What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to tanbass' comment:


    Obviously both of these things are related, and both equally important. But at the end of the day, we need to field a good (TEAM) that can win.

    Name me one person in the NFL that has done a better job that BB in the last dozen years.

    Sure he misses on a bunch of picks...(just like every other team). But the real difference is that even with those misses, BB still fields a contender almost every year. And to me, that is someone doing a great job!!



    The question is, is that because of the team as a whole or because they have Brady QBing and BB coaching the team? If we are talking about the team as a whole if we took Brady and BB out of the picture and replace them with Rex and Sanchez would this even be a .500 team?

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     


    He is one of the best at making sure that he has quality replacements at most positions.

     



    He doesn't even have high quality starters for most positions on defense. The good thing about that is there isn't much dropoff when he brings in the replacement stiff for the starter injured stiff though.

     

     

     

     




     

     

    Kelly, wilfork, Jones, Nink, Spikes, Mayo, Hightower, McCourty, A. Wilson, Dennard, talib

    which of the majority of these aren't high quality?

     




    Two of those starters are this years band-aids,

     

    Three of those starters have been with the system for a year or less,  Where are the defenders from 2006 thru 2009?  Even 2010-11 has poor yield on D.

    One is a converted CB with mixed results.

    Only Mayo and Fork have been constants for 3 or more years,

    That's 2  in the past 3-9 years, of the hundred or so, defenders drafted or picked up in  FA during that time.

    Constant rebuilding and turn over has hurt this team.

    The ideal is to build and develop through the draft.  This duct tape and super glue approach is not working.  You must replace that broken part with a brand new and much stronger part.  Bargain basement parts are not likely to yield the desired results as eventually you are back to square 1 and needing to replace the junk you just purchased.

    This failure has led to bottom 5 defenses in the past few years.

    Teams with such an imbalance (top offense & bottom defense) can win in the RS against teams with worse problems, similar problems and occasionally against better balanced teams  but having one CARRY the other is not a recipe for success.  Do you really think BB  wants a number 1 offense and a bottom ranked D? 

    HELL, no he doesn't and neither should we.

    That becomes evident in the play-offs where they are matched against better or equal talent.  These types of teams can concentrate on taking out strengths (offense) and what you are left with is a glaring weakness (defense) that no one is worried about..  Also teams exploit that D and in turn hurt the O with low possession games, making them one dimensional.

    That is why O & D, balance is paramount.

    It's much more difficult to take out a balanced team.

    That's why teams with a 31st ranked defenses NEVER win Super Bowls.

    This is why you have to do a better job with hitting on those picks...




    We are talking about this year’s starting team correct?

    I would agree that 2 of the starters are Band-Aids, one of those starters (Kelly) will be a high quality  DT.

    What does it matter what year players are in?

    This year’s D is solid in the front seven the question marks I see is the safeties. I don't know what to expect with A. Wilson and I would agree about McCourty we need more evidence to make a judgment although I would say with the small sample size he seems to bring some stability to the DB's.

    All the other points in your posts are debatable some I agree with some I don't but that doesn't mean you are wrong and I am right or vice versa. You can only judge by results  and since BB started building 53 man rosters he has had only 1 losing season and 3 non-playoff seasons. He has made mistakes and he has made some great moves.

    And yes TB has been an instrumental reason why he has had success but you still have to have a solid roster around him to be successful.

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    The question is, is that because of the team as a whole or because they have Brady QBing and BB coaching the team? If we are talking about the team as a whole if we took Brady and BB out of the picture and replace them with Rex and Sanchez would this even be a .500 team?

     



    If you put Rex & Sanchez on ANY TEAM, they will suck....so not sure what your point is. Obviously Brady and BB play a huge role, but if the teams around them sucks, there is no way they would continue winning, and be the hunt for a dozen + years now. What other team can say that? Yes they are great, but they still need a good team of players to make this happen. Do you think you can put Brady and BB on any team in the NFL and still win like they do? No way.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     


    He is one of the best at making sure that he has quality replacements at most positions.

     



    He doesn't even have high quality starters for most positions on defense. The good thing about that is there isn't much dropoff when he brings in the replacement stiff for the starter injured stiff though.

