gasoline to the "best GM" debate

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    there was a thread previously about Draft picks and how well thay did between 2001 and 2010" BB was no 1 and Ozzie right behind. this also doesnt talk about the number of udfa s that have been developed.

     



    I debunked that, as I always do such drivel.

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    Focusing on The draft does not make a GM great or not. It is simply one component that needs to be factored. BB has been great with trades, within the draft and outside of the draft (Moss, Welker, Talib, etc, etc)

    The draft is a crap shoot, and BB wants a specific type of player for his system. All those that lament "players not drafted" are missing the point. Even all pro like Mathews would not succeed in this system. Specific players are drafted FOR THIS SYSTEM. Certain players are passed over, as BB feels they cannot play in this system.

    I would be more critical of the free agent decisions. Valuable $$$ has been used on poor fits, one year rentals and players on 2nd thought simply lost desire ( Haynesworth, Gallery, various OL). 

     

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

    Re: gasoline to the

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

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

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

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    If the GM trades higher picks for more lower picks, but gets more total value out of those picks it is a better strategy.  Computing value per pick assumes all picks are created equal.  You are the one spinning Babe.  The point of the draft is to get the most value you can get, not maximize per pick efficiency.

     



    ^^ exactly.

     

     




    Not when your value picks turn out to have no value.   When injury prone players get injured repeatedly and character issue guys murder or punch people, or get suspended for substance abuse.

     

    And not when you are using  those added 2nd round picks on 5th-7th round talent..against the advice of your scouts.  Do they REALLY need 2nd round ST players, when there was a position of need  (the same position of need for years) not satisfied?  AGAIN!

    Do you really need 12 and 14 picks in a draft when only 3 of them are keepers?

    No, no one is perfect and are all going to miss but when you constantly pick value due to "ISSUES", is it any wonder?  Haven't you lowered your chances of success, further, by doing all of the above? 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    l



    Pezzy,

    Depends on what report you choose to read and believe. They all use different criteria as that is what statisticians do to fit their arguments. I have read ones that say as soon as you hit round 2 it is 50/50 on likelihood of getting player that will last??

    Bottom line is that you are trying to make a total evaluation of the player. Athletic ability, Mental ability, character ability, system fit, durability, desire and passion for the game that is sustainable even after becoming a fat cat etc.

    The method you use to take a shot at getting more of those players into your system whether they stay in your program or not is irrelevant.

    I am not sure why I am bothering to respond to you since you put blinders on once your mind is made up but...

    These are more important numbers, to me, for "total" player evaluation.  2003-2012 draft numbers.

    In that span of time it the Pats have had the lowest average draft position during that time.

    In that span of time the Patriots have had the most drafted players make it to the probowl but honestly how much can you care about pro bowls?? No one can really take the voting very seriously can they?

    The most important one for me would be how many active drafted players were still in the league. The Patriots were not first. However they were tied for 6th most.  Seems pretty good to me. Especially with the lowest avg draft position in that time span. The number of picks had by each team is irrelevant to me. ALL teams have the same options to use whatever method they feel yields them the most players who can play and sustain in the NFL.

    If you are trying to judge an organizations ability to judge the "total and complete" player then that is one of the more important ones to me. Especially if you tie it in with probowl appearances as well.

    Does anyone have any idea how many GM's have been in place for that entire span of time for one team?




    How many drafted players are active is a trifling factor. Who cares if you have selected the most scrubs who manage to hang on in the NFL? That isn't going to win you SBs.

    Pro-bowl is another hit or miss measure. While many are deserving of the nod, many being placed there is a mystery.

    All-pro years isn't a perfect measure, but it is probably considerably better than the above.

    The one true indisputable measure, is Lombardi trophies.

     

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    Focusing on The draft does not make a GM great or not. It is simply one component that needs to be factored. BB has been great with trades, within the draft and outside of the draft (Moss, Welker, Talib, etc, etc)

    The draft is a crap shoot, and BB wants a specific type of player for his system. All those that lament "players not drafted" are missing the point. Even all pro like Mathews would not succeed in this system. Specific players are drafted FOR THIS SYSTEM. Certain players are passed over, as BB feels they cannot play in this system.

