Jump to content

Tim Grahm: Decade of Drafts: Pats Surpreme, Fins Worst


flgreen

Recommended Posts

No, I wouldn't, because unlike you, I'm not a ******* moron. Anyone who knows sh*t about football knows that you can't tell a damn thing about a player after only one year. Although it shouldn't surprise me, as you only continue my experience of Patriots fans thinking that since their team had success 7-10 years ago that somehow makes them more knowledgeable about football, when more often than not they have no clue WTF they're talking about.

Yo dipsh*t. I was responding to the Jets 2010 draft being superior to the Pats draft. Its wasnt.

Youre the same clown trying tell me that Gronkowksi disappeared in the playoff game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo dipsh*t. I was responding to the Jets 2010 draft being superior to the Pats draft. Its wasnt.

Youre the same clown trying tell me that Gronkowksi disappeared in the playoff game.

Actually no, you were responding to the Jets drafting in recent years being superior, and used an argument of a one-year old draft to try to refute that. You were the first person in this thread to reference the 2010 draft, dumbass. Frankly, I was waiting to hear your expert analysis on the dominance of the Patriots 2011 draft over the Jets while you were at it.

And I never said he disappeared, I said the TEs were a non-factor, but I guess you showed me, Gronkowski was clearly absolutely dominant in helping the Patriots lose in their first playoff game while putting up their third lowest scoring output of the season (one of those 2 lower scoring outputs was also against the Jets BTW). Then again, I guess he still did far more to help the cause than your Pro Bowl DBs who were busy getting dragged into the endzone, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually no, you were responding to the Jets drafting in recent years being superior, and used an argument of a one-year old draft to try to refute that. You were the first person in this thread to reference the 2010 draft, dumbass. Frankly, I was waiting to hear your expert analysis on the dominance of the Patriots 2011 draft over the Jets while you were at it.

And I never said he disappeared, I said the TEs were a non-factor, but I guess you showed me, Gronkowski was clearly absolutely dominant in helping the Patriots lose in their first playoff game while putting up their third lowest scoring output of the season (one of those 2 lower scoring outputs was also against the Jets BTW). Then again, I guess he still did far more to help the cause than your Pro Bowl DBs who were busy getting dragged into the endzone, huh?

One of those guys was one of those 2010 draftees, right? :rl:

The Pats 2010 draft may very well turn out to be head and shoulders better than the Jets 2010 draft. It should, they had about six times the number of picks the Jets had, one would hope you could find a player or two with all those picks.

But the reality is that in recent years, pretty much ever since Tanny's been running the Jets' draft, the Jets have crushed the Pats when it comes to drafting, all while having significantly fewer picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) It's a hell of a lot easier to stockpile picks - which started fairly recently for the Pats - when you're already a stacked team. Prior to that BB would trade up in the draft for talents like Chad Jackson (trading up from #52, the slot where Greg Jennings was drafted by GB). In fact they had like 10 picks in that draft and the only decent player they came away with was a kicker. So spare me the prowess of their identifying good draftees when 90% of their picks - in a stupidly deep draft no less - were garbage. The following year the only one out of 9 picks to stick past the summer was their first rounder (a safety who gets overrated by who he plays for, and who gets dragged into the EZ in playoff games, hahaha). Another draft with 10% success. The year after that? Again only 1 starter (in round 1 again) with everyone else being trash.

So let's see...

2006: 1 for 10

2007: 1 for 9

2008: 1 for 7

2009-2011: I wouldn't even criticize (or praise) too much since guys who haven't worked out may and guys who seem good so far can easily regress, but there were 24 picks from 2009-2010. A third of them never made the opening day rosters.

The point is only that it's easier to stockpile and trade down when you have a HOF QB in his prime. It covers up a lot of deficiencies at other positions - particularly on defense - when you can win a shootout against anyone. It was a good strategy to have but eventually you have to make those picks. IMO he went back to the well with that strategy too many times; this year in particular.

