eball Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 Have they dominated us for the last decade? Have they gone deep in the playoffs? Been in the Superbowl? Won a couple? Yes, their FO QB is better than ours. So they strike out on some of their draft picks, they still produce wins on the field. Fixed. By the way, commenting on how one of the "best" teams in the league has failed miserably doesn't mean you have to compare it to Buffalo. The statement can stand alone.
NoSaint Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 what i think many have trouble wrapping their heads around is how hard it is to build a year in and year out super bowl contender (even with a qb) the way the league is structured. the longer you go the stronger the effects of free agency, of drafting low, etc... and you either end up with talent deficits or having to take risk on injuries or character. its an interesting discussion but im not sure this board would be a good spot to objectively discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the NE front office.
Dorkington Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 (edited) Never asked which FO was better. However, many "experts" laud their FO for letting high priced players go, making do with lesser guys who they steal in the draft, have all these great strategies trading down for draft picks, etc etc. Plus you can't compare their current FO with ours since ours is brand new. If the team is a consistent winner, then why shouldn't their FO be lauded? I think it's worth looking at the whole picture, and not just their draft picks in particular rounds. They end up winning games, so they obviously must be making some good moves. Fixed. By the way, commenting on how one of the "best" teams in the league has failed miserably doesn't mean you have to compare it to Buffalo. The statement can stand alone. As good as Brady is, the team wouldn't win nearly as many games if he didn't have some talent around him. But, for argument's sake... lets say everyone on NE sucks, besides Brady. Then obviously NE's FO hit it out of the park far enough on the Brady pickup that the rest of the stuff matters less. The net result is still a highly rated FO. Edited August 29, 2013 by Dorkington
BobChalmers Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 (edited) Have they dominated us for the last decade? Have they gone deep in the playoffs? Been in the Superbowl? Won a couple? Yes, their FO is better than ours. So they strike out on some of their draft picks, they still produce wins on the field. You apparently skipped all the stuff above that refutes this. They got Brady - years ago - and that was a different management team. They would be nothing w/o him, and their FO has not been doing well for years. Their FO has been mediocre or worse for several years now. And don't waste time with the "when Brady was hurt and Cassell stepped in" line - that was also many years ago. If THIS Pats* team lost Brady in the pre-season they would be challenging for Clowney. Edited August 29, 2013 by BobChalmers
Pete Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 what i think many have trouble wrapping their heads around is how hard it is to build a year in and year out super bowl contender (even with a qb) the way the league is structured. the longer you go the stronger the effects of free agency, of drafting low, etc... and you either end up with talent deficits or having to take risk on injuries or character. its an interesting discussion but im not sure this board would be a good spot to objectively discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the NE front office. I will say NE is good at drafting players that fit their scheme. They are also good at managing the cap, and knowing when a player is on downside. They have continually let players walk, and rarely do those players have success with other teams
Dorkington Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 (edited) You apparently skipped all the stuff above that refutes this. They got Brady - years ago - and that was a different management team. They would be nothing w/o him, and their FO has not been doing well for years. Their FO has been mediocre or worse for several years now. And don't waste time with the "when Brady was hurt and Cassell stepped in" line - that was also many years ago. If THIS Pats* team lost Brady in the pre-season they would be challenging for Clowney. I'd love to have a mediocre or worse FO on a team that wins 75% of it's games, goes to the playoffs every year, and contends to win the NFL championship. If you really think ONE player is the reason that happens, then we'll agree to disagree. Edited August 29, 2013 by Dorkington
BillsFanNC Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 Having one of the best QB's to ever play the game allows your FO office to miss as much or more than other teams and still be successful.
BobChalmers Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 (edited) I'd love to have a mediocre or worse FO on a team that wins 75% of it's games, goes to the playoffs every year, and contends to win the NFL championship. If you really think ONE player is the reason that happens, then we'll agree to disagree. Fair enough - but let me offer this one example as food for thought. The Colts over the past three seasons. I happen to believe that Brady is better than Peyton Manning. Mostly because Manning has slight choking problem - whereas Brady is very clutch. Manning is still great/HoF material though. The Colts lose their HoF QB, and they immediately lose 10 more games and go from championship contender to drafting #1 overall. They spend that pick on the best QB prospect in a generation, and immediately return to the playoffs. Pats* lucked into drafting the greatest QB of the recent 20 years in the 6th round - don't the Colts prove it's entirely possible he is worth 10+ wins to them? Edited August 29, 2013 by BobChalmers
aristocrat Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 So they can't scout db's. They can scout tight ends, lb's and d lineman. They also made a great trade getting Talib who could be there lock down corner.