    I would be more critical of the free agent decisions. Valuable $$$ has been used on poor fits, one year rentals and players on 2nd thought simply lost desire ( Haynesworth, Gallery, various OL). 

     




    The draft, beyond a doubt, is the #1 factor in team building. A smaller percentage of your team is going to be FAs or trade acquisitions.

     

    BB has been a pretty good drafter, though he has had his duds as well. It's his mediocre drafting that has been the biggest problem, and has denied us Lombardi rings.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    How many drafted players are active is a trifling factor. Who cares if you have selected the most scrubs who manage to hang on in the NFL? That isn't going to win you SBs.

    Pro-bowl is another hit or miss measure. While many are deserving of the nod, many being placed there is a mystery.

    All-pro years isn't a perfect measure, but it is probably considerably better than the above.

    The one true indisputable measure, is Lombardi trophies.


    Winning Lombardis is an indisputable measure and so is finishing second.

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Fair enough, IQ. we both see it differently but the point I am making is that they have a lower % of active picks  due to the higher volume, which means more misses.

    The draft position is not accurate because they have traded completely out of the first round twice, completely, and have also had 2 picks in the 1st round 5 times and only used them once.  Some of those picks were higher than their original, which skews those #'s.

    This is where the raw data is NOT accurate.  If they had the 21st and 29th , 1st round picks and used the 29th and traded the 21st, you can see the discrepancy.  Right?

    When you look at the number of first round picks having the best chance of success, why trade to a lower round where the success rate is not so good?

    Ya it might give you more chances to gamble but you are gambling with worse odds  and a lower % of success.

    The pro bowl?  Sorry but they are more popular than all 3 Florida teams combined,  and more than 2 of the 3 NY teams, so I would expect more in the popularity contest.  LOL

      BTW, Thanks for the rational and insult free discussion.  It's been a pleasure.

     oh, here is the complete chart for the one you are using.

    See where the fins have 48 active players out of only 78 picks?  That's a much better yield.

    Right?



    No, why would that matter?  If a team traded it's entire draft for one player like Ricky Williams they would have the greatest record by efficiency.  But the Ricky Williams trade was a bad trade and we all know it so why use a measure known to be a failure in real life results.

    The Pats have had the worst drafting position since 2001, that is before trades.  They have rebuilt several times.  The odds are they would have one of the worst teams because they get the worst picks, that is how the system is set up to keep equal competition.  The odds of keeping more players and more good players with the lowest picks are low.  The poor drafting position is a result of winning- that is a fact.  Moving up does not gain you draft position because you have to give up high picks- the average will stay almost the same.

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

    Re: gasoline to the

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The draft, beyond a doubt, is the #1 factor in team building. A smaller percentage of your team is going to be FAs or trade acquisitions.

     

    BB has been a pretty good drafter, though he has had his duds as well. It's his mediocre drafting that has been the biggest problem, and has denied us Lombardi rings.

    [/QUOTE]

    You say it's the number 1 factor in team building but don't look at the team record?  Makes no sense.  

     

    You can look at active players or pro bowls or all-pro or wins or SB championships and the Patriots come out on top despite poorest drafting position.  The fact that every metric shows the Patriots as good drafters makes your GM case extremely weak.

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    I don't buy the "one play" argument.  If you play so close to the edge that one play makes a difference (or one call by the refs makes a difference), you haven't played well enough. 

     

     


    By this logic one could argue the Patriots didn't play well enough in 2001 and 2003.  The Tuck Rule and the Kasay out of bounds kickoff say hi.

     

    In those games, they certainly didn't play well enough (or maybe more accurately sufficiently better than their opponent) not to have the game's outcome affected by one play near the end of the game.  But that one play was no more or less important than the 130 or so other plays that occurred in the game and that led up to the situation where a single play at the end of the game could be that significant.  Against Oakland, for example, if they had played well enough to have a two score lead in the fourth quarter, the tuck rule play would have been mildly interesting, but no one would be talking about it now.  

