Gary Horton weighs in

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Gary Horton weighs in

    How can you put the 49ers up there after 2 years of success with Harbaugh, they were awful before that, however their defense is something I am jealous of. GB developed good WR's and beyond that I don't see anything that special. Seahwaks have seemed to find some gems at WR and CB/Safety lately, but Pete Carroll has a good history of squandering his NFL teams with prolonged time at the helm. Steelers haven't done anything noteworthy for player development lately, unless you go back about 10 year. Blatimore and the Giants have knack for finding quality players on defense, while also finding the x-factor in the offense(Cruz and Smith). Just my 2 cents.

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

    Re: Gary Horton weighs in

    I believe this article is about developing your own talent. I think the 49ers are rank first because something like 19 of the 22 starters in the Super Bowl (the Patriots by comparison had 15 "homegrown" starters in the AFC Championship game).

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

    Re: Gary Horton weighs in

    In response to freediro's comment:

    How can you put the 49ers up there after 2 years of success with Harbaugh, they were awful before that, however their defense is something I am jealous of. GB developed good WR's and beyond that I don't see anything that special. Seahwaks have seemed to find some gems at WR and CB/Safety lately, but Pete Carroll has a good history of squandering his NFL teams with prolonged time at the helm. Steelers haven't done anything noteworthy for player development lately, unless you go back about 10 year. Blatimore and the Giants have knack for finding quality players on defense, while also finding the x-factor in the offense(Cruz and Smith). Just my 2 cents.



         This is a silly article. All this guy did was list the current most successful franchises in the top 7. You mentioned having a problem with the 49ers being selected. My problem is the selection of Seattle. Just how brilliant was Pete Carroll until he lucked out on Russell Wilson? Carroll is the same guy that spent a fortune to land Matt Flynn...and who thought Tavares Jackson might be his answer at QB. 

         In the NFL, the name of the game is to find a franchise QB. Once that gets done, the rest isn't all that difficult.

     

     

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

    Re: Gary Horton weighs in

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

    I believe this article is about developing your own talent. I think the 49ers are rank first because something like 19 of the 22 starters in the Super Bowl (the Patriots by comparison had 15 "homegrown" starters in the AFC Championship game).




    He's talking about developing draft picks and UDFAs it seems. NFL veteran FAs aren't needing much development.

    Shocking that this guy sees Rusty's "greatest GM in the cap era" as 7th best in this. Horton must be part of the "vast right wing media conspiracy". LMAO

     

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

    Re: Gary Horton weighs in

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    This is a silly article. All this guy did was list the current most successful franchises in the top 7. You mentioned having a problem with the 49ers being selected. My problem is the selection of Seattle. Just how brilliant was Pete Carroll until he lucked out on Russell Wilson? Carroll is the same guy that spent a fortune to land Matt Flynn...and who thought Tavares Jackson might be his answer at QB. 

    In the NFL, the name of the game is to find a franchise QB. Once that gets done, the rest isn't all that difficult.

    The article is about teams who develop from the inside rather than trying to build through free agency. Again, the Seahawks defense has nine starters "developed" by the team. It turns out that the most successful franchises develop their own players rather than make a team full of free agents, and that makes sense.

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

    Re: Gary Horton weighs in


    remember 4 months ago when you did not know who Trent Baalke was?

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

    Re: Gary Horton weighs in

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    He also doesn't mention their busts or guys they haven't been able to keep a few years ago due to poor salary allocation.

    Aaron Curry was a top 10 pick and he's a bust.  I am not even sure if Lofa Tatupu is still in the league. Russell Okung is also overrated. They thought he was a bust after his first 2 years like D'Bustashaw with the Jets.  Like Ferguson, Okung is flagged for a ton of penalties.  Each was a top 5 pick and don't have the best feet. Just saying.

    We'll see how trendy the Seattles and SFs will be with targets on their backs and sophmore slumps with their QBs a good possibility.

    He does not mention any team's "busts". It it not an article about drafting. It is an article about developing players rather than signing free agents to build the core of your team. What is so hard to understand about it? 

    And if Jones and Hightower have "sophmore[sic] slumps" the Patriots defense will be mediocre at best.

    I just do not get this Patriots Fan attitude that if the anyone makes a ranking and does not put the Patriots at the top of it the writer is a fraud and the list is fundamentally flawed.

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

    Re: Gary Horton weighs in

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

    He also doesn't mention their busts or guys they haven't been able to keep a few years ago due to poor salary allocation.

