Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    Completely disagree with your assessment of the Cowboys "all world talent" Zbellino. They have 2 great players in Ware and Dez Bryant. Witten is a good TE with limited redzone ability(check down machine) They have not had a run game since Emmit left, they haven't had a great defense since the dynasty years. Goes to show you that having all world talent like Ware doesn't make your defense great, or even good in their case. I think Romo kind of gets a bum wrap. The guy scores 5 tds and 500 yards and gets the blame for the loss with the ugly int. What about his defense letting up 50 points?

    Any case I think the Pats defense the last 3 years has been better then the cowboys. So if the point is that Brady would win a SB with Dallas because they had a better team, then I strongly disagree.

    On offense, I would take Gronk, WW, Hernandez, Lloyd, Ridley, Vareen and Woodhead over anything the cowboys put out there each and every day of my life. Lots of talent right there that the GM brought in. Lots.

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    No Champ, I have no problem with any aspect of the coaching, the head coach, or his assistants.  I think the strategy, game planning, play calling, player preparation--everything related to coaching--has been brilliant.  That more than anything is the team's strength in my opinion.

    As far as team building, I also think BB does a very good job.  At the same time, I don't see him as perfect (no one is) in this area.  And I also realize that the way the salary cap and draft positioning work creates constraints that make it impossible to build a team without making lots of trade offs.  There's no way in the modern NFL to build a perfect team.  Any approach you take is going to involve trade offs and have its strengths and weaknesses.  When I look at BB's approach, his strength is maintaining good average quality and lots of flexibility to adapt to changing players.  The weakness of his approach is that he sometimes ends up with a bit less top individual talent than some other playoff quality teams.  To me the playoff losses are easily explained by gaps in talent, exacerbated by a few key injuries.  I don't see the assistant coaches as an issue.  I don't see play calling or strategy as a problem.  I don't see Brady as a problem.  What I see are some gaps in talent in the secondary, in the receiving corp (especially with Gronk out), in places in the O line, and sometimes elsewhere.  The losses are mostly due to these talent gaps.  Those are impossible to avoid in today's NFL, and I don't have a gripe with Belichick or blame him for that . . . but I also don't see any reason to pretend that the talent gaps don't exist.  




    Brady

    Welker

    Gronk

    Hernandez

    Lloyd

    Ridley

    Vareen

    Woody

    Mankins

    Volmer

    Solder

    Mayo

    Talib

    Wilfork

    DMC

    Dennard

    Ninko

    Hightower

    Spikes

    Arrington

    Not enough talent there for ya? Any bad players above? Nope.

    The talent gap DOES NOT EXIST. Do we have weakness? Yes, of course every team does, but lets stop the charades. This team has been loaded on talent. Match them up with any team in this league the last 3 years.

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    No Champ, I have no problem with any aspect of the coaching, the head coach, or his assistants.  I think the strategy, game planning, play calling, player preparation--everything related to coaching--has been brilliant.  That more than anything is the team's strength in my opinion.

    As far as team building, I also think BB does a very good job.  At the same time, I don't see him as perfect (no one is) in this area.  And I also realize that the way the salary cap and draft positioning work creates constraints that make it impossible to build a team without making lots of trade offs.  There's no way in the modern NFL to build a perfect team.  Any approach you take is going to involve trade offs and have its strengths and weaknesses.  When I look at BB's approach, his strength is maintaining good average quality and lots of flexibility to adapt to changing players.  The weakness of his approach is that he sometimes ends up with a bit less top individual talent than some other playoff quality teams.  To me the playoff losses are easily explained by gaps in talent, exacerbated by a few key injuries.  I don't see the assistant coaches as an issue.  I don't see play calling or strategy as a problem.  I don't see Brady as a problem.  What I see are some gaps in talent in the secondary, in the receiving corp (especially with Gronk out), in places in the O line, and sometimes elsewhere.  The losses are mostly due to these talent gaps.  Those are impossible to avoid in today's NFL, and I don't have a gripe with Belichick or blame him for that . . . but I also don't see any reason to pretend that the talent gaps don't exist.  

     




    Brady

     

    Welker

    Gronk

    Hernandez

    Lloyd

    Ridley

    Vareen

    Woody

    Mankins

    Volmer

    Solder

    Mayo

    Talib

    Wilfork

    DMC

    Dennard

    Ninko

    Hightower

    Spikes

    Arrington

    Not enough talent there for ya? Any bad players above? Nope.

    The talent gap DOES NOT EXIST. Do we have weakness? Yes, of course every team does, but lets stop the charades. This team has been loaded on talent. Match them up with any team in this league the last 3 years.



    Unfortunately, most of those guys haven't been on the field at the same time.  And the guys who've been filling in for them aren't always the best.  Until Talib and Dennard showed up last year, the secondary was a mess--for years.  And the only outside WR you have on that list is Lloyd and he's not even in the NFL anymore.  He wasn't very good. 

    Vereen and Ridley weren't on the field in the 2011 Super Bowl.  Mankins and Vollmer were injured. Gronk has been injured three years in a row now. Hightower was a rookie last year. You can put together a list of 20 good players, but really the make up of the team each year in the playoffs was quite different . . . and looking at those actual teams on the field, the talent gaps were very much real.