It's also helped when you get great trade value when dealing picks (two 5th-rounders for Ellis Hobbs who they weren't going to re-sign, getting a first-rounder for Richard Seymour who they weren't going to re-sign, only ponying up a single 4th rounder for Randy Moss, etc.)

But how smart is really it to continually trade out of round 1 when that's where 90% of their non-awful draft picks come from?

Sperm not your best spin work. :smilies2_3some:

3 for 26. That is horrible. :o

However, lets really look at those numbers. :-k

How many of those 26 picks for this 'stacked' team were late round picks (i.e. 4th or later)? 18 :opps:

Honestly, how many were going to make the team? :vactiontime:

I am not saying Belichick is a draft savant. No one is, but his strategy works for the Patriots.

Is it continually smart to trade out down and acquire picks? They are still winning 10+ games and look to continue for the foreseeable future (i.e. until Brady retires). Maybe by then, all these young player son D will be ready to carry the load for Mallett or whomever.

Are they a Superbowl contender? Yes. Winning is another matter, but they have Brady and a decent team around him. If they won last year, would it have been that much a shocker after a 14-2 year? No.

While they missed out on Matthews. With those extra picks, it allows them to acquire Randy Moss and Wes Welker. Obviously, there most successful trades.

And all those late round picks stand little chance to make the team, but you do find your Brady, Givens, Green, TBC, Assante, Koppen, Pryor, Edelman and Deaderick.

I am not saying the last three are going to be a Hall of Famers like Tom, but they can be productive vets like TBC or even a stalwart at center like Koppen.

If they were 8-8 with Brady, you would have a point.

However, the thing that should scare JN is the Patriots new philosophy of stockpiling 2nd and 3rd round picks. The results of the last two drafts, while early has been positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually no, you were responding to the Jets drafting in recent years being superior, and used an argument of a one-year old draft to try to refute that. You were the first person in this thread to reference the 2010 draft, dumbass. Frankly, I was waiting to hear your expert analysis on the dominance of the Patriots 2011 draft over the Jets while you were at it.

Well, the 2011 could be one of the greatest Pats drafts of all time. 75% of that class might be starters day one.

Maybe the Patriots can finally catch up to all those superior Jets drafts.

And I never said he disappeared, I said the TEs were a non-factor, but I guess you showed me, Gronkowski was clearly absolutely dominant in helping the Patriots lose in their first playoff game while putting up their third lowest scoring output of the season (one of those 2 lower scoring outputs was also against the Jets BTW). Then again, I guess he still did far more to help the cause than your Pro Bowl DBs who were busy getting dragged into the endzone, huh?

But hey, it was there was their first NFL season, and only a Moron judges a draft or players by one season or one playoff game. Isnt that right Moron?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sperm not your best spin work. :smilies2_3some:

3 for 26. That is horrible. :o

However, lets really look at those numbers. :-k

How many of those 26 picks for this 'stacked' team were late round picks (i.e. 4th or later)? 18 :opps:

Honestly, how many were going to make the team? :vactiontime:

I am not saying Belichick is a draft savant. No one is, but his strategy works for the Patriots.

Is it continually smart to trade out down and acquire picks? They are still winning 10+ games and look to continue for the foreseeable future (i.e. until Brady retires). Maybe by then, all these young player son D will be ready to carry the load for Mallett or whomever.

Are they a Superbowl contender? Yes. Winning is another matter, but they have Brady and a decent team around him. If they won last year, would it have been that much a shocker after a 14-2 year? No.

While they missed out on Matthews. With those extra picks, it allows them to acquire Randy Moss and Wes Welker. Obviously, there most successful trades.

And all those late round picks stand little chance to make the team, but you do find your Brady, Givens, Green, TBC, Assante, Koppen, Pryor, Edelman and Deaderick.

I am not saying the last three are going to be a Hall of Famers like Tom, but they can be productive vets like TBC or even a stalwart at center like Koppen.