    Aaron Curry was a top 10 pick and he's a bust.  I am not even sure if Lofa Tatupu is still in the league. Russell Okung is also overrated. They thought he was a bust after his first 2 years like D'Bustashaw with the Jets.  Like Ferguson, Okung is flagged for a ton of penalties.  Each was a top 5 pick and don't have the best feet. Just saying.

    We'll see how trendy the Seattles and SFs will be with targets on their backs and sophmore slumps with their QBs a good possibility.

     

     

     

     

    He does not mention any team's "busts". It it not an article about drafting. It is an article about developing players rather than signing free agents to build the core of your team. What is so hard to understand about it? 

    And if Jones and Hightower have "sophmore[sic] slumps" the Patriots defense will be mediocre at best.

    I just do not get this Patriots Fan attitude that if the anyone makes a ranking and does not put the Patriots at the top of it the writer is a fraud and the list is fundamentally flawed.



    So, you're saying the "nine" players on Seattle's team as starters, some aren't draft picks who aren't developed, they're just all UDFAs or other teams' cast offs?  No. That's not true.

    I mentioned busts to provide context. Funny, we've heard so much about how bad BB has been in recent years, now we have a goober from ESPn Insider telling us Seattle and SF are better at developing their players/draft picks or cast off signings, and low and behold, over the past 3-4 years, I just provided a list of quality starters we drafted or signed on as cast offs and developed into good players.  Hmmm.

    Sure looks like I won again, doesn't it?  You're going to have to a better job countering, so I'll give you one more chance with it.

     

    It looks like I've got ya here as I do Horton. I clearly listed our draft picks and/or developed cast offs who start here and trumps Seattle's and/oR SF's lists.  So, what are you countering with?

    Pete Carroll has been in Seattle for 2 years and isn't even the GM.  So, that's another inaccuracy with Horton.  Pete Carroll will never win a SB because he's a Mickey Mouse coach. Book it.

    He couldn't develop a thesis for a book report in 10th grade.

    What I don't get is the arrogance by the media or fans to pretend the flavor of the month somehow trumps a decade's worth of work and actual proof that the premise is shortsighted and incorrect.

    That's what I don't get, Frankie.

    Also, the reason why I mentioned Kaepernick or Wilson having sophmore slumps, is because it's the norm for 2nd year QBs who impressed as a rookie. It basically happens to all of them from Brady, to Matt Ryan, to Cam Newton.  Maybe the won't, but if they do avoid it, it will be against the odds.

    My point was, the media hitches its wagon to a team or two every year and props them up wildly just because they're sick and tired of talking about the usual suspects all the time.



    Seattle had 9 starters on defense alone that were "developed" internally. 

    The Patriots "decade's worth of work" that has produced no championships since 2004 is so clearly it is the best system? Teams like Pittsburg and NYG who have won two Super Bowls in that span cannot possible be doing something better. The Ravens, who since Harbaugh became the coach are 9-4 in the playoffs versus the Patriots 3-4 which two AFC Championship appareances to the Patriots one and a Super Bowl victory in that span, are definitely not doing anything better.

    It is time to stop using the years 2001-2004 to argue how good the Patriots are at anything in 2013. 

    The 49ers and Seattle are high on the list because they had good seasons last year with roster comprised mostly of homegrown talent. I am saying I understand why he put them up there. The Steelers and Packers have largely stayed out of free agency and have been successful so they are highly rated. The Ravens and Giants are both largely homegrown and have been more successful than the Patriots over the past six seasons (although only if you measure by ridiculous metrics like playoff wins and Super Bowl championships). Of course, if you measure by regular season wins and division championships no one can hold a candle to the Pats.

    You attitude is that Horton putting the Patriots ahead of 75% of the NFL is not good enough. They must always be in the 99 percentile. 

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

    Re: Gary Horton weighs in

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    No, not really. Ok, so he's saying 9 starters on D were drafted or cultivated. Well, I mean, what do we have?

    Taib isn't ours, but that is about it not counting the likelihood that Wilson and Kelly start, so that means we would have about 8. 7 or 8 of our own drafted or cultivated. So, 1 more guy for Seattle somehow trumps us for years and years now?  What if Armstead starts and is good? That is 9 for us and it offsets CFL transport and roid case, Browner. Hmmm.