    The "charade" is trying to blame the assistant coaches for the losses.   

     

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    Completely disagree with your assessment of the Cowboys "all world talent" Zbellino. They have 2 great players in Ware and Dez Bryant. Witten is a good TE with limited redzone ability(check down machine) They have not had a run game since Emmit left, they haven't had a great defense since the dynasty years. Goes to show you that having all world talent like Ware doesn't make your defense great, or even good in their case. I think Romo kind of gets a bum wrap. The guy scores 5 tds and 500 yards and gets the blame for the loss with the ugly int. What about his defense letting up 50 points?

    Any case I think the Pats defense the last 3 years has been better then the cowboys. So if the point is that Brady would win a SB with Dallas because they had a better team, then I strongly disagree.

    On offense, I would take Gronk, WW, Hernandez, Lloyd, Ridley, Vareen and Woodhead over anything the cowboys put out there each and every day of my life. Lots of talent right there that the GM brought in. Lots.



    By all world, I mean on offense. I think very highly of Witten. Ok, so he was a checkdown machine with 114 catches. I could say the same thing about Welker. Checkdown machine.

    I also think their running backs are good ... most notably Demarco Murray is a pretty good back. How I'd rank them against Ridley et al, I don't know. 

     

    The whole package: Austin, Bryant, Witten, Murray, and Terrence Williams vs Gronk, WW, Hernandez, Lloyd, and Ridley. I don't know. It's almost a wash to me. Gronk is better than any one player Dallas has ... but Dallas is a more balanced group, that to the bottom, retains it's talent better. Lloyd wouldn't even make that starting roster.

    If Witten is a WW of a TE (like Dallas Clark really) then the remainder is Austin, Bryant, Williams, vs Gronk, Hernandez, and Lloyd.

    Gronk is better than anyone of them. He's unstoppable when he is healthy, and he adds to the running game a tremendous amoutn. But Their second player is better than Hernandez (who is another checkdown machine and adds little endzone or deep threat ability) and Lloyd wouldn't even make that roster in Dallas, though he was certainly servicable.

    How do I rank that face to face? I don't know. I guess it depends on how much you value Gronk's supreme ability to affect every facet of a game versus the versatility/depth Dallas' standout group offers.  

    But that is really nitpicking. My point being ... Brady got more out of at least the same. Romo's stats are kind of 'meh' considering Dallas has had as much talent on offense as anyone. 

    They've had some great defenses on and off the past few seasons... but they are kind of all over the place in that regard. 

    I'll just disagree ... I think Bill would certainly get a lot more from that collection of players. That's just my 2 cents. 

    Feel free to disagree ... I know you will. I'm not sure what ax you are grinding, but I suspect something I've said doesn't jibe with it, so none of my points will even be received, much less, the main point: great players and coaches don't guarantee wins, rather they keep teams in competition by being consistent year to year and always making due with poor fortune. 

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

     

     

    Z

    The original article posted by True Champ presents a sound premise: BB's emphasis on depth drafting/acquiring depth role players/ depth team building that he can use situationally to build teams that are able to adjust to multiple situations and continue to compete while other teams fade due to aging /injuries and poor salary cap management.

    However, taking this to the realm of how BB and TB would do if transported to some other team i.e. the Cowboys leaves reality so far behind I'am surprised you even suggest it. You yourself suggest they're are too many variables behind winning the Superbowl that the best one can do is to stay competitive year after year. So, I am not sure how you can predict BB and TB on any other team even if that team has a superior pass rusher and an elite WR? Especially with Jerry Jones as owner and de facto, GM / micro-manager lurking in the background! BB is successful partly because Bob Kraft puts everything in place for him to be successful. Jerry Jones takes away more than he gives via his continual interference. How would BB survive in that environment? 

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to NYC's comment:

     

     

    Z

    The original article posted by True Champ presents a sound premise: BB's emphasis on depth drafting/acquiring depth role players that he can use situationally to build teams that are able to adjust to multiple situations and continue to compete while other teams fade due to aging/injuries/poor salary cap management.

    However, taking this to the realm of how BB and TB would do if transported to some other team i.e. the Cowboys leaves reality so far behind I'am surprised you even suggest it. You yourself suggest they're are too many variables behind winning the Superbowl that the best one can do is to stay competitive year after year. So, I am not sure how you can predict BB and TB on any other team even if that team has a superior pass rusher and an elite WR? Especially with Jerry Jones as owner and de facto, GM/micro-manager lurking in the background!




    I didn't. That's just where I cut in. What ifs are fun too. 

    I assume if BB is there he is also calling the shots, and Jerry Jones isn't sticking his fingers in the pie. 

    Man, Jones alone can really screw a team up right?

    There are many variables that go into winning a superbowl ... but a great player can limit most of the ones that go into winning a season. 

    The smaller the sample, the greater the risk of losing on a variable. 

    For instance ... there isn't much to manage around when you lose Gronkowski two post-seasons in a row. Over the course of a season, though, against weaker teams, and with more ability to work with FAs etc, that can be mitigated wth superior execution. 

    I guess the argument starts, right, with someone telling me BB wouldn't be able to coach those Dallas players up better than who they have now. I don't believe this at all. 