If they were 8-8 with Brady, you would have a point.

However, the thing that should scare JN is the Patriots new philosophy of stockpiling 2nd and 3rd round picks. The results of the last two drafts, while early has been positive.

You are the one spinning. The insinuation is the Pats have been better off because of his trading down. In all likelihood they have been worse. If later picks stand such little chance of making the team then explain the logic in trading down to acquire still more of them. Also you are doing the ultimate spinning of praising any non-early pick that wasn't bad but absolving for the >90% of them he whiffed on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are the one spinning. The insinuation is the Pats have been better off because of his trading down. In all likelihood they have been worse. If later picks stand such little chance of making the team then explain the logic in trading down to acquire still more of them. Also you are doing the ultimate spinning of praising any non-early pick that wasn't bad but absolving for the >90% of them he whiffed on.

For the reasons I gave previously. The Patriots have shown the ability to turn those picks into productive players.

Plus, how are they worse by trading down and picking up an extra 2nd/3rd, trading an aging star for a 1st or trading a 3rd this year for a 2nd next year?

In a draft system, were over the last four drafts (2008 to now), when they should have had only 12 picks in the first 3 rounds or basically the Top 100 players each year. The Patriots, an old team with 12 starters 30years old or older in 2007, have made 20 picks. Actually, 19, they lost their first in 2008, but through trading down still had a first. And they have 2x1sts and 2nds next year plus a third. Maybe they trade down again, maybe they move up, but with all those picks, they have the flexibility to move up if they want. All that trading allowed them to pick 3 starters in the second last year and two the year before.

Again, how are they worse off?

They have 10+ wins in 9 of the last 10 seasons.

They have won the division 8 of the last 10.

They are 3-1 in Superbowls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If later picks stand such little chance of making the team then explain the logic in trading down to acquire still more of them.

Deleveraging. Gholston was a disaster but at the end of the day we're out a pick and money. You can't miss like that when you're stacked. You get squeezed by the roster limit and the cap and there's a domino effect. It's counterintuitive but you actually prefer fewer, higher picks when you have a lot of holes and more, lower picks when you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was starting to get concerned; I thought BB's plan was to continue to stock pile (even moreso this year) so that next season he could offer a half a dozen picks for the #1 and take Andrew Luck. Let him sit for 2 or 3 years - goodbye Brady....hello Luck.

Speaking of luck, they would have needed a good amount of it for that to work (i.e. a team willing to deal the first pick next year, enough picks, etc).

But jackass took Mallet instead this year; thats fine by me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the reasons I gave previously. The Patriots have shown the ability to turn those picks into productive players.

Plus, how are they worse by trading down and picking up an extra 2nd/3rd, trading an aging star for a 1st or trading a 3rd this year for a 2nd next year?

In a draft system, were over the last four drafts (2008 to now), when they should have had only 12 picks in the first 3 rounds or basically the Top 100 players each year. The Patriots, an old team with 12 starters 30years old or older in 2007, have made 20 picks. Actually, 19, they lost their first in 2008, but through trading down still had a first. And they have 2x1sts and 2nds next year plus a third. Maybe they trade down again, maybe they move up, but with all those picks, they have the flexibility to move up if they want. All that trading allowed them to pick 3 starters in the second last year and two the year before.

Again, how are they worse off?

They have 10+ wins in 9 of the last 10 seasons.

They have won the division 8 of the last 10.

They are 3-1 in Superbowls.

They haven't won a SB in 7 years and haven't won a postseason game in 4 years. I think its pretty obvious - the Pats are now the Chargers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They haven't won a SB in 7 years and haven't won a postseason game in 4 years. I think its pretty obvious - the Pats are now the Chargers.

They also seem to get outsmarted by Schitty twice a year. So much for the "genius."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have not been great since 2005. Reality is you need to enjoy the moments with Brady as they come because sooner rather than later number 12 will walk off the field and we will never see that number again under center for the Patriots.

