, and cherry picking certain guys to make an argument either way ignores the overall context of draft success.  More than a few analysts and publications put the Pats toward the top of those teams that have been successful in the draft over the long haul.  Maybe there are other objective studies that say they are mediocre, but I haven't seen them.  Sure, thre have been bad picks, but again, it's a big picture argument, not a player-by-player argument.  

    My $.02.       



    Excellent discussion overall and particularly agree with CablesWynBairn.

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    People use the word bust in various ways to support their own arguments on BOTH sides. 

    From a high first I expect probowls. A second half first a standout player at least. 

    Second rounders must be starters.

    Third rounders should at least be on the team as contributors/downs guys. Special teamers.

    Fourth/Fifth, I'm happy if they are depth/competition for a few seasons. 

    6-7 Just make it through camp and provide competition. 

    For someone to truly be a "BUST" not an argument bust, they really have to fall beneath my expectations by three levels. 

    Freak injuries on players without a history, of course, don't make them busts. They are just unfortunate selections. Players drafted for "value" because they have an injury they are recovering from or a history of nagging injuries are in my opinion busts if injuries derail their career because your GM took that gamble. 



    Good summary, though I might qualify it slightly by saying a "starter" is anyone in the core 30 or so players who are heavily involved in almost every game plan. 

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    People use the word bust in various ways to support their own arguments on BOTH sides. 

    From a high first I expect probowls. A second half first a standout player at least. 

    Second rounders must be starters.

    Third rounders should at least be on the team as contributors/downs guys. Special teamers.

    Fourth/Fifth, I'm happy if they are depth/competition for a few seasons. 

    6-7 Just make it through camp and provide competition. 

    For someone to truly be a "BUST" not an argument bust, they really have to fall beneath my expectations by three levels. 

    Freak injuries on players without a history, of course, don't make them busts. They are just unfortunate selections. Players drafted for "value" because they have an injury they are recovering from or a history of nagging injuries are in my opinion busts if injuries derail their career because your GM took that gamble. 

     



    Good summary, though I might qualify it slightly by saying a "starter" is anyone in the core 30 or so players who are heavily involved in almost every game plan. 

     

    What if a team has  12 2nd and 3rd rounders over the last 5 years, and say that team already has a SB caliber roster in place. would it be fair to say this team doesnt need all of these players to stick? Would it also be fair to say it would be more difficult for said players to stick then if they were drafted by the Oakland Raiders?

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    People use the word bust in various ways to support their own arguments on BOTH sides. 

    From a high first I expect probowls. A second half first a standout player at least. 

    Second rounders must be starters.

    Third rounders should at least be on the team as contributors/downs guys. Special teamers.

    Fourth/Fifth, I'm happy if they are depth/competition for a few seasons. 

    6-7 Just make it through camp and provide competition. 

    For someone to truly be a "BUST" not an argument bust, they really have to fall beneath my expectations by three levels. 

    Freak injuries on players without a history, of course, don't make them busts. They are just unfortunate selections. Players drafted for "value" because they have an injury they are recovering from or a history of nagging injuries are in my opinion busts if injuries derail their career because your GM took that gamble. 

     



    Good summary, though I might qualify it slightly by saying a "starter" is anyone in the core 30 or so players who are heavily involved in almost every game plan. 

     

     

    What if a team has  12 2nd and 3rd rounders over the last 5 years, and say that team already has a SB caliber roster in place. would it be fair to say this team doesnt need all of these players to stick? Would it also be fair to say it would be more difficult for said players to stick then if they were drafted by the Oakland Raiders?

     



    Not all have to stick, but all teams are constantly losing players because of free agency, age, injury, changes in skills, and changes in schemes.  Plus, all teams always have room to improve. So missing on a high percentage of your picks in the higher rounds will certainly weaken you over time.  There's a reason no one is giving picks away.  The draft is the primary way to replace talent at affordable prices and the primary way to acquire youth for the future. You can't mess that up for a few years in a row and expect to stay good. 

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    People use the word bust in various ways to support their own arguments on BOTH sides. 

    From a high first I expect probowls. A second half first a standout player at least. 

    Second rounders must be starters.

    Third rounders should at least be on the team as contributors/downs guys. Special teamers.

    Fourth/Fifth, I'm happy if they are depth/competition for a few seasons. 

    6-7 Just make it through camp and provide competition. 

    For someone to truly be a "BUST" not an argument bust, they really have to fall beneath my expectations by three levels. 