     

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    Completely disagree with your assessment of the Cowboys "all world talent" Zbellino. They have 2 great players in Ware and Dez Bryant. Witten is a good TE with limited redzone ability(check down machine) They have not had a run game since Emmit left, they haven't had a great defense since the dynasty years. Goes to show you that having all world talent like Ware doesn't make your defense great, or even good in their case. I think Romo kind of gets a bum wrap. The guy scores 5 tds and 500 yards and gets the blame for the loss with the ugly int. What about his defense letting up 50 points?

    Any case I think the Pats defense the last 3 years has been better then the cowboys. So if the point is that Brady would win a SB with Dallas because they had a better team, then I strongly disagree.

    On offense, I would take Gronk, WW, Hernandez, Lloyd, Ridley, Vareen and Woodhead over anything the cowboys put out there each and every day of my life. Lots of talent right there that the GM brought in. Lots.



    By all world, I mean on offense. I think very highly of Witten. Ok, so he was a checkdown machine with 114 catches. I could say the same thing about Welker. Checkdown machine.

     

    I also think their running backs are good ... most notably Demarco Murray is a pretty good back. How I'd rank them against Ridley et al, I don't know

     

    The whole package: Austin, Bryant, Witten, Murray, and Terrence Williams vs Gronk, WW, Hernandez, Lloyd, and Ridley. I don't know. It's almost a wash to me. Gronk is better than any one player Dallas has ... but Dallas is a more balanced group, that to the bottom, retains it's talent better. Lloyd wouldn't even make that starting roster.

    If Witten is a WW of a TE (like Dallas Clark really) then the remainder is Austin, Bryant, Williams, vs Gronk, Hernandez, and Lloyd.

    Gronk is better than anyone of them. He's unstoppable when he is healthy, and he adds to the running game a tremendous amoutn. But Their second player is better than Hernandez (who is another checkdown machine and adds little endzone or deep threat ability) and Lloyd wouldn't even make that roster in Dallas, though he was certainly servicable.

    How do I rank that face to face? I don't know. I guess it depends on how much you value Gronk's supreme ability to affect every facet of a game versus the versatility/depth Dallas' standout group offers.  

    But that is really nitpicking. My point being ... Brady got more out of at least the same. Romo's stats are kind of 'meh' considering Dallas has had as much talent on offense as anyone. 

    They've had some great defenses on and off the past few seasons... but they are kind of all over the place in that regard. 

    I'll just disagree ... I think Bill would certainly get a lot more from that collection of players. That's just my 2 cents. 

    Feel free to disagree ... I know you will. I'm not sure what ax you are grinding, but I suspect something I've said doesn't jibe with it, so none of my points will even be received, much less, the main point: great players and coaches don't guarantee wins, rather they keep teams in competition by being consistent year to year and always making due with poor fortune. 




    I suspect something you said doesn't jive with you my friend. You really think Cowboys collection of offensive talent was even as good as ours? I have a hard time believing you really feel that way. You know the game, and you know the Pats.

    You know Gronk has had way more impact then Dez would on our offense, with his redzone ability and what he does for the run game in terms of blocking. I would also take a pre murderer Aaron Hernandez over Witten(maybe a wash, as Witten is a really good TE but not neccessary with Gronk on the team) I might take Dez over Welker but in our offensive system probably not. I'd take Lloyd over miles austin, and Terrence Williams looks like a catch but he's had 1 great game and 1 good game. Take Ridley, Vareen and maybe even Woodhead over Murray. Surely take our defense over theirs.

    Anyway, we got off track. Your statement in bold is the point of my OP and the article I posted, although it was more directed at the depth a team builds and not as much about "great players". 

    The axe I am grinding is with fans of this team that do not understand what BB has built in N.E. I am trying to help them enjoy the ride. I tried to give some perspective as to what other good teams go through even though they have continuity at the head coach and QB positions.

    Lastly I received your message loud and clear, I just disagree with it in regards to Brady and BB winning a SB with the Boys.

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    No Champ, I have no problem with any aspect of the coaching, the head coach, or his assistants.  I think the strategy, game planning, play calling, player preparation--everything related to coaching--has been brilliant.  That more than anything is the team's strength in my opinion.

    As far as team building, I also think BB does a very good job.  At the same time, I don't see him as perfect (no one is) in this area.  And I also realize that the way the salary cap and draft positioning work creates constraints that make it impossible to build a team without making lots of trade offs.  There's no way in the modern NFL to build a perfect team.  Any approach you take is going to involve trade offs and have its strengths and weaknesses.  When I look at BB's approach, his strength is maintaining good average quality and lots of flexibility to adapt to changing players.  The weakness of his approach is that he sometimes ends up with a bit less top individual talent than some other playoff quality teams.  To me the playoff losses are easily explained by gaps in talent, exacerbated by a few key injuries.  I don't see the assistant coaches as an issue.  I don't see play calling or strategy as a problem.  I don't see Brady as a problem.  What I see are some gaps in talent in the secondary, in the receiving corp (especially with Gronk out), in places in the O line, and sometimes elsewhere.  The losses are mostly due to these talent gaps.  Those are impossible to avoid in today's NFL, and I don't have a gripe with Belichick or blame him for that . . . but I also don't see any reason to pretend that the talent gaps don't exist.  