Thier best team ever was 2007, the fact that asante samuel can't catch a ball thrown right to him, while David Tyree can blindy catch one against his helmet doesn't change that.. That's all you missed by, 2 plays that 99% of the time 1 of them would've went the other way is all that prevents you from unequivicolly having the greatest season of all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They haven't won a SB in 7 years and haven't won a postseason game in 4 years. I think its pretty obvious - the Pats are now the Chargers.

No arguments, they might not have another great run or even a run to the Superbowl in Brady/Belichick era, but you cannot deny they still have a realistic chance. Granted, as deep as the AFC is, you cannot say it is a certainty.

Thier best team ever was 2007, the fact that asante samuel can't catch a ball thrown right to him, while David Tyree can blindy catch one against his helmet doesn't change that.. That's all you missed by, 2 plays that 99% of the time 1 of them would've went the other way is all that prevents you from unequivicolly having the greatest season of all time.

Yeah, coulda shpulda woulda. Fark!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I question the whole point of the article. How hard is it to be a long time starter on a sh*tty team like the Bills? Sometimes decent picks don't get any run because of quality FA, trade or UDFA pick ups. What's more difficult as a GM, picking Tyson Jackson #3 overall or finding Mike Devito?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deleveraging. Gholston was a disaster but at the end of the day we're out a pick and money. You can't miss like that when you're stacked. You get squeezed by the roster limit and the cap and there's a domino effect. It's counterintuitive but you actually prefer fewer, higher picks when you have a lot of holes and more, lower picks when you don't.

Disagree. No team benefits from poorly drafting dozens of late round picks.

Gholston was such disaster because he was drafted SO high, not simply because he was a first rounder. Late first rounders - which is where NE's are usually located - aren't cap killers.

Also, being stacked means they cover up for bad picks better and can win games despite it. It doesn't mean they don't need starters. If that was the case they wouldn't have acquired veterans like Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Adalius Thomas, Shawn Springs, Chris Baker, Tully Banta-Cain, Leigh Bodden, Fred Taylor, Donte Stallworth, Alge Crumpler, Junior Seau, Duane Starks, Rosevelt Colvin, Rodney Harrison, etc. to start for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the reasons I gave previously. The Patriots have shown the ability to turn those picks into productive players.

Plus, how are they worse by trading down and picking up an extra 2nd/3rd, trading an aging star for a 1st or trading a 3rd this year for a 2nd next year?

In a draft system, were over the last four drafts (2008 to now), when they should have had only 12 picks in the first 3 rounds or basically the Top 100 players each year. The Patriots, an old team with 12 starters 30years old or older in 2007, have made 20 picks. Actually, 19, they lost their first in 2008, but through trading down still had a first. And they have 2x1sts and 2nds next year plus a third. Maybe they trade down again, maybe they move up, but with all those picks, they have the flexibility to move up if they want. All that trading allowed them to pick 3 starters in the second last year and two the year before.

Again, how are they worse off?

They have 10+ wins in 9 of the last 10 seasons.

They have won the division 8 of the last 10.

They are 3-1 in Superbowls.

Huh? New England has clearly been worse off without Richard Seymour. They may very well have advanced to the superbowl in one or both of the past 2 years if they still had him instead of betting that Jarvis Green would be a permanent lateral move. The notion that those merely "productive" draft picks that managed to work out are better than the players they could have - or would have - attained if they'd picked dozens of slots higher is a silly argument. If that were the case, only a great fool would dare draft anyone prior to round 4, instead opting to stockpile 30 picks in a draft by trading down from every pick until safely outside the top 100 picks.

You said yourself - and I agree - that Brady isn't going to play forever. So while you've got him you put the best team possible on the field. Trading a Richard Seymour away while Brady is in his prime, so that 3 seasons later you could draft a project in the middle of round 1 is not good use of surrounding Tom Brady with the best team possible for 2-3 prime years of his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This place hasn't changed at all.

