to all the BB GM naysayers

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

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : Everything is not so black and white. It takes steps to even get to the SB. 1st, win enough games to qualify for the play-offs  Pats did this 8/10 times 2nd, win the conference                                     Pats did this 5/10 times 3rd, win the SB                                                 Pats did this 3/10 times. That is not, just not sucking.  What team is better?   In fact what team has had a better run since the cap area began?
    Posted by pezz4pats

    I completely agree with what you are saying, but I feel like we need to stop using the first four years of those arguments. Light, Brady and Belichick are the only people who were around for the first Super Bowl team. There are only five or so guys from the third Super Bowl Champion team. People who claim BB rebuilt this team back into a championship team are wrong because the rebuilt team has not won a championship.

    Looking at your number for the last seven years:
    Make the playoffs - 6 of 7 times
    Win the conference - 2 of 7 times
    Win the Super Bowl - 0 of 7 times

    I just want people to stop pretending like this team is still at the top of the NFL the way it was ten years ago. It has not gotten back anywhere near there yet.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : You've already got Mallet as an NFL success. Brilliant. F-tard.
    Posted by BabeParilli

    6'6" 240 pounds, the most impressive pocket passing QB in his draft class but fell due to concerns about partying... well so did Dan Marino and Rapistburger. 

    I don't assume he will be as successful as Marino, but it sure gives me a warm feeling knowing he's sitting there next to Hoyer, especially after the success of Matt Cassel.

    I don't claim to be an expert on drafting success the way you seem to be, but if you're so sure of yourself, I suggest you post a breakdown of your draft picks. 

    If after two seasons, which is about how long you seem to give the Brace/Cunninghams of the world, but if the same number of your guys are supporting players on a great team and even some Pro Bowlers mixed in there and it compares to Belichick, then you can shout from on high.

    I doubt you'd find nearly solid picks as as some posters will here never mind BB, moreover you wouldn't find the nearly the amount of undrafted free agents that we fill in with year after year. 

    In fact I'd say it's impossible to state that a GM who builds primarily through the draft, representing the most frugal and fiscally responsible team year after year can also be called a bad evaluator of talent.  Methinks the Steelers are the only team that has been comparable to Belichick in terms of success at reloading on a small market budget.

    But build us a depth chart of your pro team, both offense and defense from this years draft class, starters and backups, lets see how good you are?  

    Better still give us a depth chart, one of each position, find us a guaranteed Pro Bowler outside of Kiper's top three picks at that position.  That's where BB picks every year remember, because he wins...

    I doubt you'll accept that challenge.

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

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : This right here^ is exactly what is wrong with 21st century Pats fan and you can well believe me when I tell you we won't miss you at all. Outside of maybe Bitchburgh and, just lately, the blue part of New Jersey, I can't think of another NFL fan base that wouldn't salivate at the idea of realistically competing for championships year-in and year-out the way the Pats do. I'm sorry it offends your bandwagon sensibilities that the Pats don't win the Super Bowl every single year and gift-wrap it especially for you, but that's not the way the world works. Oh . . .  and you can save all that "I've been a fan since . . .  " bullsqueeze. You show what type of fan you are with every post.
    Posted by p-mike


    Rather YOU are the epitome of what's wrong with Pats' fans from any era.

    I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S AZZ THAT BENGAL FANS WOULD SALIVATE TO BE "REALISTICALLY COMPETING FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS". It doesn't matter if you're competing for championships and losing them. I would rather not even make the playoffs than lose the Super Bowl. At least then you get better draft picks. Nobody is impressed with teams that get to the SB and lose it.

    What you are incapable of having sink into your dense brain as you foam at the mouth pronouncing those who just don't really like seeing consistent big game fails as "bandwagoners" is that losing the biggest games in this sport SUCKS! What the hell is so difficult about grasping that?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    I'm sorry, but I think the success we've had over the last ten years is a direct correlation of Tom Brady being our quarterback and not our many draft day maneuvers or our fiscal responsibility. I'm not saying BB is a bad GM, I just think that BB the coach can make things look better than they are - especially with a QB like Brady.
     
    We've had some home runs...Gronkowski, Hernandez, Mayo, Mankins (although I'm not sure there is a guy that has played worse in our two Super Bowl loses). We've had some solid guys...Chung, maybe McCourty. Of course we have some guys that could go either way, but have done nothing to help yet...Cunningham, Dawling, Vareen. And we've had some misses...Butler, Brace, Crable, Whilite, Price, Tate, Wheatly, Merriweather (yeah I think he's terrible) and Maroney (ditto).