     




    Brady

     

    Welker

    Gronk

    Hernandez

    Lloyd

    Ridley

    Vareen

    Woody

    Mankins

    Volmer

    Solder

    Mayo

    Talib

    Wilfork

    DMC

    Dennard

    Ninko

    Hightower

    Spikes

    Arrington

    Not enough talent there for ya? Any bad players above? Nope.

    The talent gap DOES NOT EXIST. Do we have weakness? Yes, of course every team does, but lets stop the charades. This team has been loaded on talent. Match them up with any team in this league the last 3 years.

     



     

    Unfortunately, most of those guys haven't been on the field at the same time.  And the guys who've been filling in for them aren't always the best.  Until Talib and Dennard showed up last year, the secondary was a mess--for years.  And the only outside WR you have on that list is Lloyd and he's not even in the NFL anymore.  He wasn't very good. 

    He was pursuited by teams but retired as he obviously is unstable, but saying he isn't good is wrong. If 900 yards and 5 or 6 tds isn't good as a 4rth receiving option then I don't knwo what is, and apparently neither do you.

    Vereen and Ridley weren't on the field in the 2011 Super Bowl.  Mankins and Vollmer were injured. Gronk has been injured three years in a row now. Hightower was a rookie last year. You can put together a list of 20 good players, but really the make up of the team each year in the playoffs was quite different . . . and looking at those actual teams on the field, the talent gaps were very much real.

    The "charade" is trying to blame the assistant coaches for the losses.

    Oh, so you blame bad luck with injuries for talent gaps and not BB's actual talent acquisition. Got it. I guess BB failed at team building because both of his all pro TE's got hurt and he didn't have a 3rd stud TE waiting in the fold. Bummer he only had 3 good RB's on last years team and not 4. Terrible talent acquisition by not having another STUD 6ft 8 twin tower tackle option after the STUD 6ft 8 twin tower tackle was injured.

    I'll take N.E's talent for the last 3 years against any team in the league, and so would most coaches and GM's in the league imo. 

    I don't blame anybody for the loss. The offense didn't play well again. The defense couldn't get a key stop. It happened to 30 other teams as well, but I do think that the loss of great coordinators has taken it's toll on this teams ability to perform in the clutch. I guess coaching matters to me more then it does to you.

     




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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    I think what is getting lost in most of this discussion is that BB drafts/brings in a certain type of player. On top of physical tools, he looks for what he deems coachable type players that have football as one of the most important things in their lives.

    Him bringing Brady over and coaching existing talent on other teams is no gaurantee of assuring a winner. Like he told Brady on the sidlines of the NO games in his football life documnetry... paraphrasing  I just can't reach these guys...

    There is no perfect or absolute way to draft or build a team but with BB he has a model and he very rarely strays from the plan.

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    Completely disagree with your assessment of the Cowboys "all world talent" Zbellino. They have 2 great players in Ware and Dez Bryant. Witten is a good TE with limited redzone ability(check down machine) They have not had a run game since Emmit left, they haven't had a great defense since the dynasty years. Goes to show you that having all world talent like Ware doesn't make your defense great, or even good in their case. I think Romo kind of gets a bum wrap. The guy scores 5 tds and 500 yards and gets the blame for the loss with the ugly int. What about his defense letting up 50 points?

    Any case I think the Pats defense the last 3 years has been better then the cowboys. So if the point is that Brady would win a SB with Dallas because they had a better team, then I strongly disagree.

    On offense, I would take Gronk, WW, Hernandez, Lloyd, Ridley, Vareen and Woodhead over anything the cowboys put out there each and every day of my life. Lots of talent right there that the GM brought in. Lots.



    By all world, I mean on offense. I think very highly of Witten. Ok, so he was a checkdown machine with 114 catches. I could say the same thing about Welker. Checkdown machine.

     

    I also think their running backs are good ... most notably Demarco Murray is a pretty good back. How I'd rank them against Ridley et al, I don't know

     

    The whole package: Austin, Bryant, Witten, Murray, and Terrence Williams vs Gronk, WW, Hernandez, Lloyd, and Ridley. I don't know. It's almost a wash to me. Gronk is better than any one player Dallas has ... but Dallas is a more balanced group, that to the bottom, retains it's talent better. Lloyd wouldn't even make that starting roster.

    If Witten is a WW of a TE (like Dallas Clark really) then the remainder is Austin, Bryant, Williams, vs Gronk, Hernandez, and Lloyd.

    Gronk is better than anyone of them. He's unstoppable when he is healthy, and he adds to the running game a tremendous amoutn. But Their second player is better than Hernandez (who is another checkdown machine and adds little endzone or deep threat ability) and Lloyd wouldn't even make that roster in Dallas, though he was certainly servicable.

    How do I rank that face to face? I don't know. I guess it depends on how much you value Gronk's supreme ability to affect every facet of a game versus the versatility/depth Dallas' standout group offers.  

    But that is really nitpicking. My point being ... Brady got more out of at least the same. Romo's stats are kind of 'meh' considering Dallas has had as much talent on offense as anyone. 

    They've had some great defenses on and off the past few seasons... but they are kind of all over the place in that regard. 

    I'll just disagree ... I think Bill would certainly get a lot more from that collection of players. That's just my 2 cents. 