Yes it has. Now we are all vicious, racist, homophobic lunatics who come here to discuss politics.

New England > Jets.

Lets win the division or win a Super Bowl and then call ourselves better.

Please people.

No wait, you are right. It hasn't changed at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? New England has clearly been worse off without Richard Seymour. They may very well have advanced to the superbowl in one or both of the past 2 years if they still had him instead of betting that Jarvis Green would be a permanent lateral move. The notion that those merely "productive" draft picks that managed to work out are better than the players they could have - or would have - attained if they'd picked dozens of slots higher is a silly argument. If that were the case, only a great fool would dare draft anyone prior to round 4, instead opting to stockpile 30 picks in a draft by trading down from every pick until safely outside the top 100 picks.

You said yourself - and I agree - that Brady isn't going to play forever. So while you've got him you put the best team possible on the field. Trading a Richard Seymour away while Brady is in his prime, so that 3 seasons later you could draft a project in the middle of round 1 is not good use of surrounding Tom Brady with the best team possible for 2-3 prime years of his career.

Poor wording by me.

I do not necessarily think it is a bad idea.

I think the Patriots draft motus operandi, purely SWAG on my part, is to load up on more 2nd and 3rd round draft picks in order to replace the aging starters.

When they were a very good team, they could afford to trade down and draft projects, but as they got older, they have acquired more picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

And their draft success looks better compared to the years you used as a point.

Would they be better with Matthews? Clearly. However, they would not have Gronk. With lesser contribution from Butler, Edelman and Tate. Yes, they would have a semblance of a pass rush, but not a go to stud in the redzone or two pretty good kick returners and decent 3rd/4th options in the passing game.

I do not have a problem with the Seymour trade. While it did make them worse in the interim, it allowed them to trade out and acquire more picks and potential starters. And he was not going to be a Patriots after that season anyways.

"Tedy Bruschi is not walking through that door, fans. Rodney Harrison is not walking through that door, and Richard Seymour is not walking through that door. And if you expect them to walk through that door, they're going to be gray and old. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor wording by me.

I do not necessarily think it is a bad idea.

I think the Patriots draft motus operandi, purely SWAG on my part, is to load up on more 2nd and 3rd round draft picks in order to replace the aging starters.

When they were a very good team, they could afford to trade down and draft projects, but as they got older, they have acquired more picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

And their draft success looks better compared to the years you used as a point.

Would they be better with Matthews? Clearly. However, they would not have Gronk. With lesser contribution from Butler, Edelman and Tate. Yes, they would have a semblance of a pass rush, but not a go to stud in the redzone or two pretty good kick returners and decent 3rd/4th options in the passing game.

I do not have a problem with the Seymour trade. While it did make them worse in the interim, it allowed them to trade out and acquire more picks and potential starters. And he was not going to be a Patriots after that season anyways.

"Tedy Bruschi is not walking through that door, fans. Rodney Harrison is not walking through that door, and Richard Seymour is not walking through that door. And if you expect them to walk through that door, they're going to be gray and old. "

They got 1 pick for Seymour, not "picks" for Seymour. And it is one guy you just drafted 3 weeks ago. Would NE have just as many rings with some castaway like 2009 Jarvis Green or 2010 Gerard Warren on the DLine instead of Richard Seymour? I suppose the answer depends on how many additional video cameras they had, in order to make up for the talent level, but I digress.

Also this line makes no sense:

When they were a very good team, they could afford to trade down and draft projects, but as they got older, they have acquired more picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

Your team has traded down to acquire more 2nd and 3rd round picks by trading out of round 1. Given how you seemed just 1 player shy of another SB, even with a great QB, I'd argue you'd be better off if you'd used some of those late first rounders on a WR like Dez Bryant or Hakeem Nicks instead of mid-season sifting through the league for available players like Deion Branch. Or maybe a LB like Clay Matthews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They got 1 pick for Seymour, not "picks" for Seymour. And it is one guy you just drafted 3 weeks ago. Would NE have just as many rings with some castaway like 2009 Jarvis Green or 2010 Gerard Warren on the DLine instead of Richard Seymour? I suppose the answer depends on how many additional video cameras they had, in order to make up for the talent level, but I digress.

