Oldfan Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 What does building in the trenches mean to you? I don't have a precise definition, but I can tell you, without qualification, that it means adding more than two starters to the group of linemen the coach inherits before the winning run begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Parcells used six of his nine picks (67%) in the 2008 draft on linemen. Belichick used 5 of his 8 picks (62.5%) in the top 4 rounds of the 2000-2001. Does that count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I don't have a precise definition, but I can tell you, without qualification, that it means adding more than two starters to the group of linemen the coach inherits before the winning run begins. Then the Patriots did build in the trenches. They added 3 starting linemen in the 2000 and 2001 drafts - Matt Light, Richard Seymour, and Greg Randall (Light and Seymour are Pro Bowlers.) Also Kenyatta Jones started in 2002, but was drafted in 2001. As far as free agency, they got Compton (2001), Andruzzi (2000), Hamilton (2000) and Pleasant (2001). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbill1952 Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I alway forget that some posters never read past the thread title which, sadly, is deceptive. Yeah, I don't live on here and reading two hundred or more posts is tough for those who have a life and/or jobs. I usually just look at the incredibly dumb assertion and then read that guy's stuff. Like in this thread.If Bellichick profited from a talented roster inherited from his predecessor, we don't care. That's not relevant to our topic. BB's first draft was in 2000.Then rename your thread. I wasn't posting on a Bellicheat thread. The question "Uh, is drafting linemen really a good idea?" is answered yes by the stats you choose to ignore. Ignoring them won't make then go away. I responded specifically to your statement that the Patriots did not build through the trenches first. You then stated they only drafted two linemen the year before. Half-truths are every bit as good as a lie and I showed the actual data of the previous 5 years of the number of first and second round picks as well as all of their other OL and DL picks to show that they did build through the trenches despite your half-truth to the contrary. You stated that the dynasty started in 2001. I showed they built through the trenches prior to the dynasty starting. So, if the thread has changed and the new topic is something other than "Is drafting linemen really a good idea?" then you could have saved us all a lot of time by just posting "Duh?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 Belichick used 5 of his 8 picks (62.5%) in the top 4 rounds of the 2000-2001.Does that count? Since Belichick had 20 picks available to him and only used seven on linemen (35%), we can say that he was about half as committed to drafting linemen as Parcells was in 2008. The concentration of picks for linemen at the top of the draft could be because he needed a couple of linemen -- or it might simply mean that the best players available happened to be linemen. In any case, adding two linemen to the inherited group doesn't come close to the validating the "building the trenches first" theory-- and that's the bottom line. The rest is prattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 Yeah, I don't live on here and reading two hundred or more posts is tough for those who have a life and/or jobs. I usually just look at the incredibly dumb assertion and then read that guy's stuff. You didn't read anything but the title and assumed I was making an argument you could handle -- an easy one. You stated that the dynasty started in 2001. I showed they built through the trenches prior to the dynasty starting. No you didn't. You showed they drafted linemen before Belichick took over. We could have guessed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedskinDaddy Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 You didn't read anything but the title and assumed I was making an argument you could handle -- an easy one... Ouch. Accurate, if somewhat caustic - A man after my own heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbill1952 Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 No you didn't. You showed they drafted linemen before Belichick took over. We could have guessed that.But you didn't merntion it and you glossed over the fact that Belicheat inherited a team that had dedicated a large number of top picks to linemen. Just like the Tuna did at Miami this year.If you had guessed at it, then I assume you came up with the correct answer and admitted that JLC was right. The New England Patriots built through the trenches before their dynasty began. And I assume you came up with the correct answer to the thread title also. i.e. Yes, drafting linemen is a good idea. I didn't see your admission in any of your posts. Say hello to your son Vinny for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 wildbill, I am always seeing the fact of a draft pick as meaning something from you. The Patriots offensive line the first year they won the SB was universally regarded as mediocre, at BEST. Greg Robinson-Randall was AWFUL and out of the league after two seasons. Adrian Klemm lasted for--5 years? The Patriots offensive line didn't begin to produce and play up to anything remotely 'elite' until the year they played the Eagles in the SB. When was that? So, I'm not agreeing instantly that just because a team TOOK a lineman that this particular lineman was worth much, other than placeholding for a better group (like the one they currently have.) Teams do not simply win because they have a great line, sometimes great players or schemes at other positions can make a mediocre line look a lot better than it is or simply not play to their weaknesses. Unless you really want to argue that the Cardinals have an elite offensive line who excel at run blocking as much as pass pro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloosa Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Drafting lineman early or late is just a matter of luck more than anything else. Samuels was a first round pick and he has been a pro bowler for us. Jansen was also a first round pick but hasn't been as consistent as Samuel or been a Pro Bowler as many times. Take Matt Light for the Patriots and he was either undrafted or a late round pick but has been a Pro Bowler for them for many years. So it doesn't matter how you get them but rather how well they learn and play their