    Consider the Saints game a few weeks ago as another example.  Everyone is talking about Brady's last pass to win the  game.  While that's a great play, it doesn't erase all the bad plays made in the second half that led up to a situation where the Pats could only win the game with one great play in the last eleven seconds. When I evaluate that game I see lots of good and lots of bad because I look at the whole game.  The 2007 Super Bowl is much the same.  The Tyree catch stands out because of when it took place and what happened afterwards.  But in reality, the Tyree catch wasn't the major problem in that game for the Pats.  The problem was the ineffectiveness of the Pats O line against the Giants D line.  Did the Pats lose the game because of a single catch?  No.  They lost because their whole offense--the strength of the team that year--was shut down all game by an inability to win in the trenches.  

    Getting to the main point of this thread, BB has built teams that are highly competitive.  But they do have flaws that, at times, hurt them in big games.  The fact is, the Pats have had dismal showings in the playoffs recently not because Brady is terrible as one of our posters constantly claims, but because they have had problems with talent at certain postions (the secondary stands out as the most problematic for the longest period of time, but there are others too that have been weak in certain years, such as perimeter receiver, varying front seven positions, interior O line, and running back).  I'm not saying BB has done a bad job--the Pats are disadvantaged in the draft because they win so much, and there's also a salary cap to deal with, which becomes particularly hard to manage when you have great and therefore very expensive players like Brady on the roster.  In fact, there's a good argument that can be made that BB has done an exceptional job given all those disadvantages. At the same time, I also think it's a fair question to ask whether the Pats could have done better (did the secondary really have to be that bad for that many years or were there things Belichick maybe could have done differently?)  I'm not saying I agree that Belichick could have done a better job--I'm just saying I think it's a fair question and not one that I believe can be definitively answered one way or the other.  And because I don't think the question can be definitively answered, I don't get why all this vitriol exists between the two sides of the debate.  I see points on both sides.  I see no reason to attack those with different points of view, whether it's Wozzy or you or Rusty on one side or Babe and Pezz on the other.  

     

    What bothers me about the tenor of the debate on this board lately is that there's a tendency to divide into two camps: the Belichick is infallible camp and the Belichick is terrible camp.



    This is a straw man.  There is exactly one poster who comes anywhere close to claiming BB is infallible.  There are numerous posters who routinely claim and start threads about how Belichick is terrible.  It is not even a comparison.

     




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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    How many drafted players are active is a trifling factor. Who cares if you have selected the most scrubs who manage to hang on in the NFL? That isn't going to win you SBs.

     

    Pro-bowl is another hit or miss measure. While many are deserving of the nod, many being placed there is a mystery.

    All-pro years isn't a perfect measure, but it is probably considerably better than the above.

    The one true indisputable measure, is Lombardi trophies.


    Winning Lombardis is an indisputable measure and so is finishing second.

     



    Not really though.  If you believe that winning Lombardis is the measure, then the Giants have been the best team builders since the mid 2000s, since they've won two.  But I don't think that's true.  In fact, I'd probably put both the Pats and Ravens ahead of the Giants in team building. 

     

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Not really though.  If you believe that winning Lombardis is the measure, then the Giants have been the best team builders since the mid 2000s, since they've won two.  But I don't think that's true.  In fact, I'd probably put both the Pats and Ravens ahead of the Giants in team building. 

    Exactly, where are the Giants now?

    Better yet can any of these BB sux as a GM experts here point out the 2-14 season, the 4-12 season's we've had to endure while rebuilding?  

    No, you can't...

    The Ravens went 5-11 in 2007, can you imagine how many posters would be jumping off a bridge if they actually had to endure a season where the Pats didn't have double digit wins?

    "Entitled" is the word. 

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    You're so ridiculous. No one here is a "BB hater". All of us love BB "The Coach". It's BB "The GM" who we question...not "hate". As for Newsome, he never had Tom Brady as his QB, or BB as his head coach. If he had, no telling how many titles the Ravens would have won.