Also this line makes no sense:

Your team has traded down to acquire more 2nd and 3rd round picks by trading out of round 1. Given how you seemed just 1 player shy of another SB, even with a great QB, I'd argue you'd be better off if you'd used some of those late first rounders on a WR like Dez Bryant or Hakeem Nicks instead of mid-season sifting through the league for available players like Deion Branch. Or maybe a LB like Clay Matthews.

First, what you fail to grasp, Seymour wanted to get paid. The Patriots were not going to pay him. Lastly, seeing how erratic Brady was in 2009, they were not going to win with or without Seymour. 2010, Seymour and the Patriots are totally irrelevant.

Of course you do not understand that line. :rolleyes: When the Patriots were a dynasty, how many roster spots were available? Not many and they were usually at the end of the roster. That is why you draft late round projects or take chances on athletic freaks like Bethel Johnson and Chad Jackson in the 2nd. They hit and miss on those picks.

Today, they need to replace more players. They are trying to rebuild on the fly with Brady instead of bottoming out for a year. So they need starters. Not a starter like you seem obsessed with.

What does drafting Dez or Nicks have to do with anything? :blink:

Did the Patriots know Moss was going to be petulant, old or whatever the cause for his sudden lack of production in September 2010 back at the draft in April? No. He was productive in 2009. With Wes, Randy and the drafting of TEs, the Patriots clearly thought that first would be better spent on a corner then a wideout.

As far as drafting down.....

They have made 19 picks in the first three rounds of the last four drafts and have five more next year. In those first three, they have found five starters on defense and two on offense. We shall see what happens with this class and how things pan out, but given their success, things are looking good.

They would not look as good if they only selected one player per round like you suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, what you fail to grasp, Seymour wanted to get paid. The Patriots were not going to pay him. Lastly, seeing how erratic Brady was in 2009, they were not going to win with or without Seymour. 2010, Seymour and the Patriots are totally irrelevant.

Of course you do not understand that line. :rolleyes: When the Patriots were a dynasty, how many roster spots were available? Not many and they were usually at the end of the roster. That is why you draft late round projects or take chances on athletic freaks like Bethel Johnson and Chad Jackson in the 2nd. They hit and miss on those picks.

Today, they need to replace more players. They are trying to rebuild on the fly with Brady instead of bottoming out for a year. So they need starters. Not a starter like you seem obsessed with.

What does drafting Dez or Nicks have to do with anything? :blink:

Did the Patriots know Moss was going to be petulant, old or whatever the cause for his sudden lack of production in September 2010 back at the draft in April? No. He was productive in 2009. With Wes, Randy and the drafting of TEs, the Patriots clearly thought that first would be better spent on a corner then a wideout.

As far as drafting down.....

They have made 19 picks in the first three rounds of the last four drafts and have five more next year. In those first three, they have found five starters on defense and two on offense. We shall see what happens with this class and how things pan out, but given their success, things are looking good.

They would not look as good if they only selected one player per round like you suggest.

I forget the terms of the long-term contract Seymour signed with Oakland. Could you remind me what they were?

Drafting first round players in the first round is now the way to bottom-out a franchise while they are still current contenders? lol

And they could have taken a premiere WR prospect in either year and still taken McCourty. It wasn't one or the other.

Or even if they didn't go after a WR, I can't believe you really think they're better off now or were better off then with Butler & Tate instead of Clay Matthews.

A turd is still a turd, and doesn't smell like roses just because Belichick shat it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forget the terms of the long-term contract Seymour signed with Oakland. Could you remind me what they were?