    I am sorry, but if you consider the fact NE drafts from 27-31 every year and SF and Seattle have not whatsoever (except for this year for the first time in years if not over a decade for SF), then how does that trump the fact NE is not in the same degree of difficulty level of those two teams???

    I would be ticked off beyond belief if I was a SF or Seattle fan to this point and my team still sucked or was mediocre. They've been building thos teams for like YEARS and YEARS, dude, especially SF.

    BB started his thing in 2009 or 2010 where he unloaded older players in 2009 and committed into 2010.

    It's not like we've been out signing FAs here lately, mainly due to the unknown financial environment.  BB has specifically doing the same thing SF and SEA have been doing, but as well or better considering his draft positions. How do you think they got Aldon Smith? They sucked in 2010!  That's how.

    Pitt and Balt had avantages because they were steps behind us in the mid 2000s, which is why they could never beat us, so when  2009, 2010 and 2011 hit, they caught up.  Ok. To be expected.

    It's just apples and oranges, but if the discussion is the longest window where it's which organization has been the best the last, say, 10 years, it's teams like NE, Pitt, NYGs, Balt, GB, SD, even an Indy can talk about their players, if picking up the rear, mainly because their recent drafts have been so weak.

    I just think it's arrogant to pick the Johnny Come Latelys. It's like saying Nirvana made better records than the Rolling Stones in 1993.

    LMAO

    Sure, maybe Nirvana was onto something, but they came and went.  Even if Cobain didn't blow his brains out, I still say they were a one trick pony gimmick band. Please, no one jump in here and start arguing about Nirvana. I can name many other gimmick bands from that era, too. Nirvana had some impact and good stuff, but they were a brand new band with a lot to prove to show they weren't some flash in the pan.

    It's also why I said above we'll see how good Pitt, Balt and the NYGs have been with this, because they got old and they've needed to promote whatever depth they have in their system. Traditionally, they've been the stalwart examples of sustainability in that area, along with us.

    So far, we've been the ONLY franchise in the cap era that has lost so much of its defensive base in particular and not fallen off the map. We were two or three boneheaded plays away with our best players in SB 46 from basically trying to start a new dynasty for chrissakes.

    IN fact, I question Baltimore.  They just went out and bought up all their replacements, with 80% of their starting D gone.  Elam should start Brown might, but good luck. Will be a bumpy ride for Balt in 2013.

    Meanwhile, BB took a 14-2 team through 2010 with rookies starting on D. 

    This reminds me of the BB ranking by ESPN on the all time list. They had him 7th. 7th. His numbers rival Lomardi's in a more difficult era and he's out of the top 5?

    Same deal here. How can NE be out of the top 5, or even 3?



    Well, Seattle's defense was 1st in points and 4th in yards and the Patriots was 9th in points and 25th in yards, so I can see why people think theirs may have been better.

    The list is about teams now. It has nothing to do with what happened 10 years ago. It is about interally developed and contributin players currently on teams and how important they are to the teams success. It is talking about guys on rosters now. Is that so difficult to wrap your head around?

    Why is it so hard to concede that some one may be better at some aspect of football than BB?

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

    Re: Gary Horton weighs in

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    Umm, how many times have I said Seattle and SF sucked in the NFC West for YEARS AND YEARS so their draft picks were higher?

    How many more times are you going ignore this fact?

    Prior to 2011, those two teams sucked. 2006-2011, Seattle sucked.  From like 2002 to 2011, SF sucked.

    They had a decade to build up their drafts, draft picks, etc. You can't compare that to us. It's outrageous to pretend it's the same and then also use the last 2 years as proof, when I just proved BB and NE have a very comparable situation here.

    His premise is about "development". Umm, how can you "develop" a draft pick or cast off within a year to supersede what BB has done his last 2-3 years himself? Why is it so hard to concede BB has had a harder road in this area with drafting late in Rd 1 as compared to them and the fact I am not talking about 10 years ago? 

    NE was looking down the barrel of a SB with mostly homegrown players in 2011, so was SF in 2012. Umm, what's the big difference?

    I have already stated Seattle and SF have done a nice job being strategic, methodical and patient mirroring BB.  They did what the Jets did not do.  Congrats to the SF and Seattle clubs for not being morons.

    But, if Seattle and SF are 1/2 on his list, how is NE 7th?

    I never said the Patriots did not have lower draft picks to work with, but no one said this was graded on a curve. The Patriots have more of their own first round picks starting on defense (5) then the 49ers (3) or the Seahawks (1).  So it is not like their rosters are just made up of top 10 picks. 