    I guess Ozzie Newsome should have drafted Tom Brady then, shouldn't he?

    But he didn't, Belichick did.

    That's what you call Texas Toast.

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    How many drafted players are active is a trifling factor. Who cares if you have selected the most scrubs who manage to hang on in the NFL? That isn't going to win you SBs.

     

    Pro-bowl is another hit or miss measure. While many are deserving of the nod, many being placed there is a mystery.

    All-pro years isn't a perfect measure, but it is probably considerably better than the above.

    The one true indisputable measure, is Lombardi trophies.


    Winning Lombardis is an indisputable measure and so is finishing second.

     



    Not really though.  If you believe that winning Lombardis is the measure, then the Giants have been the best team builders since the mid 2000s, since they've won two.  But I don't think that's true.  In fact, I'd probably put both the Pats and Ravens ahead of the Giants in team building. 

     




    Thats right. BB just got outcoached twice by the same guy with the same team with the same strategy. I still think he is the best coach but he doesnt always live up to the hype in recent years in big games. He has been outcoached too much for my liking for being the best in the biz which I think he is. Its not about wanting someone different. Its about expecting more from the best in the game. BB has some classic games under his belt, namely in 03 with the streak but in postseason he has been outcoached a lot. Jets in 2010 with the fake punt w/Chung. Ravens in 2009. We had no chance from the start. Both SB's he was outcoached. Thats my Concern. As long as Brady here, he doesnt have to be a perfect drafter. Great Qbs mask a lot. BB is following Parcells Motto. You RIDE your BEST Players!

    Currently Wilfork is on I/R for that reason.

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Not really though.  If you believe that winning Lombardis is the measure, then the Giants have been the best team builders since the mid 2000s, since they've won two.  But I don't think that's true.  In fact, I'd probably put both the Pats and Ravens ahead of the Giants in team building. 

    Exactly, where are the Giants now?

    Better yet can any of these BB sux as a GM experts here point out the 2-14 season, the 4-12 season's we've had to endure while rebuilding?  

    No, you can't...

    The Ravens went 5-11 in 2007, can you imagine how many posters would be jumping off a bridge if they actually had to endure a season where the Pats didn't have double digit wins?

    "Entitled" is the word. 



    This gets at the crux of the debate really.  Forgetting the extreme positions (i.e., BB is awful or BB is almost beyond criticism), the two ways you can legitimately view BB's approach are:

    1. His approach is the best possible because it keeps the team competitive year after year so the team always has a shot at winning the championship 

    2. His approach is great from the perspective of keeping the Pats competitive, but it maybe leaves them a tad short on top quality individual talent required to be truly dominant in the playoffs

    I honestly waver between those two views because I don't think the data is conclusive.  Either way, though, there's nothing to complain about if you love to watch great football.  BB gives us great football year after year and for that no one should ever complain. 

     

     

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    You're so ridiculous. No one here is a "BB hater". All of us love BB "The Coach". It's BB "The GM" who we question...not "hate". As for Newsome, he never had Tom Brady as his QB, or BB as his head coach. If he had, no telling how many titles the Ravens would have won.

    I guess Ozzie Newsome should have drafted Tom Brady then, shouldn't he?

    But he didn't, Belichick did.

    That's what you call Texas Toast.



    And signing Flacco may be a big mistake.  Still Newsome has a pretty impressive track record too. I don't think Ravens fans have much to complain about with the way that team has been managed. 

     

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Fair enough, IQ. we both see it differently but the point I am making is that they have a lower % of active picks  due to the higher volume, which means more misses.

    The draft position is not accurate because they have traded completely out of the first round twice, completely, and have also had 2 picks in the 1st round 5 times and only used them once.  Some of those picks were higher than their original, which skews those #'s.

    This is where the raw data is NOT accurate.  If they had the 21st and 29th , 1st round picks and used the 29th and traded the 21st, you can see the discrepancy.  Right?

    When you look at the number of first round picks having the best chance of success, why trade to a lower round where the success rate is not so good?