    Feel free to disagree ... I know you will. I'm not sure what ax you are grinding, but I suspect something I've said doesn't jibe with it, so none of my points will even be received, much less, the main point: great players and coaches don't guarantee wins, rather they keep teams in competition by being consistent year to year and always making due with poor fortune. 




    I suspect something you said doesn't jive with you my friend. You really think Cowboys collection of offensive talent was even as good as ours? I have a hard time believing you really feel that way. You know the game, and you know the Pats.

    You know Gronk has had way more impact then Dez would on our offense, with his redzone ability and what he does for the run game in terms of blocking. I would also take a pre murderer Aaron Hernandez over Witten(maybe a wash, as Witten is a really good TE but not neccessary with Gronk on the team) I might take Dez over Welker but in our offensive system probably not. I'd take Lloyd over miles austin, and Terrence Williams looks like a catch but he's had 1 great game and 1 good game. Take Ridley, Vareen and maybe even Woodhead over Murray. Surely take our defense over theirs.

    Anyway, we got off track. Your statement in bold is the point of my OP and the article I posted, although it was more directed at the depth a team builds and not as much about "great players". 

    The axe I am grinding is with fans of this team that do not understand what BB has built in N.E. I am trying to help them enjoy the ride. I tried to give some perspective as to what other good teams go through even though they have continuity at the head coach and QB positions.

    Lastly I received your message loud and clear, I just disagree with it in regards to Brady and BB winning a SB with the Boys.



    Haha. Lloyd over Miles Austin? Are you kidding me? Really? Based on what? Lloyd's had a good season or two. Otherwise, he is just a good #2. Austin is a lock for 1000 x 7 Tds if he is healthy. I mean, they aren't even comparable. 

    True Gronk is better than any one of them. I get that. I noted that. 

    But on what grounds is Hernandez better than Whitten? I mean, just because they are Patriots doesn't mean they are the best. Whitten is an 8 time probowler. He is possibly headed to Canton when he is done. His worst seasons in his prime are about as good as Hernandez's best. Give some people credit, man. 

    For me to even take the conversation seriously, we need to get serious about this and not talk like complete homers. 

    Hernandez is better than Witten? Lloyd over Austin? Come on, lol. 

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    Also, yes, people keep whining about BB, a few people, on this board. I've let it go. It typically is a small issue on this forum once draft season is over and all the experts weigh in. 

    They need to get over it.

    But trying to play off things like Lloyd > Austin? I literally am laughing about that. I don't think a single scouting agent or coach would ever come close to that assessment. Austin is a special player. Lloyd's isn't even playing. 

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    Champ

    Your point is well taken. BB has provided the stability and depth necessary for long term team building. Many fans tend to see the blips (the ups and downs of individual selections that comprise the annual NFL draft) rather than understand the long term forces (the entire team building process) put into place by BB that have created long term success.  

    In this regard, BB as coach is inseparable from BB as GM. One is necessary for the other in the team building process. Selection of all the proper ingredients, their roles, their replacement ingredients is as necessary as their continual development and integration into the whole recipe.

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to NYC's comment:

    Champ

    Your point is well taken. BB has provided the stability and depth necessary for long term team building. Many fans tend to see the blips (the ups and downs of individual selections that comprise the annual NFL draft) rather than understand the long term forces (the entire team building process) put into place by BB that have created long term success.  



    Thanks NYC. Yes that was indeed the point.

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Also, yes, people keep whining about BB, a few people, on this board. I've let it go. It typically is a small issue on this forum once draft season is over and all the experts weigh in. 

    They need to get over it.

    But trying to play off things like Lloyd > Austin? I literally am laughing about that. I don't think a single scouting agent or coach would ever come close to that assessment. Austin is a special player. Lloyd's isn't even playing. 


    much like the entire cowboys offense you are over rating mils austin, and i will concede that witten is a better TE then hernandez but not when we already have Gronk, but that wasnt the argument so again i concede. Yes  would take Lloyd last year over austin. I dont think austin puts up 900 yards and 5 tds as the number 4 receiving option. Actually i think Austin was a flash in the pan 1 year wonder, and yes i take Gronk WW Hern Lloyd, Ridley, Vareen, and Woody over Dez, Witten, austin and murray wich is all they had last year and i dont even think its close. 

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    Champ, it seems like you take it personally that some of us judge talent on the team objectively.  Look, you can say what you want, but in 2011 the secondary was atrocious and also unstable. Heck, we played both Edelman and Slater at DB some games and there was a parade of no-name back ups at corner and safety on and off the team through the year. The pass defense was one of the worst in the league.  The issue was a talent one.  And it hurt us in the Super Bowl when Sterling Moore got behind Manningham and Chung couldn't get over in time.  That was the kind of problem we saw all year. Manning had a 75% completion rate, his best in two seasons I believe.  I know your response . . . I've heard it over and over . . . they only gave up 19 points.  But they gave up critical completions at critical times and couldn't hold a lead in a close game.  It was poor defense.