Cash Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 Fair enough - but let me offer this one example as food for thought. The Colts over the past three seasons. I happen to believe that Brady is better than Peyton Manning. Mostly because Manning has slight choking problem - whereas Brady is very clutch. Manning is still great/HoF material though. The Colts lose their HoF QB, and they immediately lose 10 more games and go from championship contender to drafting #1 overall. They spend that pick on the best QB prospect in a generation, and immediately return to the playoffs. Pats* lucked into drafting the greatest QB of the recent 20 years in the 6th round - don't the Colts prove it's entirely possible he is worth 10+ wins to them? Doesn't 2008 prove that Brady was worth 5 wins to the Patriots? 16-0 in 2007, 11-5 without him in 2008. And Matt Cassell sucks and always has. Brady is very good, and I hate the Patriots very much, but I would hardly say the Patriots would be nothing without him.
eball Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 Doesn't 2008 prove that Brady was worth 5 wins to the Patriots? 16-0 in 2007, 11-5 without him in 2008. And Matt Cassell sucks and always has. Brady is very good, and I hate the Patriots very much, but I would hardly say the Patriots would be nothing without him. That was five years ago. The Pats* roster is nothing like it was back then, in terms of surrounding talent. And THAT is a direct reflection of the FO -- which was the whole point of this thread. The circle is complete.
YoloinOhio Posted August 29, 2013 Author Posted August 29, 2013 (edited) Having one of the best QB's to ever play the game allows your FO office to miss as much or more than other teams and still be successful. THIS. Plus a HOF coach, best in the game. I disagree that their FO is great because they have won. They have had a ton of players not work out. They have won despite that, in a weak division in the AFC. But not in the NFC - for several years. Edited August 29, 2013 by YoloInTheBlo
chris heff Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 Doesn't 2008 prove that Brady was worth 5 wins to the Patriots? 16-0 in 2007, 11-5 without him in 2008. And Matt Cassell sucks and always has. Brady is very good, and I hate the Patriots very much, but I would hardly say the Patriots would be nothing without him. I hope we find out opening day.
DDD Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 They nailed one draft pick tho No, they got lucky, very lucky.
NoSaint Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 No, they got lucky, very lucky. they did get incredibly lucky - but they did well in developing that pick as well. Whooooole lot of luck involved, but thats not to say it was totally without talent as some suggest.
Storm Front Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 One man: Ernie Adams. Without him the Pats would be mortal.
Pneumonic Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 Keep in mind folks ..... since winning their SB's the Pats have completely torn down and rebuilt their team while still producing divisional and conference titles and more wins than any other team in the NFL over that timeframe. Let me say this again ..... the Pats re-built, in mid stream, and barely missed a beat. And they did so while operating under the confines of a restrictive sal cap era. So, while they have missed out on draft picks here and there, their winning record indicates a FO that is second to none in this league.
YoloinOhio Posted August 29, 2013 Author Posted August 29, 2013 (edited) Keep in mind folks ..... since winning their SB's the Pats have completely torn down and rebuilt their team while still producing divisional and conference titles and more wins than any other team in the NFL over that timeframe. Let me say this again ..... the Pats re-built, in mid stream, and barely missed a beat. And they did so while operating under the confines of a restrictive sal cap era. So, while they have missed out on draft picks here and there, their winning record indicates a FO that is second to none in this league. They didn't completely tear down and rebuild their team. They kept the two most important factors in a winning org, the HC and the QB, in place. Not saying that they haven't done some things right - clearly they are not incompetent. However, I do not think they are one of the best FOs in the league. Edited August 29, 2013 by YoloInTheBlo
Pneumonic Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 They didn't completely tear down and rebuild their team. They kept the two most important factors in a winning org, the HC and the QB, in place. Not saying that they haven't done some things right - clearly they are not incompetent. However, I do not think they are one of the best FOs in the league. OK
hondo in seattle Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 what i think many have trouble wrapping their heads around is how hard it is to build a year in and year out super bowl contender (even with a qb) the way the league is structured. the longer you go the stronger the effects of free agency, of drafting low, etc... and you either end up with talent deficits or having to take risk on injuries or character. its an interesting discussion but im not sure this board would be a good spot to objectively discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the NE front office. They have a great HC, a great QB, and so-so success with FAs and draft picks. That's enough.
Recommended Posts