    Freak injuries on players without a history, of course, don't make them busts. They are just unfortunate selections. Players drafted for "value" because they have an injury they are recovering from or a history of nagging injuries are in my opinion busts if injuries derail their career because your GM took that gamble. 

     



    Good summary, though I might qualify it slightly by saying a "starter" is anyone in the core 30 or so players who are heavily involved in almost every game plan. 

     

     

    What if a team has  12 2nd and 3rd rounders over the last 5 years, and say that team already has a SB caliber roster in place. would it be fair to say this team doesnt need all of these players to stick? Would it also be fair to say it would be more difficult for said players to stick then if they were drafted by the Oakland Raiders?

     

     



     

    Not all have to stick, but all teams are constantly losing players because of free agency, age, injury, changes in skills, and changes in schemes.  Plus, all teams always have room to improve. So missing on a high percentage of your picks in the higher rounds will certainly weaken you over time.  There's a reason no one is giving picks away.  The draft is the primary way to replace talent at affordable prices and the primary way to acquire youth for the future. You can't mess that up for a few years in a row and expect to stay good. 




    Do you think that once BB has made his selections that he gives 2nd and 3rd rounders "more" or greater opportunity then he gives the 7th rounders or undrafted FA's?

    What if we attain a bunch of players between rd 4 and undrafted that not only make this team as contributors but start games for us? Does this mean our guy is not a great GM because the coach implores open competition? Because Kyle Arrington starts over Darius Butler? Because Justin Francis gets PT over Jermaine Cunningham then BB has failed as a GM?

    I say the answer is no, and I think most if not all NFL GM's would agree.

    More draft picks and more wins then other teams = less chance of players lasting on your roster.

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    What if we attain a bunch of players between rd 4 and undrafted that not only make this team as contributors but start games for us? Does this mean our guy is not a great GM because the coach implores open competition? Because Kyle Arrington starts over Darius Butler? Because Justin Francis gets PT over Jermaine Cunningham then BB has failed as a GM?

    I say the answer is no, and I think most if not all NFL GM's would agree.

    More draft picks and more wins then other teams = less chance of players lasting on your roster.




    A non sequitur here.  Hitting on late round picks doesn't make missing on mid round picks okay.  And no one said that every player shouldn't have an equal chance to make the roster.  

    Believe me, BB isn't into wasting his mid round picks (or any picks for that matter) and he's as disappointed as anyone if a second to third round pick doesn't pan out.  But sure, he gives everyone--high pick, low pick, undrafted rookie, or veteran--an equal chance to compete and show what he can do.  Why wouldn't he do that?  And no one is arguing he shouldn't.  Again, your argument is a complete non sequitur. 

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    History is just that. We have enough good players to pick 53 and go right now if you ignore conditioning.  We look good DL.  We look good OLB.   Have a bunch of corners to go thru. Safety's I think are ok potential. This is open for argument  apparently all those busts have not hurt that bad.  At least we play in january every year . corner is where we have had the worst luck. If we can get 3 that stick for 4 years we coud be dominant. This team is going to be good.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    Rusty, I agree that there are going to be plenty of misses in most rounds (fewer in higher rounds hopefully, but still some even in the first round and certainly a number in the middle rounds). Talent evaluation isn't an exact science and even the best are gonna whiff sometimes.  

    Still, I don't think BB would be very happy if he missed regularly in the mid rounds.  Personally, I think he's done pretty good throughout the draft, but that doesn't mean that he's not had a fair number of misses too.  I see him as good . . . but certainly not perfect, and there are plenty of positions that I'm sure BB would have liked to have seen fixed a lot sooner than they have been fixed.  I don't think he can be terribly pleased with the number of corners and safeties they've brought in who haven't worked out, for instance.  

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    Agree ZB. Never understood why some posters insisted Katzenmoyer was a bust. Risk life and limb playing football with a severely injured neck or retire from the game. Not much of a choice really. You have to always go with the latter.

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    What if we attain a bunch of players between rd 4 and undrafted that not only make this team as contributors but start games for us? Does this mean our guy is not a great GM because the coach implores open competition? Because Kyle Arrington starts over Darius Butler? Because Justin Francis gets PT over Jermaine Cunningham then BB has failed as a GM?

    I say the answer is no, and I think most if not all NFL GM's would agree.

    More draft picks and more wins then other teams = less chance of players lasting on your roster.

     




     

    A non sequitur here.  Hitting on late round picks doesn't make missing on mid round picks okay.  And no one said that every player shouldn't have an equal chance to make the roster.  