positions. Everyone has seen how Kiper and Mayock give their mock drafts and their top 100 draft prospects. They rate the players from the bigger conferences higher than if they played at another conference or at a lower level university or college. But the thing I have always noticed is that the majority of players that have played at a high level and have been Pro Bowlers and eventually Hall of Famers have come from the lower level Universities and Colleges. So the drafting of OL or any other position is a crap shoot and has no bearing on how well a team does. The scouting teams have to do their homework and the teams have to have a lot of luck on their side to find the good players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodiesel#44 Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Samuels was a first round pick and he has been a pro bowler for us. Jansen was also a first round pick but hasn't been as consistent as Samuel or been a Pro Bowler as many times. Really? What year did Jansen make the Pro Bowl? 1856? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Well, logically if the Patriots are drafting a lower percentage of lineman than the Cards, then they must be drafting a higher percentage at other positions. Does that mean they aren't as good as the Cards in drafting for those other positions? There is a missing number - the total number of draft picks. Also, though, the Skins have a high average age on the OL and seemed to wear down through the course of the year. The prescription for that isn't more cowbell - it's getting youth and talent on the OL, which is usually best accomplished through the draft assuming you can scout. That last is the only part that disturbs me for the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Sure I can. I can do it in a simple phrase: "short-term thinking"that's funny! short term thinking, of course, speaks to time horizon and not football philosophy. On what evidence do you isolate the line play as the principle problem? Were the other units above average? I don't need to overwhelm the dicussion with one dimensional statistics. I have seen it with my own eyes season after season: a weak pass rush, ineffective pressure up the middle from the DTs, very...very few dominant line games, older players, weak pass blocking up the middle, recurring end of game drives by opposing teams, inability to control the line of scrimmage on short yardage running plays (especially at the goal line), recurring injuries, age...and on. and, most especially, weak performances in the playoffs. The O line was the strongest unit on the team from 2004 -2006. Gibbs said so -- but he and Al still couldn't put a consistent passing game on the field. being the strongest unit on the team is not what the discussion is all about. all (or most) of us have swallowed this bilge water for a long time that the Skins have one of the best o-lines in the NFL. well.....game scoring, stats (if we must), etc., demonstrate otherwise. in the event. you are to be commnded for a thoughtful, defended argument. in my own simple minded way...I have come to the conclusion...not based on animosity...but years of observation...that the problem falls in the FO and will not change until the FO changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliffmark1 Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 yes, yes it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 25, 2009 Author Share Posted January 25, 2009 fs62 --- that's funny! short term thinking, of course, speaks to time horizon and not football philosophy. Trading picks for vets -- short-term thinking Trading up in the draft to fill a need -- short-term thinking Emphasis on free agent vets -- short-term thinking Ignoring the draft -- short-term thinking The offseason concern (2004 - 2006) was about winning the next season. Now, they have a longer view, but it's still not long enough, IMO. [about the O line] being the strongest unit on the team is not what the discussion is all about. all (or most) of us have swallowed this bilge water for a long time that the Skins have one of the best o-lines in the NFL. well.....game scoring, stats (if we must), etc., demonstrate otherwise. The O line was above-average in run blocking. Jansen was weak in pass protection when healthy and has gotten weaker; but I think the inconsistent passing game in Gibbs Two can be blamed on the coaching, QB, the O line and receivers in that order. in the event. you are to be commnded for a thoughtful, defended argument. in my own simple minded way...I have come to the conclusion...not based on animosity...but years of observation...that the problem falls in the FO and will not change until the FO changes. I hawk your posts because I respect your opinions. You could very well be right on this one. I have to confess that the foundation for my optimism is ego-based: They're doing more things lately the way I said they should be done long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Trading picks for vets -- short-term thinkingTrading up in the draft to fill a need -- short-term thinking Emphasis on free agent vets -- short-term thinking Ignoring the draft -- short-term thinking The offseason concern (2004 - 2006) was about winning the next season. Now, they have a longer view, but it's still not long enough, IMO. again....short term thinking....like fingers in a dike...is not a philosophy. having a longer term committment gets one closer as a necessary condition for a philosophy....I'll alert the presses when I see evidence of one! The O line was above-average in run blocking. Jansen was weak in pass protection when healthy and has gotten weaker; but I think the inconsistent passing game in Gibbs Two can be blamed on the coaching, QB, the O line and receivers in that order. in your opinion. I saw season after season come cruch time this line COULD NOT exert its will in short yardage situations. it was an over-rated line. I hawk your posts because I respect your opinions. You could very well be right on this one. I have to confess that the foundation for my optimism is ego-based: They're doing more things lately the way I said they should be done long ago. brother...I'm responding to you for two reasons: you are one of the thoughtful ones - a good skins-netizen; I disagree on the impetus for optimism. I believe that this FO just doesn't have what it takes to build a champion. they pay star money but don't get star output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 uh, is drafting linemen really a good idea? yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.