     

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

    Kelly, wilfork, Jones, Nink, Spikes, Mayo, Hightower, McCourty, A. Wilson, Dennard, talib

    which of the majority of these aren't high quality?

     

     

     




    Two of those starters are this years band-aids,

     

     

    Three of those starters have been with the system for a year or less,  Where are the defenders from 2006 thru 2009?  Even 2010-11 has poor yield on D.

    One is a converted CB with mixed results.

    Only Mayo and Fork have been constants for 3 or more years,

    That's 2  in the past 3-9 years, of the hundred or so, defenders drafted or picked up in  FA during that time.

    Constant rebuilding and turn over has hurt this team.

    The ideal is to build and develop through the draft.  This duct tape and super glue approach is not working.  You must replace that broken part with a brand new and much stronger part.  Bargain basement parts are not likely to yield the desired results as eventually you are back to square 1 and needing to replace the junk you just purchased.

    This failure has led to bottom 5 defenses in the past few years.

    Teams with such an imbalance (top offense & bottom defense) can win in the RS against teams with worse problems, similar problems and occasionally against better balanced teams  but having one CARRY the other is not a recipe for success.  Do you really think BB  wants a number 1 offense and a bottom ranked D? 

    HELL, no he doesn't and neither should we.

    That becomes evident in the play-offs where they are matched against better or equal talent.  These types of teams can concentrate on taking out strengths (offense) and what you are left with is a glaring weakness (defense) that no one is worried about..  Also teams exploit that D and in turn hurt the O with low possession games, making them one dimensional.

    That is why O & D, balance is paramount.

    It's much more difficult to take out a balanced team.

    That's why teams with a 31st ranked defenses NEVER win Super Bowls.

    This is why you have to do a better job with hitting on those picks...

     



    That;s flat out false. The only place where they near the bottom was in pass yards allowed or 3rd down D in 2011 and that was off a lockout with a discombobulated back end, some key injuries in the secondary and NO CAMP.

     

    That's all you have?

    And we still made it to the SB with Brady and Welker crapping themselves.

    TRY AGAIN

    Every time you bring up a framed lie like that, I will be here to remind everyone WHY it is you are doing it.

    BB's young D has led the NFL the last 3 years, cumulatively, in turnovers created is a very good Run D where lead backs are most always held to under 90 yards per game, and is a D that really has battled with big character.

    You act like he's put out the 1966 Saints Defense or something.

    Enough already.

    You are one of the most angry and bitter people I've ever witnessed. Instead of you admitting the reason why see a poor postseason yield since 2007 with it being about the offense as much as the defense, you'll never be taken seriously here.

    Fact is, the D outplayed our offense in the 2007 postseason and then 2011 postseaon. 

    You were one who would have been raving about our D in 2007, too.  But, how many point do these Ds need to hold to?  12? 13?

     The Colts were "32 ranked" vs the run. They won a SB.  Why? Their QB didn't crap it up for the team.

    YOU LOSE




    Ha!

    You wouldn't know the truth if you had your (bleep) in it.

    The TRUTH is, the D has been failing this team since 2006.

    The TRUTH is, poor defensive drafts and FA's have been the Achilles heel since then. as they continue to give up lead after lead after lead, to their demise.

    Constant turn over, replacing the same players over and over and over='s bad D.

    If you don't give up 3rd downs and yards at alarming paces, teams can't score on you.

    If you don't give up 3rd downs and yards at alarming paces, your O has more chances to score.  VERY SIMPLE, even for a simpleton such as yourself.

    The ONLY thing they are good at and the ONLY thing that has kept the scores low are the turn overs achieved while the O is blowing out teams.

    1 turn over per 3 play-off games is proof.  They don't get them when they are not blowing out teams.  EVERY coach & coordinator, knows this.  The better teams capitalize on it.

    Solution and winning is easy against this D if you can shorten games and keep the O off the field.  No team wants a shoot out against TB. 

    All teams want the Pats D on the field.  The Pats D is very accommodating in this matter.

    Look at the pathetic DEFENSIVE ToP over the years, always near or at bottom.

    Look at the win loss record.  The D is not winning ToP or games.  PERIOD!

    NO 31st ranked D (especially because of yards and lack of 3rd downs,) has ever won a SB,  Never will.

