BenchBledsoe Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 Almost this entire board give props to Buddy Nix, saying things like how much better he'll be than previous GMs, I trust Buddy to do the right thing, Buddy won't make the same old mistakes etc. But, I am very disappointed to hear his comments about moving around in the draft. He said in a recent press conference that we don't really look to move much, and "I don't know where some of those guys know where they even draft." It got a chuckle from those listening. Nix has very little interest in that option, rather moving up or down. He said "we'll most often just sit where we are and draft from there". But, this reeks of not getting full value of player vs. draft slot. It's almost like Buddy was just too set in his ways, or tired, or old to even want to bother with it. He just doesn't want to "work" the draft. Very troubling comment. New England has proven that if you know how to do this manuever, it will benefit you. Adam Schefter also, on local, Denver radio, summarized that the Broncos got the net effect of an additional 3rd rounder by all of their moves. The great Dallas teams of the 90's under Jimmy Johnson (I know we hated them) were master's of this practice, and the results were obvious. Now, I'm not condemning his draft picks (yet) because we just don't know yet. But, it is an inherent disadvantage not to move up or down if/when the situation warrants it and you don't bother. It is not working the draft to your largest advantage.
jonramz Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 ESPN mentioned something similar about how some guys move and some guys don't. Bill Polian was the example they used about not moving... it works both ways
Alphadawg7 Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 Almost this entire board give props to Buddy Nix, saying things like how much better he'll be than previous GMs, I trust Buddy to do the right thing, Buddy won't make the same old mistakes etc. But, I am very disappointed to hear his comments about moving around in the draft. He said in a recent press conference that we don't really look to move much, and "I don't know where some of those guys know where they even draft." It got a chuckle from those listening. Nix has very little interest in that option, rather moving up or down. He said "we'll most often just sit where we are and draft from there". But, this reeks of not getting full value of player vs. draft slot. It's almost like Buddy was just too set in his ways, or tired, or old to even want to bother with it. He just doesn't want to "work" the draft. Very troubling comment. New England has proven that if you know how to do this manuever, it will benefit you. Adam Schefter also, on local, Denver radio, summarized that the Broncos got the net effect of an additional 3rd rounder by all of their moves. The great Dallas teams of the 90's under Jimmy Johnson (I know we hated them) were master's of this practice, and the results were obvious. It is an inherent disadvantage not to move up or down if/when the situation warrants it and you don't bother. It is not working the draft to your largest advantage. Nix already publicly said he tried to move up several times in rounds 1 and 2 and then their guy who they were going up to get went just before where they were trying to get them... In the mid rounds, this team needs too much to give away picks...
McBeane Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 Almost this entire board give props to Buddy Nix, saying things like how much better he'll be than previous GMs, I trust Buddy to do the right thing, Buddy won't make the same old mistakes etc. But, I am very disappointed to hear his comments about moving around in the draft. He said in a recent press conference that we don't really look to move much, and "I don't know where some of those guys know where they even draft." It got a chuckle from those listening. Nix has very little interest in that option, rather moving up or down. He said "we'll most often just sit where we are and draft from there". But, this reeks of not getting full value of player vs. draft slot. It's almost like Buddy was just too set in his ways, or tired, or old to even want to bother with it. He just doesn't want to "work" the draft. Very troubling comment. New England has proven that if you know how to do this manuever, it will benefit you. Adam Schefter also, on local, Denver radio, summarized that the Broncos got the net effect of an additional 3rd rounder by all of their moves. The great Dallas teams of the 90's under Jimmy Johnson (I know we hated them) were master's of this practice, and the results were obvious. It is an inherent disadvantage not to move up or down if/when the situation warrants it and you don't bother. It is not working the draft to your largest advantage. New England has proved its a great strategy by being on a downslide the past couple years? Get a clue dude, getting 18 draft picks doesn't make it a good draft, only the players you pick can make it a good draft.