    I think there are several things at play for why the Pats are considered low. At this point, I doubt people are taking Brady as a Patriots developed player into account for a list like this. It is looking at the past 5 or so years (since that is really the life of an NFL roster). Several key players on the Patriots roster (Welker, Lloyd, and Talib) all came from outside the organization. 

    The thing is that being seventh is not some sort of slap in the face, they are saying the Patriots are better than 75% of the league. 

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Gary Horton weighs in

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

    He also doesn't mention their busts or guys they haven't been able to keep a few years ago due to poor salary allocation.

    Aaron Curry was a top 10 pick and he's a bust.  I am not even sure if Lofa Tatupu is still in the league. Russell Okung is also overrated. They thought he was a bust after his first 2 years like D'Bustashaw with the Jets.  Like Ferguson, Okung is flagged for a ton of penalties.  Each was a top 5 pick and don't have the best feet. Just saying.

    We'll see how trendy the Seattles and SFs will be with targets on their backs and sophmore slumps with their QBs a good possibility.

     

     

     

     

    He does not mention any team's "busts". It it not an article about drafting. It is an article about developing players rather than signing free agents to build the core of your team. What is so hard to understand about it? 

    And if Jones and Hightower have "sophmore[sic] slumps" the Patriots defense will be mediocre at best.

    I just do not get this Patriots Fan attitude that if the anyone makes a ranking and does not put the Patriots at the top of it the writer is a fraud and the list is fundamentally flawed.



    So, you're saying the "nine" players on Seattle's team as starters, some aren't draft picks who aren't developed, they're just all UDFAs or other teams' cast offs?  No. That's not true.

    I mentioned busts to provide context. Funny, we've heard so much about how bad BB has been in recent years, now we have a goober from ESPn Insider telling us Seattle and SF are better at developing their players/draft picks or cast off signings, and low and behold, over the past 3-4 years, I just provided a list of quality starters we drafted or signed on as cast offs and developed into good players.  Hmmm.

    Sure looks like I won again, doesn't it?  You're going to have to a better job countering, so I'll give you one more chance with it.

     

    It looks like I've got ya here as I do Horton. I clearly listed our draft picks and/or developed cast offs who start here and trumps Seattle's and/oR SF's lists.  So, what are you countering with?

    Pete Carroll has been in Seattle for 2 years and isn't even the GM.  So, that's another inaccuracy with Horton.  Pete Carroll will never win a SB because he's a Mickey Mouse coach. Book it.

    He couldn't develop a thesis for a book report in 10th grade.

    What I don't get is the arrogance by the media or fans to pretend the flavor of the month somehow trumps a decade's worth of work and actual proof that the premise is shortsighted and incorrect.

    That's what I don't get, Frankie.

    Also, the reason why I mentioned Kaepernick or Wilson having sophmore slumps, is because it's the norm for 2nd year QBs who impressed as a rookie. It basically happens to all of them from Brady, to Matt Ryan, to Cam Newton.  Maybe the won't, but if they do avoid it, it will be against the odds.

    My point was, the media hitches its wagon to a team or two every year and props them up wildly just because they're sick and tired of talking about the usual suspects all the time.

     

     



    Seattle had 9 starters on defense alone that were "developed" internally. 

     

     

    The Patriots "decade's worth of work" that has produced no championships since 2004 is so clearly it is the best system? Teams like Pittsburg and NYG who have won two Super Bowls in that span cannot possible be doing something better. The Ravens, who since Harbaugh became the coach are 9-4 in the playoffs versus the Patriots 3-4 which two AFC Championship appareances to the Patriots one and a Super Bowl victory in that span, are definitely not doing anything better.

    It is time to stop using the years 2001-2004 to argue how good the Patriots are at anything in 2013. 

    The 49ers and Seattle are high on the list because they had good seasons last year with roster comprised mostly of homegrown talent. I am saying I understand why he put them up there. The Steelers and Packers have largely stayed out of free agency and have been successful so they are highly rated. The Ravens and Giants are both largely homegrown and have been more successful than the Patriots over the past six seasons (although only if you measure by ridiculous metrics like playoff wins and Super Bowl championships). Of course, if you measure by regular season wins and division championships no one can hold a candle to the Pats.

    You attitude is that Horton putting the Patriots ahead of 75% of the NFL is not good enough. They must always be in the 99 percentile. 