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to tanbass' comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

     

     

    The question is, is that because of the team as a whole or because they have Brady QBing and BB coaching the team? If we are talking about the team as a whole if we took Brady and BB out of the picture and replace them with Rex and Sanchez would this even be a .500 team?

     

     

     



    If you put Rex & Sanchez on ANY TEAM, they will suck....so not sure what your point is. Obviously Brady and BB play a huge role, but if the teams around them sucks, there is no way they would continue winning, and be the hunt for a dozen + years now. What other team can say that? Yes they are great, but they still need a good team of players to make this happen. Do you think you can put Brady and BB on any team in the NFL and still win like they do? No way.

     

     

     



    I think if you put Brady and BB on an average team then yes they will be a playoff team every year. But it takes a good team (ala 01-05) for them to make it over that hump and win it all. The problem I see is that aspects of the team have been at or below average since 05'. For the most part I think that play from certain groups of personal, whether that's the WR's (06, dedpth from 07-12'), RB's (08'-11'), DB's (08-present), front 3/4 (09-12'), or LB's (07'-10/11ish') has been subpar for the caliber of team we hold them up to be and what must people think they are. I look directly at those years and see failed aging vet FAs and poor draft choices at those positions as the leading cause for the average to below average play at those positions. Really the only steady play has really come from the OL and Brady and the OL has Scar. Now I do think the coaching staff has something to do with it (not BB) but there are also a large number of resources spent and key areas (such as DB) that if they were even average at figuring out this team would have been in a much better position. I know you really can't hit on every player you bring in but the graveyard of picks and money spent on WR depth, DB's, and DT's over that period is eye popping to say the least. That is one area I think they can and need to drastically improve because to me they are below average in those catagories when with a couple different draft choices or better FA pick ups they could have sustained similar performance as we saw from 01-05'

     

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    Matt Cassel led our team as a QB to an 11-5 record under BB with less talent than what we have now.

    Rex is a crappy coach, but he might be able to shoot for the moon and get this team to .500 without Brady, yes.

    I'd prefer to not have Rex Ryan mentioned since that hurts the chance at going over .500. Terrible leader and a poor tactician.  

    I just learned the other day, in his first 2 years as coach, he never was involved with offensive side of the ball.

    One more embarrassing fact for the Jets.




    Less talent than we have now?  Psychosis kicking in?

    He had the pretty much intact record setting 2007 team to play with (+ Deltha O'neal LOL) and missed the play-offs with the easiest schedule in years.

    Brady would have gone 16-0 with that team and who knows what, after that.

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    This week is baby draft week.  BB will pull ten retread JAG guys into Foxboro.  Nine of them will be soon kicked back out because they're no good.  One will stay, and BB will have one more good player. This is what other teams don't do well.

    The first two of these JAGs are named Ja'Gared Davis and Gilbert Pena.  Wish the poor guys luck!

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to Paul_K's comment:

    This week is baby draft week.  BB will pull ten retread JAG guys into Foxboro.  Nine of them will be soon kicked back out because they're no good.  One will stay, and BB will have one more good player. This is what other teams don't do well.

    The first two of these JAGs are named Ja'Gared Davis and Gilbert Pena.  Wish the poor guys luck!



    That is true, he finds at least 1 decent sub player a year at this time who usually ends up lasting a year or half a year.Doesn't mean they should still have $10mil to spend on scrubs though  >.<

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    The two biggest x-factors a lot of people don't recognize is Brady and BB. You have one of the best QB's of all time and one of the best coaches of all time. When you have that combo it hides a lot of mistakes made in the draft and in FA. A lot of people talk about the 53 man squad but if you take away either of those two and suddenly things fail apart rapidly. I know the counter argument will be 08' but in reality you look at that weakness of the schedule that year it was a good chance the Pats could have gone 16-0 again with Brady at the helm. Look at it objectively, they went from a SB team to not making the playoffs in a weak year to being a SB contender again the very next year. When you remove those two factors the inability to draft top end talent with all those picks and the wasted FA salary becomes apparent. For example looking at the D specifically. Between 01-06' we had a top 10 D and sometimes a top 5 D. Everyone can agree bad drafting started around 07' and carried on from there while 06' started the weaker FA pickups. From that time to now we saw the older gaurd retire, get traded, or leave via FA. Since then this D has been less then stellar falling even further behind the league in pass rushing and pass protection. This is in despite of a focus to rebuild the D and the large number of resources placed in the secondary in particular.