    Ya it might give you more chances to gamble but you are gambling with worse odds  and a lower % of success.

    The pro bowl?  Sorry but they are more popular than all 3 Florida teams combined,  and more than 2 of the 3 NY teams, so I would expect more in the popularity contest.  LOL

      BTW, Thanks for the rational and insult free discussion.  It's been a pleasure.

     oh, here is the complete chart for the one you are using.

    See where the fins have 48 active players out of only 78 picks?  That's a much better yield.

    Right?

     



    No, why would that matter?  If a team traded it's entire draft for one player like Ricky Williams they would have the greatest record by efficiency.  But the Ricky Williams trade was a bad trade and we all know it so why use a measure known to be a failure in real life results.

     

    The Pats have had the worst drafting position since 2001, that is before trades.  They have rebuilt several times.  The odds are they would have one of the worst teams because they get the worst picks, that is how the system is set up to keep equal competition.  The odds of keeping more players and more good players with the lowest picks are low.  The poor drafting position is a result of winning- that is a fact.  Moving up does not gain you draft position because you have to give up high picks- the average will stay almost the same.




    Well that's not true.  The team had the worst drafting position twice in those years.  They also traded out of the first round entirely, twice, which skews the position,  They also had higher picks due to trading down when they actually had ammunition to move up.  They also had the 6th, 10th and 17th pick during that time period.  Not too shabby!

    It matters because the raw data shows one thing and the adjusted data shows another.

    No one is talking trading your entire draft for one player, but when you are in the position to improve, why not improve?  Remember, the higher pick, the higher chance of success.

    See, Seymore, Mayo, Solder.

    There is also a problem of WHO they picked with those precious first rounders.

    2006-9, yields Maroney (21), Merriweather(24), Mayo (10) and no pick.  I'd call that POOR, when only one of 4 picks was a keeper.  (IN fact, Wasn't Mayo the only keeper in all the 40+ picks)  The others rating extremely low in value or return on investment.  Bah!  How do you dismiss sucking in the draft for at least 4  of the past 10 years?

    But you guys are right, BB is the bestest, GM and none of this has anything to do with not winning a SB in 8 years.

    Who needs data when we have actual homers that say so.

    My bad for thinking it's the GM's JOB to improve the team. 

    There is obviously no need for improvement.

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

    Re: gasoline to the


    No One is saying that BB doesnt make mistakes

    But again

    If you are not going to say who is number one and tht you want that person more than BB then you are arduing aginst yourself

    Tell me who is better ? and that you want him

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

     I think the record clearly shows he is the best GM and the best coach



    He's been in charge of the draft and the trades for a long time.  When was the last time the Pats won the Superbowl? 

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:


    No One is saying that BB doesnt make mistakes

    But again

    If you are not going to say who is number one and tht you want that person more than BB then you are arduing aginst yourself

    Tell me who is better ? and that you want him




    Oh, geez.

    Who cares!

    That is subjective and changes year to year.  The Steelers and Giants both won twice in the past 8 years.  The Pats lost twice in that time.

    All I care about is what he did to improve THIS TEAM.

    Obviously poor drafts in 2006-9 resulted in a very poor defense in 2010-2012.  DEFENSIVE BUSTS AFTER BUSTS AFTER BUSTS, MADE IT SO.  DENY THAT!

    Despite having the best coach and QB during that time, there was obviously a problem.

    The problem was not one play here or there.

    The problem is (was) an accumulation of talent (the GM) that didn't fit the BILL (the coach).

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    so the best GM is the one who won the last SB?

    then just say that the whole discussion is not worth commenting on

    and that is an opinion you clearly have the right to.

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to seawolfxs's comment:

    so the best GM is the one who won the last SB?

    then just say that the whole discussion is not worth commenting on

    and that is an opinion you clearly have the right to.