    Believe me, BB isn't into wasting his mid round picks (or any picks for that matter) and he's as disappointed as anyone if a second to third round pick doesn't pan out.  But sure, he gives everyone--high pick, low pick, undrafted rookie, or veteran--an equal chance to compete and show what he can do.  Why wouldn't he do that?  And no one is arguing he shouldn't.  Again, your argument is a complete non sequitur. 

     

     


    if hitting on late round picks doesnt excuse missing then you actually expect BB to field 7 to 10 draft picks a year, which would be over 40 players in the last 5 years not including undrafted FA's which we all know is a very important part of BB the GMs team building 

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    What if we attain a bunch of players between rd 4 and undrafted that not only make this team as contributors but start games for us? Does this mean our guy is not a great GM because the coach implores open competition? Because Kyle Arrington starts over Darius Butler? Because Justin Francis gets PT over Jermaine Cunningham then BB has failed as a GM?

    I say the answer is no, and I think most if not all NFL GM's would agree.

    More draft picks and more wins then other teams = less chance of players lasting on your roster.

     




     

    A non sequitur here.  Hitting on late round picks doesn't make missing on mid round picks okay.  And no one said that every player shouldn't have an equal chance to make the roster.  

    Believe me, BB isn't into wasting his mid round picks (or any picks for that matter) and he's as disappointed as anyone if a second to third round pick doesn't pan out.  But sure, he gives everyone--high pick, low pick, undrafted rookie, or veteran--an equal chance to compete and show what he can do.  Why wouldn't he do that?  And no one is arguing he shouldn't.  Again, your argument is a complete non sequitur. 

     

     

     


    if hitting on late round picks doesnt excuse missing then you actually expect BB to field 7 to 10 draft picks a year, which would be over 40 players in the last 5 years not including undrafted FA's which we all know is a very important part of BB the GMs team building 

     



    Not at all.  For the sake of argument, let's assume you can divide players into 5 categories:

    1. All pros

    2. Solid starters

    3. Good back-ups

    4. Roster filler

    5. Cuts

    In each round, you can expect your odds of getting each type of player to change.  So at the top of the first round, you should have, say (I'm making these numbers up), a 30% chance of getting a category 1 player, a 50% chance of getting a category 2 player, a 10-15%% chance of getting a category 3 player, a 5-10% chance of getting a category 4 guy, and less than a 5% chace of getting a categroy 5 player.  In the second round, maybe the odds shift to 10%, 30%, 30%, 20%, 10%.  By the time you get to the 7th round, the odds are shifting to less than 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%, 25%.

    You're drafting well if you beat those odds. Drafting poorly if you don't make them.  Beating the odds in round 7 is nice, of course, but it doesn't make up for falling short in the higher rounds. 

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

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    People use the word bust in various ways to support their own arguments on BOTH sides. 

    From a high first I expect probowls. A second half first a standout player at least. 

    Second rounders must be starters.

    Third rounders should at least be on the team as contributors/downs guys. Special teamers.

    Fourth/Fifth, I'm happy if they are depth/competition for a few seasons. 

    6-7 Just make it through camp and provide competition. 

    For someone to truly be a "BUST" not an argument bust, they really have to fall beneath my expectations by three levels. 

    Freak injuries on players without a history, of course, don't make them busts. They are just unfortunate selections. Players drafted for "value" because they have an injury they are recovering from or a history of nagging injuries are in my opinion busts if injuries derail their career because your GM took that gamble. 

     



    Good summary, though I might qualify it slightly by saying a "starter" is anyone in the core 30 or so players who are heavily involved in almost every game plan. 

     

     

    What if a team has  12 2nd and 3rd rounders over the last 5 years, and say that team already has a SB caliber roster in place. would it be fair to say this team doesnt need all of these players to stick? Would it also be fair to say it would be more difficult for said players to stick then if they were drafted by the Oakland Raiders?

     

     



    If you are using 2nd and 3rd round picks on spots that are so well manned that the kids can't beat them, then you are a terrible drafter. You should be drafting to spots then that really need help. And every roster in the NFL has a few spots that are thin, even the SB championship teams.  

     

     




     

    That's not necessarily true. You might have one or two CBs that won't be on the team the next year so want a year of grooming in their development by taking them in the draft before your CB expectedly walks. Like us, with Talib.

    You're smarter than that, dude.  

    There is no black and white recipe with regards to how to draft. Also, draft classes shift in terms of strength or depth.

     

     



    Well, then that negates the question TC asked. If the position is stocked with a SB caliber player, it wouldn't be stocked with an expiring contract, which is a need. Thus, the player mentioned wouldn't be losing out on a spot because of competition ahead of him. 