Drafting first round players in the first round is now the way to bottom-out a franchise while they are still current contenders? lol

And they could have taken a premiere WR prospect in either year and still taken McCourty. It wasn't one or the other.

Or even if they didn't go after a WR, I can't believe you really think they're better off now or were better off then with Butler & Tate instead of Clay Matthews.

A turd is still a turd, and doesn't smell like roses just because Belichick shat it out.

30 million for a guy that is going to be 32 this October....No Thanks.

What? They had one first round pick. They traded down with Denver and Dallas and then selected McCourty. How are they supposed to get a WR and McCourty? :rolleyes:

Again you fail at math. Yes, Matthews in of himself would be nice. Or even Dez/Hakeem. Either of those layers would help the Patriots.

However, the concept you fail to grasp and it has been the Patriots' mantra since Belichick arrived, "quantity over quality". I am sure if Belichcik was confident in Matthews as he was in Mayo, he would have pulled the trigger.

He didn't and rolled that pick and a subsequent pick into more players.

Your point would be valid if a pass rushing OLB is all the Patriots needed to be a champion. They have far more needs in addition to OLB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 million for a guy that is going to be 32 this October....No Thanks.

What? They had one first round pick. They traded down with Denver and Dallas and then selected McCourty. How are they supposed to get a WR and McCourty? :rolleyes:

Again you fail at math. Yes, Matthews in of himself would be nice. Or even Dez/Hakeem. Either of those layers would help the Patriots.

However, the concept you fail to grasp and it has been the Patriots' mantra since Belichick arrived, "quantity over quality". I am sure if Belichcik was confident in Matthews as he was in Mayo, he would have pulled the trigger.

He didn't and rolled that pick and a subsequent pick into more players.

Your point would be valid if a pass rushing OLB is all the Patriots needed to be a champion. They have far more needs in addition to OLB.

You can't possibly believe your own nonsense.

So when Mayo is selected 10th overall it's a shrewd move because it's smarter to get quality over quantity. When a Matthews is passed on, instead opting for lesser talents who turn into lesser players, it's also considered a shrewd move because it's smarter to get quantity over quality.

And your argument's BS anyway to claim the Pats "mantra" is to trade down. BB trades up all the time, like giving up a 4th and a 6th to move up 7 slots in round 2 for Brace (among several other examples like I cited earlier, such as forking over a mid-high 3rd rounder to trade up in round 2 for Chad Jackson).

As far as the other stuff, I was under the impression NE again started with 2 firsts in 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't possibly believe your own nonsense.

So when Mayo is selected 10th overall it's a shrewd move because it's smarter to get quality over quantity. When a Matthews is passed on, instead opting for lesser talents who turn into lesser players, it's also considered a shrewd move because it's smarter to get quantity over quality.

And your argument's BS anyway to claim the Pats "mantra" is to trade down. BB trades up all the time, like giving up a 4th and a 6th to move up 7 slots in round 2 for Brace (among several other examples like I cited earlier, such as forking over a mid-high 3rd rounder to trade up in round 2 for Chad Jackson).

As far as the other stuff, I was under the impression NE again started with 2 firsts in 2010.

Do you believe your own "everything is only black or white" contrarian views? :rolleyes:

Mayo was a Top 10 pick. Mayo was a three year starter at UT. He was the consensus top MLB prospect in the draft.

Compared to Matthews who was only a one year starter and had the appearance of being a workout warrior as he went from a 166 lbs freshmen to 2nd round prospect to 1st round pick to NFL stud at 255 lbs.

Again, the Patriots could use the one thing most draft 'experts' agreed at the very least Matthews could do at the NFL level. However, comparing a Top 10 pick to a late 1st/2nd round pick is stupid.