    Has this team suceeded with poor drafts and FA pick ups, yep, but most of the credit should go to Brady and BB (coach) for keeping the team going. Of course the other side of the coin is how many SBs could we have won with proper FA picks and better early round selections. Here's a little list by the way:

    1st rounders drafted since 07' no longer on the team or on roster bubble:

    • Meriweather

    2nd rounders drafted since 07' no longer on the team or on roster bubble:

    • Wheatley
    • Chung
    • Butler
    • Brace
    • Ras-I (33rd pick)
    • Cunningham (Bubble)
    • Wilson (Bubble)

    3rd rounders drafted since 07' no longer on the team or on roster bubble:

    • Crable
    • O'Connell
    • Tate
    • Price
    • McKenzie
    • Bequette (Bubble)

    that's 14 players in 6 drafts (not including 13') not a great record considering that they keep on trading back into the 2nd and 3rd. From 07'-12' they have hit on less than 50% of the picks they make in days 1 and 2 and most have been on the D side. Is the draft a shot of the dice, yep, by why would you play a game with loaded dice and be surprised to lose? Reaching for players like Wilson and taking on health risks like Ras are shooting yourself in the foot. I can atleast understand the Butlers because the kid had talent and not a lot of red flags but McKenzie, Crable, Ras all having injury histories, O'Connell, Price, Wilson being drafted out of left field? All I have to say is enjoy it while you can because if you think this is ok then you are in for a rude surprise when BB or Brady retires and if this is carried forward.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus



    Are you saying that you think that if they changed coaches today the team would fall apart this season? If so, I don't agree with that. They would most likely be worse off in the long haul but as long as Brady is there they are not going to fall off.

    If you took Brady off the team and kept BB then I think they'd be a bubble team this season.

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     


    He is one of the best at making sure that he has quality replacements at most positions.

     



    He doesn't even have high quality starters for most positions on defense. The good thing about that is there isn't much dropoff when he brings in the replacement stiff for the starter injured stiff though.

     

     

     

     




     

     

    Kelly, wilfork, Jones, Nink, Spikes, Mayo, Hightower, McCourty, A. Wilson, Dennard, talib

    which of the majority of these aren't high quality?

     




    Two of those starters are this years band-aids,

     

    Three of those starters have been with the system for a year or less,  Where are the defenders from 2006 thru 2009?  Even 2010-11 has poor yield on D.

    One is a converted CB with mixed results.

    Only Mayo and Fork have been constants for 3 or more years,

    That's 2  in the past 3-9 years, of the hundred or so, defenders drafted or picked up in  FA during that time.

    Constant rebuilding and turn over has hurt this team.

    The ideal is to build and develop through the draft.  This duct tape and super glue approach is not working.  You must replace that broken part with a brand new and much stronger part.  Bargain basement parts are not likely to yield the desired results as eventually you are back to square 1 and needing to replace the junk you just purchased.

    This failure has led to bottom 5 defenses in the past few years.

    Teams with such an imbalance (top offense & bottom defense) can win in the RS against teams with worse problems, similar problems and occasionally against better balanced teams  but having one CARRY the other is not a recipe for success.  Do you really think BB  wants a number 1 offense and a bottom ranked D? 

    HELL, no he doesn't and neither should we.

    That becomes evident in the play-offs where they are matched against better or equal talent.  These types of teams can concentrate on taking out strengths (offense) and what you are left with is a glaring weakness (defense) that no one is worried about..  Also teams exploit that D and in turn hurt the O with low possession games, making them one dimensional.

    That is why O & D, balance is paramount.

    It's much more difficult to take out a balanced team.

    That's why teams with a 31st ranked defenses NEVER win Super Bowls.

    This is why you have to do a better job with hitting on those picks...

     




     

    We are talking about this year’s starting team correct?

    I would agree that 2 of the starters are Band-Aids, one of those starters (Kelly) will be a high quality  DT.

    What does it matter what year players are in?

    This year’s D is solid in the front seven the question marks I see is the safeties. I don't know what to expect with A. Wilson and I would agree about McCourty we need more evidence to make a judgment although I would say with the small sample size he seems to bring some stability to the DB's.