    My opinion is that the GM gets you at the level to compete. The coach has to seal the deal in the end. BB and Brady got this team to 2 SB's in the last 6 years but BB the coach was thoroughly outcoached twice by Coughlin with the same strategy. IN years past, BB was clearly the better coach in SB wins. Lately, not so much. So when BB the GM isnt messing up, BB the coach is there to help. Thats not a slight as I love BB and think he is a great coach but his latest big game coaching jobs have beem Meh at best. There is no arguing THAT. Reg. Season both BB and Brady are Kings,but postseason hasnt been good to EITHER lately and Thats a fact as well. We used to be a team that if we make it the SB?  Book it!  Now we squander opptys away with bad defensive personell(last 5 years) and Bad Offensive personell(now and maybe next 5 years??) and not being able to make adjustments in a big game.

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    After reading all these posts and getting blind deciphering those stat charts, I've come to one conclusion...   How a team fares in the NFL is more a combination of front end skill and and some good fortune, or luck, if you prefer.  I do not see a single team get oustanding draft results year in and year out.

    When you look at the SB winners of the last decade, or since BB has been the head coach of the Pats, how many of the head coaches rise up to be considered GoaT like BB?  Not many.  So, how does a team like the Giants, who won TWO SBs with relatively mediocre records do it when an 18 - 0 team can't?  It goes to what I said above...  some skills and more than a healthy dose of good fortune.

    Last thought:  When have the Pats EVER been considered to have the best group of players as a team in any year?  I rarely hear about the Pats being spoken in terms of they have the most talented players making up their team.  Just sayin'!

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    You can have the two 15s. I'll take the 30. LMAO



    I'd rather get three 30s with five choices than two 30s with three choices.  By your logic the optimal draft would be to trade all of your picks for the first overall pick and take the player that yields the highest value.  That is the maximum possible AV per pick.  LMAO @ U.

     

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    so the best GM is the one who won the last SB?

    then just say that the whole discussion is not worth commenting on

    and that is an opinion you clearly have the right to.




    Well look at it like the Kentucky Derby.

     As a trainer, You got one horse in the race in 10 of the past 12 years.  Great, qualifying for those races is difficult.

    But there are also 11 other trainers who have qualified and also have one horse in the race yearly.  Could be different trainers in that 12 year period.  They are not always the same.  Some trainers show up more than others.

    Does simply qualifying for that race more than any other trainer, make you the best trainer?

    No, it doesn't.  The guy/horse that wins that race in each of those years makes him the best for that year.

    In the past 8 years, BB has qualified, come close..... some seconds but also some 3rd thru 8th place finishes and one miss alltogether.

    Unfortunately, they only give the blanket of roses to the one that finishes first and there has obviously been better, in the past 8 years.

    The opposite end of the spectrum of winners is losers.

    Although BB has qualified in 7 of the past 8 years, (more than any other?) he lost ALL OF THEM.

    I don't know what else to tell ya.

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Not when your value picks turn out to have no value.   When injury prone players get injured repeatedly and character issue guys murder or punch people, or get suspended for substance abuse.

    And not when you are using  those added 2nd round picks on 5th-7th round talent..against the advice of your scouts.  Do they REALLY need 2nd round ST players, when there was a position of need  (the same position of need for years) not satisfied?  AGAIN!

    Do you really need 12 and 14 picks in a draft when only 3 of them are keepers?

    No, no one is perfect and are all going to miss but when you constantly pick value due to "ISSUES", is it any wonder?  Haven't you lowered your chances of success, further, by doing all of the above? 



    Earth to Pezz.  Patriots picks since 2010 lead the league in AV.  Patriots picks since 2008 are 4th in the league in AV.  Patriots are at the top of the NFL in pro bowlers and all-pros drafted since 2008.  There is no way you can spin that into bottom tier drafting.  Wasn't this the year that all you moaners predicted was the year that BB's failure as GM was going to be exposed?  Didn't you boldly predict 9 wins?  That sure looks like a winning prediction.  LMAO @ U.

     

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Forgetting the extreme positions (i.e., BB is awful or BB is almost beyond criticism)



    That's the problem prolate.  I am arguing with someone holding an extreme position (BB is awful).  You don't spam the board with posts and threads about how BB should be fired as GM or is a bottom tier drafter if you have a reasonable position.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share