Can you explain your opinion on Ras-I to me? He played something like two games for us, then was IR-ed for the rest of the season. I thought he actually looked good for that brief span. Why are you using him as an example of poor drafting?
Drafting a guy in the beginning of the 2nd who was known for for being incredibly injury prone in college ends up on IR 2 games into his rookie year. Maybe its just me, but i dont find that very intimidating
If by "being incredibly injury prone in college" you mean battling injuries his senior year (after three healthy seasons prior to that), then sure. You can point to the results this year and say that the Patriots "should have foreseen this", but in reality Gronkowski was seen as a bigger injury concern, and calling Dowling "trash" at this point seems a bit over the top, injury or not.
:raiders: Almost every single draft projection/scouting report on this guy said injury concerns are an huge issue for him and dropped him out of the 1st. So 2 games into his first season he ends up on IR. How can you pretend that its not a concern at this point
Sure it is a concern. That is why we picked him in the second, and not the first round of the draft. We took talent greater than the draft position, and in doing so, also accepted an injury risk greater than average for that draft position. Will that work out? I don't know, but neither do you at this point. I am simply saying that it is way too early to use him as an example of a "draft failure". I guess I just found your post odd because there are so many better examples you could have used. It is quite apparent that we won't be getting our expected draft value out of Darius Butler or Brandon Merriweather, and Jermaine Cunningham's chances aren't looking so good either. Ras-I Dowling? ... who knows. I understand the general feeling that the Patriots have had poor drafting lately, especially on defense. But, in a way, I think that is overblown. People like to look at Belichick's drafts through the narrow window of each given year. They say "well he had two first-round picks, and two-second round picks, and he only got X number of starters out of this years draft". Then they use the same argument next year, saying that the Patriots didn't even come near what they "potentially could have accomplished with the draft". The problem with that view is that it doesn't take into account the things that BB did this year to put himself into position for next year, or the things that he did last year to put himself into position for this year. It is just simply comparing what he got this year to what could have been. A fair assessment of Belichick's drafting wouldn't compare his results to the number of picks he had. It would compare his results to the results of every other team. He might not come out looking like a genius, but I don't think he stands out as being awful either.
Pittsburgh and the Giants come to mind instantly. The owner's are very involved, want to win, and do not panic and fire coaches after one down year. Bad teams that keep being bad are evidence as well. The Bills and Redskins come to mind here. Teams that too often are chaning coaches, systems, and are all in all dysfunctional with no identity to speak of. Also add in the Raiders of the last ten years. Davis had long outlasted his early effectiveness and made his team a running joke. The ownership of the franchise decides how much money can be put into the coaches, scouting, facilities and such. They also choose the president and GM types that run the football operations. The impact they have on the over all team make up is absolute.
The Patriots will be good for as long as Brady plays and as soon as he retires they will be no different to every other team struggling to get by without an elite QB. They could have every draft pick in the world but we have all seen (jets, Ravens, niners) that without an elite QB you need to have an elite level Defense to get anywhere (and the Pats are a long way away from that).
i dont think that having a quick trigger finger is the problem with the redskins and bills. i think the fact that they do not know how to hire good quality personnel is the problem. they seem to be able to figure out they suck quickly enough but they dont figure it out until after they hire them and give them tons of money. the skins have done it at every single level of their team. dan snyder is a moron and has proved it time after time. thats one of the things i applaud that mfer in new england for. he has a plan and he knows how to bring in good people at every level. he also is not going to let any one guy have too much control. its kinda like the old this guy knows everything he is unreplaceable thing we all deal with at times in our own jobs.
I'm sure ownership plays a huge role in the success or failure of NFL teams. Suggesting Bill Belichick and Tom Brady are insignificant pawns in Krafts plan to checkmate the league seems pretty silly to me though. I think it's safe to say Brady is the queen.
The Patriots dont know how to draft anymore. Every single player on that team sucks besides Brady. Brady makes all those tightends and recievers look great when they arent that good. If Brady left that team now they would go 2-14 like the Colts.
In my mind, Belichick's greatest strength as a coach has been his ability to adapt to the talent on his team. 2008 is an obvious example of that. When Brady went down that season, and his injury was reported to be season-ending, I immediately thought we were doomed. Not just because of how good Brady was, but because of how atrociously bad Cassel had shown himself to be up to that point. Not many people remember this, but the story of that preseason had been the backup QB battle between Cassel and Matt Gutierrez... long story short, neither one of them showed any ability at all to move the offense down the field and score points. They both played so badly that most experts were predicting we would add a veteran QB to our roster and release both. Belichick proved over the course of that season that he can mask deficiencies at QB, even with a team built around Brady and a less-than-dominant defense. Of course, our easy schedule helped, and we still didn't make the playoffs, but nonetheless the quality of play that we got from that team was impressive. Randy Moss was a square peg trying to fit into a round hole, but we still managed to get production out of him. Meanwhile, Welker and Faulk carried the team. If our defense improves over the remainder of Brady's career (which it should), and our young offensive core remains intact (Gronkowski, Hernandez, Solder, Vollmer, Mankins, etc.), then I don't think we will fade into oblivion the way many people predict. We should have ample time to develop a young QB that Belichick will ease into the offense (a la Matt Cassel), and ideally we can even complement him with a decent young receiver. Alternatively, we could simpy focus on everything else besides QB until Brady retires, then go all in with whatever draft ammunition we have to select a potential star. I don't see how any of these things are unrealistic just because we are reliant on Brady now. People look at what happened to the Colts without Manning, and think that they can project that onto the Patriots, even though the circumstances are far from the same.
I dont think the Pats will fade away, just that like everyone else that doesnt have a top 5 QB they will find everything a lot harder than they have to date - a great QB masks so much that you really cannot tell what a team is or is not until that piece of the puzzle is gone - certainly its very unlikely that they will be as good as they have been the last few years (fingers crossed)
i am not suggesting that they are both pawns, i am saying that they have both had difficulties by themselves and that ownership is the real superstar of that organization at this point. time will tell but my best hope for patriot mediocrity is that their owner after his wifes passing begins not to give a shit anymore.
Yea, saying they are insignificant is going to far one way, saygin the ownership does not matter is too far the other. What will be telling (and what was when Brady was gone for a season) was how well the team carries on without him. 11-5 without Brady was damn good. I think Kratf and Beli, if he sticks around, will continue to feild good teams even without an elite QB. The difference instead of 10+ wins every year they will have those down years like everyone else.
The quick trigger is part of the problem. how many times have both tese teams gone from 4-3, to 3-4, and back again in just the past 5 years? As an Ownership group, they hire the people that make these switches happen. Fire then and instead of brining in a coach with a similar scheme that will be effective with the current roster, its another overhaul. Just because you hired one bad coach does not mean you bring in someon who wants to tear everything up and start from square one. The steelers brought in Tomlin when Cower left, but retained the 34. I don't belive for a second that this was 100% Tomlins idea, but it came from ownership. They had the presonal, they had LeBeau to run it, and it kept thier identity intact. There is something to be said for continuity for systems and players. It allows for refinement in the offseason, not learning new terms and positions yet again.
ah - one of the many times i ripped edwards and bradway back in 2001 was the transition to the 4-3 from the 3-4. that proved to me those clowns knew nothing about continuity and running a franchise. but thats a distant memory.
Ryan Mallet's rookie deal will most likely have expired by the time Brady stops playing so it will be interesting to see what happens on that front.
And you forgot how good he's made wilfork, and mayo look too. Pus their kicker and cheer leaders. If it wasn't for Brady gronk and Hernandez would never get any separation. And remember last time when Brady missed a whole season and they went 2-14.