    I think Brady makes it all almost meaningless - I also think that will change dramatically when he's gone....same for BB the coach.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : I completely agree with what you are saying, but I feel like we need to stop using the first four years of those arguments. Light, Brady and Belichick are the only people who were around for the first Super Bowl team. There are only five or so guys from the third Super Bowl Champion team. People who claim BB rebuilt this team back into a championship team are wrong because the rebuilt team has not won a championship. Looking at your number for the last seven years: Make the playoffs - 6 of 7 times Win the conference - 2 of 7 times Win the Super Bowl - 0 of 7 times I just want people to stop pretending like this team is still at the top of the NFL the way it was ten years ago. It has not gotten back anywhere near there yet.
    Posted by FrnkBnhm


    I do understand what you're saying.  2001-4 were better years, no doubt.
    But, here's what I think is escaping you.  2001-4 was an anomaly. 
    Nobody wins 3 Sb's in 4 years under a cap system that is designed to promote parity.  How many even did that before the cap era? 
    It probably won't ever happen again.
    Look at NY, it took them 4 yrs to repeat after a few crappy years.
    The system is designed so that the more successful teams are put at a disadvantage with cap and draft picks. Cap limits how long you can keep your best players or get better ones and winning hurts your draft picks.
    The Pats have had this disadvantage for the past 10 years.  The only things that have helped that are GM, BB picking up more picks and managing the cap & TB, of course.
    The fact that they remain competitive should be commended, not criticized.
    JMHO.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    Evey other year for the last 6 years we have been losing BIG games. Yippee! Let the good times roll!!! Who wouldn't want to lose 2 SBs in 5 years?

    Meanwhile while BB is pizzing away 2nd rounders on Butlers, Braces and Cunninghams, the best player this team has ever had gets another year older.

    The FACT is, if the GM was better, the HC and QB would have two more SB rings.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : I do understand what you're saying.  2001-4 were better years, no doubt. But, here's what I think is escaping you.  2001-4 was an anomaly.  Nobody wins 3 Sb's in 4 years under a cap system that is designed to promote parity.  How many even did that before the cap era?  It probably won't ever happen again. Look at NY, it took them 4 yrs to repeat after a few crappy years. The system is designed so that the more successful teams are put at a disadvantage with cap and draft picks. Cap limits how long you can keep your best players or get better ones and winning hurts your draft picks. The Pats have had this disadvantage for the past 10 years.  The only things that have helped that are GM, BB picking up more picks and managing the cap & TB, of course. The fact that they remain competitive should be commended, not criticized. JMHO.
    Posted by pezz4pats


    Nobody is criticizing the fact they are a good team. Rather, there is obviously a problem when you lose so many huge games over that time.

    So, what is the problem? Is it the franchise QB? Is it the superior head coach?

    No. The problem is BB is NOT nearly as good a GM as he is a HC. His influx of players has been too spotty to get them over the top. Through his coaching skills and having the elite QB along with a decent team the success has been good but obviously not good enough.

    The bottom line is that if better choices by the GM were made with the resources available we would have done better than just getting close.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : Nobody is criticizing the fact they are a good team. Rather, there is obviously a problem when you lose so many huge games over that time. So, what is the problem? Is it the franchise QB? Is it the superior head coach? No. The problem is BB is NOT nearly as good a GM as he is a HC. His influx of players has been too spotty to get them over the top. Through his coaching skills and having the elite QB along with a decent team the success has been good but obviously not good enough. The bottom line is that if better choices by the GM were made with the resources available we would have done better than just getting close.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    I guess we're just going to disagree here.
    I just explained the disadvantage the Pats have had for the past 10 years and how BB has combated that to remain competitive throughout those 10 years.
    Of course having TB helps but so does the acquisition of additional draft picks and successfully managing the cap.  BB the Gm is amongst the best in doing so.
    The only criticism I would have is in some of the players he picked, such as  Tate instead of Wallace, but what GM hasn't missed on some of those?  Any?
    I suppose some have a better % as far as that is concerned but are they equally adapt at managing the cap and all the other things that go into it?
    Personally, I wish he would give up some of the Gm duties.  Not that he isn't good but that I just think it's too much for one person.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : I guess we're just going to disagree here. I just explained the disadvantage the Pats have had for the past 10 years and how BB has combated that to remain competitive throughout those 10 years. Of course having TB helps but so does the acquisition of additional draft picks and successfully managing the cap.  BB the Gm is amongst the best in doing so. The only criticism I would have is in some of the players he picked, such as  Tate instead of Wallace, but what GM hasn't missed on some of those?  Any? I suppose some have a better % as far as that is concerned but are they equally adapt at managing the cap and all the other things that go into it? Personally, I wish he would give up some of the Gm duties.  Not that he isn't good but that I just think it's too much for one person.
    Posted by pezz4pats


    Well the Steelers and Giants have won multiple SBs in the last 7 years when we haven't and they certainly haven't had much better draft positions than us. So that seems to throw a monkey wrench into your theory.