    Similarly, on offense, we were far too dependent on just four guys that year--Gronk, Hern, Welker, and Branch.  Branch was washed up.  Hern and Welker both effectively slot receivers, and unfortunately Gronk was injured.  Essentially the passing game was forced to be executed with two slot guys--Hern and Welker.  That was a talent problem.  Then there was the matter of two just-average backs (BJGE and Woodhead).  You seem to think these guys are great talent.  They aren't bad players, but you're not talking Peterson and Sproles.  They are midlevel talent.  

    And the O line wasn't up to the Giants front.  In large part that was due more to injuries than the talent level of the players, but the O line has never been a truly dominant run blocking line or one that can hold up well against very athletic D lines.  

    I don't want to rehash the Super Bowl for the 10 millionth time, but it's a good example of talent gaps (and execution failures).  This isn't to say BB did a bad job of building the team--as I said, there are constraints that any GM faces that make it impossible to build a perfect team and those constraints get even tighter when you win a lot and end up with low draft picks.  But why do we have to pretend that the reality is different than it is?  The team is very good, but also has some talent gaps that have made it less competitive in some games. 

    A few years ago you seemed to think the whole problem was Bill O'Brien not calling the run enough and using too much shotgun.  I always thought this showed a lack of understanding how well Belichick and his assistants coach the team.  The approach Belichick and O'Brien developed turned an offense without any real perimeter or deep receivers into one of the best passing offenses in the game.  That was an incredible feat and an example of brilliant coaching, but you whined incessantly about it.  You accuse us of being unappreciative because we are honest--but that was the height of misunderstanding what Belichick was doing.  It was brilliant coaching.  And yet, you criticized it continuously.  So please, get off your high horse for a minute.  Some of us are great fans (we even buy tickets!) . . . it's just that we like to be objective and see the real world for what it is.  

    That way we can truly appreciate just how good Belichick is in a real way and not just in some la-la-land homer way. 

     

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.


    Prolate

    I am really not sure of the point you are making? That we haven't had enough talent from time to time? Who could disagree with that?

    The question is then why is that so. I think you are also saying that it is systemic and indemic to the nature of the league and in particular to being a successful team in the league? That means not always have top picks, having other teams copy our schemes, other teams appropriate our coaches and talent and having to continually re-invent our offense and defense. 

    As a Pats fan, I do not consider that a problem; in fact, I consider it an honor. Also. since it is systemic. I do not fault BB for not having perfect drafts and I accept he has had his share of losers because it is not possible to do the job, adjust continually, experiment continually without having losers. 

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to NYC's comment:

     


    Prolate

    I am really not sure of the point you are making? That we haven't had enough talent from time to time? Who could disagree with that?

    The question is then why is that so. I think you are also saying that it is systemic and indemic to the nature of the league and in particular to being a successful team in the league? That means not always have top picks, having other teams copy our schemes, other teams appropriate our coaches and talent and having to continually re-invent our offense and defense. 

    As a Pats fan, I do not consider that a problem; in fact, I consider it an honor. Also. since it is systemic. I do not fault BB for not having perfect drafts and I accept he has had his share of losers because it is not possible to do the job, adjust continually, experiment continually without having losers. 

     



    Yeah.  It's pretty simple.  The reason the team has lost in the playoffs recently mostly comes down to gaps in talent and related execution failures.  The gaps in talent exist for several reasons, listed in order of importance:

     

    • Injury
    • Constraints of the salary cap and draft position
    • A team-building strategy that weighs individual talent a bit lower than other things like depth, complementary skills, versatility, and flexibility and that also places a high emphasis on finding undervalued players  (this strategy, like any strategy, has pluses and minuses, but it does tend to limit the number of top-talented players the team acquires)
    • Mistakes in talent selection (nothing the Pats are worse at than others, but they still occur)

     My objection to arguments like TrueChamp's is that I think they tend to confuse good team building skill with having great individual talent.  Belichick puts together great teams that play together well and can adapt to adversity well because of their flexibility.  But the individual players on those teams often aren't the top talent in the league.  Usually, a strong team will beat a collection of great players.  But in the playoffs, the Pats often face teams that are good both as teams and as individuals.  That's when they are sometimes overmatched.  The Ravens last year were more talented than the Pats, especially when the Pats were without Gronk and Talib.  The Giants may have been more talented than a (semi)Gronkless Pats team in 2011.  The 2010 team just wasn't that good. I'm not sure the Jets were much better, but they weren't much worse.  

    Anyway, I think Belichick does a great job of putting together teams.  But this doesn't mean the team is always able to counter really great talent.  Sometimes great players are hard to counter without equally great players.  And when it comes to that individual talent and execution, sometimes the Pats have come up short. 

    This year, though . . . as I said at the beginnning of the season . . . I feel the talent is maybe the best since 2007.  The injuries to Wilfork and Mayo hurt, but I'm hoping this team finally has the talent to be dominant come playoff time.

     

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    The Giants, Steelers and Ravens are showing that even the best organizations fall on hard times. When the Patriots fall on hard times they lose super bowls and conference championships.

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to NYC's comment:

     


    Prolate

    I am really not sure of the point you are making? That we haven't had enough talent from time to time? Who could disagree with that?

    The question is then why is that so. I think you are also saying that it is systemic and indemic to the nature of the league and in particular to being a successful team in the league? That means not always have top picks, having other teams copy our schemes, other teams appropriate our coaches and talent and having to continually re-invent our offense and defense. 