    All the other points in your posts are debatable some I agree with some I don't but that doesn't mean you are wrong and I am right or vice versa. You can only judge by results  and since BB started building 53 man rosters he has had only 1 losing season and 3 non-playoff seasons. He has made mistakes and he has made some great moves.

    And yes TB has been an instrumental reason why he has had success but you still have to have a solid roster around him to be successful.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh, sorry.  I wasn't aware we were talking about this year exclusively.

    I'm not sure we can even do that as the draft every year has bearing on the following years. 

    Would we be talking about Drafting the entire Rutgers D if the picks last year or the year before or the one before that, had stuck.

    Would there be a need to use band-aids if there weren't so many cuts?  Pun intended Wink

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to Bungalow-Bill's comment:

     

    Are you saying that you think that if they changed coaches today the team would fall apart this season? If so, I don't agree with that. They would most likely be worse off in the long haul but as long as Brady is there they are not going to fall off.

     

    If you took Brady off the team and kept BB then I think they'd be a bubble team this season.



    Fall apart from the Pats perspective. I think they would have a rough time making the playoffs, even in this division, and might end up (+/-) a game around .500. For this team over the last decade that would be falling apart, yes

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

    BB's first coaching stint, pre the far more difficult cap era - 4 out of 5 losing seasons.  Rex's first 4 years - 1 losing season, 2 AFC championship games starting a rookie QB in his first year.  

    Wow, you sure do look stupid.



    Your trying to put Rex Ryan's record up against BB's record and calling me stupid? You sir are beyond brain dead......back on ignore you go f@ckface!!

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

    In response to tanbass' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    BB's first coaching stint, pre the far more difficult cap era - 4 out of 5 losing seasons.  Rex's first 4 years - 1 losing season, 2 AFC championship games starting a rookie QB in his first year.  

    Wow, you sure do look stupid.

     

     



    Your trying to put Rex Ryan's record up against BB's record and calling me stupid? You sir are beyond brain dead......back on ignore you go f@ckface!!

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Only his first coaching stint.  A very poor one at that... I mean aside from winning the 2000 SB.  Apparently, patsie fans like to hold Rex to a higher standard.  It must be that anti Jet conspiracy.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Jets suck...period, end of story...

     

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to tanbass' comment:

    Your trying to put Rex Ryan's record up against BB's record and calling me stupid? You sir are beyond brain dead......back on ignore you go f@ckface!!



    Your eloquence is only exceeded by your powers of perception.

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    Your eloquence is only exceeded by your powers of perception.

     




    I call 'em how I see 'em!! LOL

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to Bungalow-Bill's comment:

     

     

    Are you saying that you think that if they changed coaches today the team would fall apart this season? If so, I don't agree with that. They would most likely be worse off in the long haul but as long as Brady is there they are not going to fall off.

     

    If you took Brady off the team and kept BB then I think they'd be a bubble team this season.

     



    Fall apart from the Pats perspective. I think they would have a rough time making the playoffs, even in this division, and might end up (+/-) a game around .500. For this team over the last decade that would be falling apart, yes

     



    I think they would still roll the AFC East even if I was the head coach this season. Agree to disagree.

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

    Re: What is more important: how well you draft or the quality of your 53 man roster?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     


    One thing you have to look at though, is what's the overall success rate in the second or third round?  I did a quick analysis a few months ago (of the bottom 25 picks of the second round, I believe) and was surprised to see how many of the players picked in that part of the second round over the past few years are already out of the league.  If 60% of players picked in some portion of the draft don't last more than three years and only 50% of BB's picks picked in that same part of the draft don't last more than three years, then BB would be doing good despite a 50% bust rate. 

     

     

     



    That 50% includes the 1st (Which BB is very good at). If you take out the first his 2nd and 3rd round numbers aren't all that great. Essentially you are left with Ridley, Vereen, Spikes, Vollmer, and Gronk as guys who are at least productive and Mallett who we hope wouldn't have to show he is. Past that everyone else is on the cut or bubble list

     

    [/QUOTE]

    But what's the average?  I can't tell if BB is above, below, or at average unless I know what the average success/failure rate is for all teams. I've never seen that number. 

     

Share