    Really, BB has not achieved full success since the players he inherited from previous regimes have departed.

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

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    Evey other year for the last 6 years we have been losing BIG games. Yippee! Let the good times roll!!! Who wouldn't want to lose 2 SBs in 5 years? Meanwhile while BB is pizzing away 2nd rounders on Butlers, Braces and Cunninghams, the best player this team has ever had gets another year older. The FACT is, if the GM was better, the HC and QB would have two more SB rings.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    What about...

    -Mayo
    -Solder
    -Gronkowski
    -Hernandez
    -Chung
    -Spikes
    -Mesko
    -Vollmer
    -McCourty (TBD to some extent)
    (All solid NFL starters.)


    -Love
    -Pryor
    -Fletcher
    -Deaderick
    (These are guys that are overachieving, but have contributed to the team.)


    -Ridley
    -Cannon
    -Dowling
    -Mallett
    -Hoyer
    (Folks who have yet to seal their fate, but looked impressive in their given opportunities.)


    And the acquisitions of...

    -Carter
    -Anderson
    -Moore
    -Ninkovich
    -Waters
    -Woodhead
    -Arrington


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

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to to all the BB GM naysayers : For one thing, I would think that the Giants would have to go in that argument as well. At least over the past 5 years. Personally, I feel like the Patriots Super Bowl Championships are history at this point and not relevant to discussions of this year's team.  In the seven years since the Patriots last won the Super Bowl, three other teams have been there multiple times. All of them have managed to win at least one. Two teams have won multiple Super Bowls. I would not say we have been the benchmark of the NFL in that time span. The Colts era ended when Manning got hurt. The team decided to go for the number one pick and rebuild rather than try to limp into the playoffs (looking back - going 11-5 with Cassel and not making the playoffs did not help the Patriots any).  The Steelers are hardly in cap hell. Last I read, they had gotten themselves under the cap with enough room resign Wallace and sign draft picks. I hardly consider cutting aging veterans a fire sale. Farrior, Ward, and Aaron Smith were old and no longer the players the once were. Over the past seven years, the Steelers have been more succesful than the Patriots so I certainly would not count them out. Why do we keep going back to "the turn of the century"? I feel like too many Patriots fans are looking at this team like we just came off the '01-'04 run and the Belichick/Brady combo looks unstoppable. At what point do we judge them based on '05-'11 seasons, where they have been good, but not good enough, to win another Lombardi Trophy.
    Posted by FrnkBnhm[/QUO
     
    the point I am trying to make here, as a fan, is that for the last 11 years we have been able to watch a highly competive playoff, SB capable  team , that even now has the potential to maintain that for the next 3-4 years ( ie; the Brady Era)and I am also intrigued with the upcoming Mallet years. The teams i mentioned Steelers and Colts did aproximately the same for that period  but where are they now! as for the Giants last 5 years, good pointand highy applaudable.. but that discussion should be deferred to 2019 than we can compare Gerry Reese vs BB!

    Yes i was listening to NFL Moving the Chains today and the Steelers are not in Cap Hell anymore, however i believe they only have 40 roster players. Allegedly Big Ben is restructuring to help them out with cap space ... we all know now where that leads to. 4 years from now we will be seeing Ben and a Mr Rooney at a press conference doing the same thing we saw in Indy. It was also brought out that the Wallace match, because of cap will still be restrictive and that a draft pick ( #31 ) as Pat Kerwin said would probably be more favorable.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : Well the Steelers and Giants have won multiple SBs in the last 7 years when we haven't and they certainly haven't had much better draft positions than us. So that seems to throw a monkey wrench into your theory. Really, BB has not achieved full success since the players he inherited from previous regimes have departed.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    Ya they did, you are right.  But I seem to remember a few other factors in the 2 SB's they lost, like a Gimpy QB  (both times) and the best receiver MIA.
    However slight that might seem, often times, it just takes something slight. Right?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mgraham. Show mgraham's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : Everything is not so black and white. It takes steps to even get to the SB. 1st, win enough games to qualify for the play-offs  Pats did this 8/10 times 2nd, win the conference                                     Pats did this 5/10 times 3rd, win the SB                                                 Pats did this 3/10 times. That is not, just not sucking.  What team is better?   In fact what team has had a better run since the cap area began?
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOT

    Exactly the cap era! look at Colts and Steelers now... and i think the Giants have some concerns too   and none of these teams have 4 picks in the first  2 rounds and cap space. Navigating through the cap limits and maintaining this high  level of performance the Pats have done is incomparable.

    if only we had a great GM with player evaluation skills like Ozzie Newsom how far could we have gone?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from mgraham. Show mgraham's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : What about the flaws I mentioned do you disagree with? My criteria would be overall team success over time relative to the personnel added to the team. If you're adding people but your level of success is going down then the people you're adding can't be all that good.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    Babe has a point we went from 14-2  to 13 -3
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers :
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : Everything is not so black and white. It takes steps to even get to the SB. 1st, win enough games to qualify for the play-offs  Pats did this 8/10 times 2nd, win the conference                                     Pats did this 5/10 times 3rd, win the SB                                                 Pats did this 3/10 times. That is not, just not sucking.  What team is better?   In fact what team has had a better run since the cap area began? Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOT Exactly the cap era! look at Colts and Steelers now... and i think the Giants have some concerns too   and none of these teams have 4 picks in the first  2 rounds and cap space. Navigating through the cap limits and maintaining this high  level of performance the Pats have done is incomparable. if only we had a great GM with player evaluation skills like Ozzie Newsom how far could we have gone?
    Posted by mgraham



    Actually this constant "look at all the picks we have" claim is fairly empty. Yeah we have a lot of picks, and invariably trade many of them off to future considerations.

    We have a lot of picks every year, but don't use them and just keep putting it off until another year.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mgraham. Show mgraham's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : Ya they did, you are right.  But I seem to remember a few other factors in the 2 SB's they lost, like a Gimpy QB  (both times) and the best receiver MIA. However slight that might seem, often times, it just takes something slight. Right?
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE

    In regards to the  2 lost  SB rings due to personnel moves. I blame Giants 1 on Samuels dropped INt .. but hey those things happen ( " teams that make plays win"). But i would counter that Samuel was quite a good draft pick..  2nd maybe 3rd round out of central? ,Southern? Florida?   Maybe not trying for a FG on the last play of the first half .. but that was a coach not GM thing.

    Giants 2  they made the plays we didnt... that is football. And hey who expected us to be there anyway .
     
    However maybe SB ring # 4 . If Brady plays the full season after SB 42 do we win 1 more game and make playoffs and return to SB43? Cant blame that season on the GM.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    Actually, BB's drafting is even worse than it seems.

    The factor we don't consider is that he gets a lot more out of some of these bums he takes than anybody else can get once he ditches them. His ability as coach to get a lot out of even very marginal guys makes his drafts look better, and they still look pretty weak despite that.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : What about... -Mayo -Solder -Gronkowski -Hernandez -Chung -Spikes -Mesko -Vollmer -McCourty (TBD to some extent) (All solid NFL starters.) -Love -Pryor -Fletcher -Deaderick (These are guys that are overachieving, but have contributed to the team.) -Ridley -Cannon -Dowling -Mallett -Hoyer (Folks who have yet to seal their fate, but looked impressive in their given opportunities.) And the acquisitions of... -Carter -Anderson -Moore -Ninkovich -Waters -Woodhead -Arrington
    Posted by vertigho



    Of all those names, which could you get a 1st or 2nd round draft pick for in trade?

    Because if you couldn't get that they pretty much aren't a big deal as far as being an impact player.

    Being an NFL "starter" doesn't mean much. The Colts had 22 NFL "starters" and look at them.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    I asked for criteria and was provided with subjective generalities.  That said, it's probably best to remove the one on one from this.  It accomplishes little and really detracts from the overall discussion of the point. 

    By every objective measure the Pats are a highly successful drafting team.  That's not merely my opinion or the opinion of other fans, it is the conclusion drawn by those who conduct these kinds of analyses for a living. 

    Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion and this forum is a great place to express it.  Clinging to a point of view that is simply not supported by the facts however doesn't make for a particularly compelling argument.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    I asked for criteria and was provided with subjective generalities.  That said, it's probably best to remove the one on one from this.  It accomplishes little and really detracts from the overall discussion of the point.  By every objective measure the Pats are a highly successful drafting team.  That's not merely my opinion or the opinion of other fans, it is the conclusion drawn by those who conduct these kinds of analyses for a living.  Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion and this forum is a great place to express it.  Clinging to a point of view that is simply not supported by the facts however doesn't make for a particularly compelling argument.
    Posted by ATJ


    Provide sources to support your contention that professionals have objectively concluded the Pats are a highly successful drafting team.