Most of Belichick's 40 trades (according to Mike Reis) is down. 25 of 40 to be exact. Why does he trade down? To get better picks in the next draft or to give him flexibility in that draft. Like he did by going from the late 3rd round in 2010 to the first pick in the 2nd round in 2011 with the Panthers. Or acquiring a 1st and 2nd next year for a first this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't possibly believe your own nonsense.

So when Mayo is selected 10th overall it's a shrewd move because it's smarter to get quality over quantity. When a Matthews is passed on, instead opting for lesser talents who turn into lesser players, it's also considered a shrewd move because it's smarter to get quantity over quality.

And your argument's BS anyway to claim the Pats "mantra" is to trade down. BB trades up all the time, like giving up a 4th and a 6th to move up 7 slots in round 2 for Brace (among several other examples like I cited earlier, such as forking over a mid-high 3rd rounder to trade up in round 2 for Chad Jackson).

As far as the other stuff, I was under the impression NE again started with 2 firsts in 2010.

Haven't you figured it out yet Sperm? Whatever Belichick does is genius. If the moves don't work out, He wasn't wrong. The players sucked and disappointed Him. Nothing that goes wrong is ever His fault. Even His terrible, insanely predictable gameplan and complete lack of adjustments in the playoff game wasn't His mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe your own "everything is only black or white" contrarian views? :rolleyes:

Mayo was a Top 10 pick. Mayo was a three year starter at UT. He was the consensus top MLB prospect in the draft.

Compared to Matthews who was only a one year starter and had the appearance of being a workout warrior as he went from a 166 lbs freshmen to 2nd round prospect to 1st round pick to NFL stud at 255 lbs.

Again, the Patriots could use the one thing most draft 'experts' agreed at the very least Matthews could do at the NFL level. However, comparing a Top 10 pick to a late 1st/2nd round pick is stupid.

Most of Belichick's 40 trades (according to Mike Reis) is down. 25 of 40 to be exact. Why does he trade down? To get better picks in the next draft or to give him flexibility in that draft. Like he did by going from the late 3rd round in 2010 to the first pick in the 2nd round in 2011 with the Panthers. Or acquiring a 1st and 2nd next year for a first this year.

LOL. What on God's green earth are you talking about?

Mayo was considered EXACTLY what you're describing Matthews as in terms of projected draft slot. Mayo was a 2nd-3rd round prospect who shot up the draft boards as the draft got closer. At the time of the draft, Mayo was expected to go somewhere in round 1 but no one would have been shocked if he went in round 2 (not at all unlike David Harris). But at the time NE made the pick he was considered a pretty big reach at #10, to the point that NE was given poor draft grades by sportswriters who otherwise reflexively slobbered all over BB's filthy pole. When he shot up draft boards, he'd shot up to maybe the middle of round 1 at the highest. Most mocks had him as a late 1 or early 2, and the exceptions to that rule might be one or two that had him as high as 15-18. But no one other than Bill Belichick and maybe the Mayo family had him pegged as a top-10 pick. That is a fabrication of history that you just invented.

So there's a 60/40 split of trading down and trading up. How that equates to a "mantra of trading down" is something you will have a tough time explaining. Given the low number of draft trades (40) a difference of 5 in either direct from the median isn't too significant. If the split was 35/5 then maybe you could make that argument. Instead you want to invent some type of religion BB subscribes to about trading down as the rationale for sometimes doing things that are just flat-out stupid. He doesn't trade down that much more than he trades up. IMO the only reason he doesn't trade up even more is because it draws more attention to that draft pick, and it will tarnish his genius reputation if he has unveiled his stiffy for a player who turned into a bust. Further, when a draft pick doesn't bust he feels it makes him look that much more astute. Parcells used to do the same thing.

NE's trade-downs get more attention than his trade-ups. But it has nothing to do with some fictitious NE mantra of always trading down. From my memory, guys like Jimmy Johnson used to trade down as a type of mantra of how he handles the draft, because his ego told him he was a more astute judge of college talent than anyone else, and could pick good players everywhere so trading down was like getting free draft picks in his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...