    No, not really. Ok, so he's saying 9 starters on D were drafted or cultivated. Well, I mean, what do we have?

     

    Taib isn't ours, but that is about it not counting the likelihood that Wilson and Kelly start, so that means we would have about 8. 7 or 8 of our own drafted or cultivated. So, 1 more guy for Seattle somehow trumps us for years and years now?  What if Armstead starts and is good? That is 9 for us and it offsets CFL transport and roid case, Browner. Hmmm.

    I am sorry, but if you consider the fact NE drafts from 27-31 every year and SF and Seattle have not whatsoever (except for this year for the first time in years if not over a decade for SF), then how does that trump the fact NE is not in the same degree of difficulty level of those two teams???

    I would be ticked off beyond belief if I was a SF or Seattle fan to this point and my team still sucked or was mediocre. They've been building thos teams for like YEARS and YEARS, dude, especially SF.

    BB started his thing in 2009 or 2010 where he unloaded older players in 2009 and committed into 2010.

    It's not like we've been out signing FAs here lately, mainly due to the unknown financial environment.  BB has specifically been doing the same thing SF and SEA have been doing, but as well or better considering his draft positions. How do you think they got Aldon Smith? They sucked in 2010!  That's how. Should we have sucked in 2010 just to try to get an Aldon Smith? Really? This is yours and Horton's premise?

    Pitt and Balt had advantages because they were steps behind us in the mid 2000s, which is why they could never beat us, so when  2009, 2010 and 2011 hit, they caught up.  Ok. To be expected.

    It's just apples and oranges, but if the discussion is the longest window where it's which organization has been the best the last, say, 10 years, it's teams like NE, Pitt, NYGs, Balt, GB, SD, even an Indy can talk about their players, if picking up the rear, mainly because their recent drafts have been so weak.

    I just think it's arrogant to pick the Johnny Come Latelys. It's like saying Nirvana made better records than the Rolling Stones in 1993.

    LMAO

    Sure, maybe Nirvana was onto something, but they came and went.  Even if Cobain didn't blow his brains out, I still say they were a one trick pony gimmick band. Please, no one jump in here and start arguing about Nirvana. I can name many other gimmick bands from that era, too. Nirvana had some impact and good stuff, but they were a brand new band with a lot to prove to show they weren't some flash in the pan.

    It's also why I said above we'll see how good Pitt, Balt and the NYGs have been with this, because they got old and they've needed to promote whatever depth they have in their system. Traditionally, they've been the stalwart examples of sustainability in that area, along with us.

    So far, we've been the ONLY franchise in the cap era that has lost so much of its defensive base in particular and not fallen off the map. We were two or three boneheaded plays away with our best players in SB 46 from basically trying to start a new dynasty for chrissakes.

    IN fact, I question Baltimore.  They just went out and bought up all their replacements, with 80% of their starting D gone.  Elam should start Brown might, but good luck. Will be a bumpy ride for Balt in 2013.

    Meanwhile, BB took a 14-2 team through 2010 with rookies starting on D. 

    This reminds me of the BB ranking by ESPN on the all time list. They had him 7th. 7th. His numbers rival Lombardi's in a more difficult era and he's out of the top 5?  He's in now way out of the top 5.  He's at worst 5th. 

    I just think ESPN and the media are beyond tough in judging anything NE does while allowing breaks for other teams, coaches or players in these rankings. It's an amazing lack of appreciation for what he and the organization is doing.

    Same deal here. How can NE be out of the top 5, or even 3?

     



    the Rolling Stones haven't put out a great album in 32 years and their creative peak was 68-73

     

    so yeah Nirvana was making better music in 93 as were many bands...like with the patriots you seem to think long past glories last forever and cover everything after they occur-they don't

    and Nirvana completely changed rock music and created a genre, something the Stones for all their success and achievement-and I am a fan like many millions the world over-never did

    best thing would be for you to stick with ur anti-brady agenda russ

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

    Re: Gary Horton weighs in

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    Carroll is the same guy that spent a fortune to land Matt Flynn...and who thought Tavares Jackson might be his answer at QB. 

     

     



     

    Pete Carroll is the guy who handed BB a team he coached for 3 years without a losing season, and BB went 5-11 with it. Facts are fascinating things.

     

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

    Re: Gary Horton weighs in

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    Dont'a Hightower and Tavon Wilson both had rough rookie debuts

     




    But I thought you said these were great draft picks dumbkoff.

     

Share