    Otherwise you're just throwing in your subjective opinion like the rest of us.

    Here's one for ya.

    "The worst drafting team in the past three years, holding on to only a little more than half of its drafted players: the New England Patriots. With three Super Bowl wins since 2001, the Patriots are the team of the decade so far. They boast a 39-9 record in the past three years. How have they maintained that excellence? Though saddled with low draft picks, the Patriots have been the masters of picking up useful veterans via trades to fill holes in their lineup (see: receivers Randy Moss and Wes Welker)." (Forbes 2009)
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : Rather YOU are the epitome of what's wrong with Pats' fans from any era. I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S AZZ THAT BENGAL FANS WOULD SALIVATE TO BE "REALISTICALLY COMPETING FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS". It doesn't matter if you're competing for championships and losing them. I would rather not even make the playoffs than lose the Super Bowl. At least then you get better draft picks. Nobody is impressed with teams that get to the SB and lose it. What you are incapable of having sink into your dense brain as you foam at the mouth pronouncing those who just don't really like seeing consistent big game fails as "bandwagoners" is that losing the biggest games in this sport SUCKS! What the hell is so difficult about grasping that?
    Posted by BabeParilli


    Your loser mentality is what is difficult to grasp. "I would rather not even make the playoffs than lose the Super Bowl. At least then you get better draft picks." Really? Then go be a fan of St. Louis or Jacksonville, you will have your precious higher draft pick year after year and you will never have to worry about losing the super bowl. "Nobody is impressed with teams that get to the SB and lose it." I'm pretty sure no one is impessed with teams that go 5-11, 6-10, 7-9, 8-8 year after year after year and 'get better draft picks'. Having watched the Pats in the late 60's and throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's, I am much happier with the consistent team they have put out there for the past dozen seasons that competes every year with a chance to win it all.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : Your loser mentality is what is difficult to grasp. "I would rather not even make the playoffs than lose the Super Bowl. At least then you get better draft picks." Really? Then go be a fan of St. Louis or Jacksonville, you will have your precious higher draft pick year after year and you will never have to worry about losing the super bowl. "Nobody is impressed with teams that get to the SB and lose it." I'm pretty sure no one is impessed with teams that go 5-11, 6-10, 7-9, 8-8 year after year after year and 'get better draft picks'. Having watched the Pats in the late 60's and throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's, I am much happier with the consistent team they have put out there for the past dozen seasons that competes every year with a chance to win it all.
    Posted by BostonSportsFan111


    Well then, wake up buttercup. Because once Brady is gone your happy happy joy joy world is coming crashing down. This GM and his iffy draft picking sure as hell isn't going to keep the team winning without him. Or maybe you're one of the deluded clowns that think Mallet is going to be as good as Brady.

    One would think after 40+ years watching this league you would have gotten a clue by now. Appreciate the great coaching and quarterbacking that has given you all this joy and lose the delusion that great GM work from BB has provided that. If not for the drafting of others, not BB, you would have no SB wins to reminisce about. FACT.

    But you're right about one thing. Nobody is impressed with teams that have some bad years, get some high picks, and completely blow the build. Just like they're not impressed with teams that lose 2 SBs within 5 years.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    Let's summarize the brilliant deductions of some on this issue so far.

    We have the best GM in the game today.

    We have the best coach in the game today.

    We have one of the at least top 3 QBs in the game today.

    But we haven't won a SB in 7 years.

    In that case, something above does not compute. You tell me which of those 3 is in error.

    Because in those 7 years 5 teams have won SBs that weren't us, and 2 have won a couple of them. And according to you they don't have the best coach or best GM and they certainly don't have a hands down better QB.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcour382. Show jcour382's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    27 words. And I'm sure there could be more. Cunningham, Price, Brace, Butler, Tate, McKenzie, Wheatley, Crable, O'Connell, Meriweather, Moroney, Jackson, Hobbs, Hill, Johnson, Williams, Davey, Klemm, Redmond, Haynesworth, Ocho, Ellis, Starks, Beisel, Brown, Thomas, Galloway
    Posted by BabeParilli


    these are the kind of flip flopping comments that make you a closet troll...
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: to all the BB GM naysayers

    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers:
    In Response to Re: to all the BB GM naysayers : these are the kind of flip flopping comments that make you a closet troll...
    Posted by jcour382



    Here's my advice. Try making sense.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share