Pete Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 bench bledsoe is whining and bitching, imagine that?
Lurker Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 Bill Polian was the example they used about not moving... it works both ways Sure does. Not as interesting for the ESPN show...but then again, they're the tail, not the nose.
BenchBledsoe Posted April 24, 2010 Author Posted April 24, 2010 New England has proved its a great strategy by being on a downslide the past couple years? Get a clue dude, getting 18 draft picks doesn't make it a good draft, only the players you pick can make it a good draft. You need the clue. They've won 3 Superbowl's in the last decade while we haven't been to the playoffs once. Now, I hate the Pats like no other. But to say that what they're doing isn't better than what we've been doing draft-wise is just being in denial because you hate them. It's a fact, not my opinion.
apuszczalowski Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 Its great when you are a constant favorite and your only needs are for depth purposes. The Pats can move around and trade down cause they don't have to rely on drafting guys to come in and start immediatly. They can come in and take guys that they can take time to develop and not rush into the lineup. its one of the perks with being a good team. How many teams the last decade have been trading up into the top 10?
BenchBledsoe Posted April 24, 2010 Author Posted April 24, 2010 bench bledsoe is whining and bitching, imagine that? This is whining and bitching???
McBeane Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 You need the clue. They've won 3 Superbowl's in the last decade while we haven't been to the playoffs once. Now, I hate the Pats like no other. But to say that what they're doing isn't better than what we've been doing draft-wise is just being in denial because you hate them. It's a fact, not my opinion. Because they got lucky on a 6th round QB that shouldn't have ever seen the field. Do you think they win 3 Superbowl's with Bledsoe? Check out New Englands past few drafts and tell me which guys are impressive today.
Lurker Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 You need the clue. They've won 3 Superbowl's in the last decade while we haven't been to the playoffs once. Now, I hate the Pats like no other. But to say that what they're doing isn't better than what we've been doing draft-wise is just being in denial because you hate them. It's a fact, not my opinion. Take away one 6th round draft choice and that statement never gets made. Go figure.
The Big Cat Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 So New England picks a ton of players? Big deal. Since 2005 they've drafted 45 players (Buffalo has drafted 40) Since 2005 New England has drafted 3 Pro Bowlers. (Buffalo has drafted 2)
John Adams Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 Take away one 6th round draft choice and that statement never gets made. Go figure. They made the playoffs with Matt Cassell. Thanks for playing.
Lurker Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 So New England picks a ton of players? Big deal. Since 2005 they've drafted 45 players (Buffalo has drafted 40) Since 2005 New England has drafted 3 Pro Bowlers. (Buffalo has drafted 2)
Lurker Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 They made the playoffs with Matt Cassell. Thanks for playing. What was the design on that 4th SB ring again?
BillnutinHouston Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 Nix already publicly said he tried to move up several times in rounds 1 and 2 and then their guy who they were going up to get went just before where they were trying to get them... In the mid rounds, this team needs too much to give away picks... Correct. You you rather Buddy pull the trigger on those deals and move around, but get fleeced?
Alaska Darin Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 They made the playoffs with Matt Cassell. Thanks for playing. No they didn't.
McBeane Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 They made the playoffs with Matt Cassell. Thanks for playing. Ummm... no they didn't? John Adams, you have just won the dumbest poster of the weekend award!
Malazan Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 So New England picks a ton of players? Big deal. Since 2005 they've drafted 45 players (Buffalo has drafted 40) Since 2005 New England has drafted 3 Pro Bowlers. (Buffalo has drafted 2) Facts have no place here. Move on, troll.
BenchBledsoe Posted April 24, 2010 Author Posted April 24, 2010 Because they got lucky on a 6th round QB that shouldn't have ever seen the field. Do you think they win 3 Superbowl's with Bledsoe? Check out New Englands past few drafts and tell me which guys are impressive today. They have a strong nucleus overall is my point. Mayo recently is their best pick.
Recommended Posts