    As a Pats fan, I do not consider that a problem; in fact, I consider it an honor. Also. since it is systemic. I do not fault BB for not having perfect drafts and I accept he has had his share of losers because it is not possible to do the job, adjust continually, experiment continually without having losers. 

     



    Yeah.  It's pretty simple.  The reason the team has lost in the playoffs recently mostly comes down to gaps in talent and related execution failures.  The gaps in talent exist for several reasons, listed in order of importance:

     

    • Injury
    • Constraints of the salary cap and draft position
    • A team-building strategy that weighs individual talent a bit lower than other things like depth, complementary skills, versatility, and flexibility and that also places a high emphasis on finding undervalued players  (this strategy, like any strategy, has pluses and minuses, but it does tend to limit the number of top-talented players the team acquires)
    • Mistakes in talent selection (nothing the Pats are worse at than others, but they still occur)

     

     

     

    NO. Gaps in talen CANNOT exist due to salary cap as it is  level playing field. NO, a team building strategy does not devalue depth, complimentary skills, versatility, or flexibilty man what are you talking about? It values those concepts, it devalus paying a bunch of money to 1st round unproven talent that more often then not doesnt meet the pay requirements. So,in that aspect you are correct, it is simple. sorry about speling, posting from my old android.

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to NYC's comment:

     


    Prolate

    I am really not sure of the point you are making? That we haven't had enough talent from time to time? Who could disagree with that?

    The question is then why is that so. I think you are also saying that it is systemic and indemic to the nature of the league and in particular to being a successful team in the league? That means not always have top picks, having other teams copy our schemes, other teams appropriate our coaches and talent and having to continually re-invent our offense and defense. 

    As a Pats fan, I do not consider that a problem; in fact, I consider it an honor. Also. since it is systemic. I do not fault BB for not having perfect drafts and I accept he has had his share of losers because it is not possible to do the job, adjust continually, experiment continually without having losers. 

     



    Yeah.  It's pretty simple.  The reason the team has lost in the playoffs recently mostly comes down to gaps in talent and related execution failures.  The gaps in talent exist for several reasons, listed in order of importance:

     

    • Injury
    • Constraints of the salary cap and draft position
    • A team-building strategy that weighs individual talent a bit lower than other things like depth, complementary skills, versatility, and flexibility and that also places a high emphasis on finding undervalued players  (this strategy, like any strategy, has pluses and minuses, but it does tend to limit the number of top-talented players the team acquires)
    • Mistakes in talent selection (nothing the Pats are worse at than others, but they still occur)

     

     

     

    NO. Gaps in talen CANNOT exist due to salary cap as it is  level playing field. NO, a team building strategy does not devalue depth, complimentary skills, versatility, or flexibilty man what are you talking about? It values those concepts, it devalus paying a bunch of money to 1st round unproven talent that more often then not doesnt meet the pay requirements. So,in that aspect you are correct, it is simple. sorry about speling, posting from my old android.



    Yes they can.  Some teams are willing to spend more in some years with resulting cap issues the following year.  The Ravens are a perfect example.  They let themselves get into cap problems that forced them to dump players this year.  But last year they were a more talented team that overcame many injuries and was highly competitive in the playoffs. They are paying for it this year, but they won everything last year.

     

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    Interesting conversation by all

    We were 2 plays away in the final minutes of both 42 and 46 , if either 1of 2 in both SBs went our way, we are not even having this discussion. It is awfully thin to infer bb is not the best, and then under value BB on 4 plays. either as GM or coach. 

    And in 46 we also really didnt have Gronk the best player outside of Brady

    The talent was ther to win SB 4 and 5 , so much for not having enough talent

    I think we all agree how difficult it is to 1) build a contender and harder 2) to keep a contender.. the Pats are the only team that keeps on chugging

    I call it the GM Rubik's cube, but unlike the Rubik's cube there is no real solution. There is no solution to injuries or sure predictions on how players handle pressure. Except when they excell when young. TB showed it in college, PM didn't. 

    The giants were never the best team even in the NFC. they should have lost to SF in 46 and Eli wasn't the MVP in either , it was the dline. Sometimes you just don't get the breaks. Sometimes you do

    We are now witnessing this same conversation in Indie , about how They were 7/11 one and done. What the colts did was remarkable, just not as much as the Pats.To not say that BB is the best GM or best coach over the last 13 years you are going to have to tell me who else is. And you really cannot

     

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    You could argue Lloyd > Austin, or at least Lloyd = Austin:

    Lloyd last season: 74 rec, 911 yds, 12.8 ypc, 4 TDs

    Austin: 66/943/14.3/6

    Lloyd career: 10 years 385/5,695/14.8/35

    Austin career: 8+ years (this is his ninth) 292/4,362/14.9/34

    Not a lot of separation there. Lloyd was on some terrible SF teams and a not so hot Denver team and three other teams where Austin has been with the same QB/system his whole career. Neither are HOFers, but I don't see a big gap, at least career-wise. Both have missed a lot of games with injuries and both have underachieved, if you ask me.

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    Good article, interesting analysis on both sides of the discussion.  IMO, it starts with Kraft and wends its way through the entire organization into the 53-man roster and practice squad.  The team is built for the long haul by a guy who knows what he's doing.  A bit simplistic perhaps but that's the way I see it.