     

    RE: Drafting a CB because Talib is on a one year deal is a need pick. Once Talib is gone, let's just say, and Ryan (for the sake of argument) was a second rounder (he wasn't) then he "busts". It wasn't like he lost a roster spot to Talib ... because Talib was the expiring contract. 

    TC is proposing something that just doesn't happen. For instance ... if you have three good starting LBers in a 43 and a backup .... and you use a 1st or 2nd on another LBer and he can't beat them out.... you are simply daft as a GM. It sounds like an Al Davis "best player available" move. 

    Second point, totally true. It depends on the draft. I don't expect a whole lot from the lower half of the 1st this season .... to be frank .... it was a long second round in my eyes. 

    But those are just my rough guidelines. I try to stick to them. 

    Others just label everything a bust or success to suit an argument.

     




    Ok, look at like this:

     

    Jets pick Kyle Wilson in 2010, the deepest draft according to many since 1983, and he's only been a decent nickel for them since.

    To me, that's a bust for the these reasons:

    1. You already have Revis.

    2. If Wilson had proven to be better on the outside, you could have dealt Revis earlier instead of waiting for him to get hurt, quite possibly getting more in return.

    3. You dealt away your 2nd for Cromartie in that same draft you took WIlson (2010).

    Who drafts a nickel in the 1st rd?  The just took Milliner because they can't trust to promote Wilson.

    To me, that's a great example of a bust.  They've just decided to cover it up well.



    Not sure I'd call him a bust, but to date his contributions are more what you'd expect from a second or third round pick than a first round pick.  He was a number 29 pick. McCourty was a number 27 pick (same year) and Ras-I a number 33 pick (different year) so those guys should all provide similar value.  Clearly McCourty is the best of the lot, Wilson second, and Ras-I third.  

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    What if we attain a bunch of players between rd 4 and undrafted that not only make this team as contributors but start games for us? Does this mean our guy is not a great GM because the coach implores open competition? Because Kyle Arrington starts over Darius Butler? Because Justin Francis gets PT over Jermaine Cunningham then BB has failed as a GM?

    I say the answer is no, and I think most if not all NFL GM's would agree.

    More draft picks and more wins then other teams = less chance of players lasting on your roster.

     




     

    A non sequitur here.  Hitting on late round picks doesn't make missing on mid round picks okay.  And no one said that every player shouldn't have an equal chance to make the roster.  

    Believe me, BB isn't into wasting his mid round picks (or any picks for that matter) and he's as disappointed as anyone if a second to third round pick doesn't pan out.  But sure, he gives everyone--high pick, low pick, undrafted rookie, or veteran--an equal chance to compete and show what he can do.  Why wouldn't he do that?  And no one is arguing he shouldn't.  Again, your argument is a complete non sequitur. 

     

     

     


    if hitting on late round picks doesnt excuse missing then you actually expect BB to field 7 to 10 draft picks a year, which would be over 40 players in the last 5 years not including undrafted FA's which we all know is a very important part of BB the GMs team building 

     




    Why do you say that?  That doesn't make sense.

    No one is expecting BB to hit on every pick but it's not unrealistic to hit on a good % of the higher picks.  This hasn't been the case especially in the DB, DL and Wr department.

    If a team like GB can hit on 20 starters, why can'y BB?

    There has been NO SHORTAGE of open positions.  Every single starting position except Brady, mankins, Wilfork has been replaced (multiple times), since 2007.  That's plenty of open starter positions.  We have a new backfield every year for cripes sake, recievers too.

    I'm sorry, but constantly using a revolving door of FA's is a problem too.  This could be eliminated with better draft picks.

    I saw a list of the 2013 salaries earlier and was SHOCKED!

    Jenkins is the highest paid of all the receivers and TE's @3,9166666????

    Leon Washington makes a million bucks more than, Blount, Ridley, Vereen and Bolden, COMBINED?  Why??????

    Kelly is the highest of not only the DL but the highest paid, PERIOD!  Higher than Brady, Mankins and Fork.  WHY?????

    Adrian Wilson is the highest paid of all the DB's.

    All the FA's brought in as starters, make more than all the other starters?  Why?

    Bad drafts and a low % of starters.  That's why.

    Don't you think if BB had hit on 10 more starters, like GB or 8 more like the Saints, that would have eliminated that need to bring in old, and high priced FA's.  EVERY YEAR!

    I do.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/nwe/roster

     
Sections
Shortcuts