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    Good article, interesting analysis on both sides of the discussion.  IMO, it starts with Kraft and wends its way through the entire organization into the 53-man roster and practice squad.  The team is built for the long haul by a guy who knows what he's doing.  A bit simplistic perhaps but that's the way I see it.



    Agree , agree

    To prolate

    Are you saying that on the  18-1 42 SB team , that the GM didn't have enough talent? Really?

    I would also like to point out that only about 2 of the last 13 of the top seeds win the SB. the Pats did it 1 time, The pats were favorites in every playoff loss in the last 5 tries, seems the Pats GM was seen as getting enough talent by Vegas. and I am not blaming the coach for not winning

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

    Re: Price article on breaking point for Pats paints an accurate picture of the franchise.

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    Good article, interesting analysis on both sides of the discussion.  IMO, it starts with Kraft and wends its way through the entire organization into the 53-man roster and practice squad.  The team is built for the long haul by a guy who knows what he's doing.  A bit simplistic perhaps but that's the way I see it.



    Agree , agree

    To prolate

    Are you saying that on the  18-1 42 SB team , that the GM didn't have enough talent? Really?



    No.  I think that team was very talented.  The loss there was primarily the result of an injury-weakened O-line not being able to stop a very good Giants' D line.  (In a way it was a talent problem, but that problem was restricted to one unit that was suffering from injuries--there was no overall issue with talent in 2007).

    I think, however, that the teams from 2010 through 2012 had more serious talent issues that contributed heavily to their playoff losses in those years.  I've heard all sorts of excuses for the secondary over the years, but the stats don't lie.  The Pats' pass defense was just bad from 2010 through last year, at least until Talib came on board.  Why was it bad? Coaching? Schemes? Game planning?  No.  It was bad because the players on the field were not that good.  

    The team was demonstrably much more talented on offense.  However, even there, it was an oddly constituted offense that was limited by its lack of perimeter and deep threats.  Sure, Gronk and Welker are top quality offensive weapons.  Hernandez is good too (though overrated, I think, by New England fans).  But at WR (outside the slot position) the team was remarkably thin.  And until last year, the backs were also just mid-level talent.  The fact that the offensive quality was so concentrated among receivers who basically were best running shorter routes between the hashes, forced the offense into being fairly one dimensional.  And the lack of depth and variety in those receiving positions (TE, WR, receiving back) made the team vulnerable to a key injury.  The fact is, last year and in 2011, the offense dropped off precipitously whenever Gronk was hurt.  It was a great offense in many ways, but it was far too dependent on one guy.  Again, this is a talent issue.

    Does all this mean I think BB is a terrible GM?  No, I'm not Babe or TexPat here.  I think Belichick is good at what he does, but he's constrained (like any winning GM) by low draft choices and (like all GMs) by a salary cap. Further BB has a particular philosophy--he won't risk salary cap problems down the road by spending on too many expensive players and he's extremely picky about "value."  This is a good strategy if you want to stay competitive every year, preserve a lot of flexibility to move players in and out to tweak your schemes and talent mix, and also keep a team that averages decent quality and reasonable depth in most positions.  I actually like the strategy.  However, like any strategy, it has its downside, and the downside of this particular approach is that sometimes the team lacks talent that would help it win.  Asante Samuel may have been too expensive and not good value for the salary cap cost.  BB may have been right to let him leave for that reason. But not signing him also initiatied a long string of problems at corner where we drafted cheaper (lower round) guys hoping to land one who provided better value than his cost.  We failed there.  And because of it, the secondary stayed bad for years.  Belichick finally solved the problem when a truly talented corner (Talib) became available cheaply because of character concerns and when another talented corner (Dennard) slipped in the draft, again because of character concerns.  It's great to get excellent value at low cost--and it enables you to spend on a broader selection of players across the team--but the fact is it requires a bit of luck and there's some risk you just will be left with a group of guys like Marquice Cole and Sterling Moore -- or even Julian Edelman -- as starting DBs.  The other weakness of Belichick's approach is that it sometimes leaves the team oddly constituted and vulnerable to key injuries.  This has been the offense's problem where we basically underinvested in the WR position once Moss was let go and ended up with a team that for two years was far too heavily dependent on Gronk, especially for redzone production, and is now faced with the challenge of completely rebuilding its receiving corp in one season. 

    So Belichick's strategy deserves a lot of praise for all the reasons listed in the article that was quoted to start this thread.  But it also has it's weaknesses.  What I don't think some people get, is the fact that just because a strategy has weaknesses, doesn't make it a bad strategy--but not being a bad strategy also doesn't mean the weaknesses aren't really there.  As an example of what I mean taken from on-field strategy, playing eight in the box can be a good strategy against teams that run well.  That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't weaknesses and vulnerabilities associated with playing eight in the box. You might give up a big pass play. Every strategy has its trade-offs.  Belichick's team-building strategy has trade-offs too. I see no reason why we can't be honest about them.  I'm sure Belichick is honest about them with himself. He's too smart to pretend the weaknesses aren't there. Instead, I'm sure he knows exactly what they are, and does his best to develop a contingency plan in case they come back to bite him.  That's how he manages everything.  It's why he's so brilliant. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share