chipwhich Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Please provide a quote where I said that Belichick ignored the trenches. and they didn't build in the trenches first. I guess I took the premise of your post from the beginning. You stated they didn't spend a #1 pick on a franchise QB and they didn't build in the trenches first. So lets assume Bellichek knew what he had at QB. Lets next evaluate who they picked in the draft. Suprise. Lineman. Then you go on to say how their selection process is "shrouded in secrecy". Match that with your "do we really need to draft the lines" post...then look at the patriots drafts. It is loaded with high picks at lineman both defensive and offensively. What the Patriots did in reality was no secret. They draft offensive and defensive lineman EVERY year. They absolutely don't neglect the lines. They then toss in some free agency, and what do you have? A winning franchise. I have never evaluated the Patriots drafts before you bringing it to my attention. What I see is consistency in drafting lineman, then Tight Ends, Corners, and linebackers. A sprinkle of running back and wide receiver...and suprisingly a number of QB's. I wasn't trying to imply you were being dishonest, what I found as a result of your posts is New England did exactly what "experts" recommend. They continually build the trenches. There is no secret in what they do. BTW, I see your statistics on the number of lineman. It's the quality of the pics they use on lineman which is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 BTW, If you look at the top 4 rounds of the draft, which is where I believe you can build most quickly on your lines, about 50% were lineman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 I guess I took the premise of your post from the beginning. You stated they didn't spend a #1 pick on a franchise QB and they didn't build in the trenches first. That's correct I said the Patriots did not build in the trenches first -- and you have not provided evidence to the contrary. BTW, I see your statistics on the number of lineman. It's the quality of the pics they use on lineman which is interesting. There's nothing interesting about the quality of their picks. From 2000 - 2008, they used 13 of 30 picks in rounds 1-4 (33.9%) compared to 36.4% expected from 8 positions out of 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 That's correct I said the Patriots did not build in the trenches first -- and you have not provided evidence to the contrary. . In 2000 2 of their first 3 picks were lineman. In 2001 3 of their first 4 picks were lineman. Including the number 6 pick overall. I wouldn't call that not building their trenches first. Those are the money picks to which they spent in the trenches. Thats 5 out of 7. I would call that fairly significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972FAN Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 No surprise there about the economics degree. It's amazing how so many Redskins fan and the front office itself can't seem to grasp simple concepts such as opportunity cost, risk vs return, and diversification. Synder could definetly use some help in the football front office but,, Snyder is a millionaire a 100 times over sooooo,,,, Guess he's doing O.K.?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 I wouldn't call that not building their trenches first. Those are the money picks to which they spent in the trenches. Thats 5 out of 7. I would call that fairly significant. The picks were 1,2,2,4,4 in two years which netted the Patriots just two starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 The picks were 1,2,2,4,4 in two years which netted the Patriots just two starters. How they panned out is irrelevant to your theory. How they selected players is all that is relevant. Based on their picks their intent was to bolster the lines. How any player pick up pans out is another story. I haven't even evaluated their rosters prior to drafting. I do know their QB situation was already fine. I guess my main point is, I don't see much "shrouded in secrecy". Bellichek was fortunate to have a true field general already available. They then used their highest picks in the first two year on trench players. He also had the benefit of the "Parcells Factor". When Parcells leaves a team, it is always better off than when he arrive. In addition, they frequently have 10 draft picks. One thing apparent, is that for as well as the Patriots have done...they consistently pick lineman....even though they have the lines built. Quite opposite from the Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 The picks were 1,2,2,4,4 in two years which netted the Patriots just two starters. Meanwhile the Redskins have used how many 1st-2nd picks on OL/DL since 2000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Great post Oldfan. Definitely well thought out, and intelligent. I would add two things: First, without pulling up stats, one thing I noticed about both the Patriots and the Colts during their dominant years was that the qb simply didn't get sacked. I mean never. And neither Brady nor Manning were exceptionally gifted scramblers--rarely would they scramble for a first down. That could be attributed to exceptional talent evaluation, or it could be due to my second thought: Superior coaching. As much as I hate to admit it, our coaches have pretty much sucked for a very long time. Take G Williams out of the picture, and it could be argued that we have had some of the worst coaches in the entire league--at every single position. Without going through the list of the obvious--Spurrier, etc, we have really blown hard at nearly every single coaching position. The biggest name coach of our last ten years....Gibbs 2, brought us awful coaches all over the place. Our WR coach blows, our special teams coach blows, our QB coach under Gibbs blew. Byner was extremely pathetic. You could literally name twenty position coaches that we have/or previously had that just literally sucked beyond belief. And even the biggest name of that group, Gibbs 2, called a double-timeout, ran the worst two-minute drill in the history of the league, had terrible clock management, and was too conservative. When was the last time we blocked a punt? Amazing that Zorn can come in the first day and immediately see major problems with JC. Why didn't the previous QB coach see that all of those years? Has our WR coach ever coached anyone to play above their talent level? I could go on for hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheREALJBird Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Sure you can. You can also make the argument that those receivers do one helluva lot for Brady's reputation. Look up his 2006 stats when he didn't have them and compare them to 2007. Absolutely, no denying that they beefed up Brady's stats in 07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Amazing that Zorn can come in the first day and immediately see major problems with JC. Why didn't the previous QB coach see that all of those years? If you don't think Gibbs knew there were problems with JC you are naive. Gibbs wanted no parts of playing JC until he was backed into a corner....and that wasn't because he was a rookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Absolutely, no denying that they beefed up Brady's stats in 07 And a lot of us for years were saying that Brady was better than Manning, except he didn't have the receivers. It's not like they didn't win their 3 SB's without those receivers. Manning still did the annual playoff choke even with Harrison, Wayne, and Stokley, and Clark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheREALJBird Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 And a lot of us for years were saying that Brady was better than Manning, except he didn't have the receivers. It's not like they didn't win their 3 SB's without those receivers. I wasn't one of the people saying that:).....and they didn't win a SB with those receivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 If you don't think Gibbs knew there were problems with JC you are naive.Gibbs wanted no parts of playing JC until he was backed into a corner....and that wasn't because he was a rookie. Who gave up the farm to draft JC? And during those early seasons, who in the hell was coaching JC? Who was responsible for his development in practice and during the offseason? Why can Zorn come in on day one, and see immediate problems that Gibbs and his staff hadn't worked on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Who gave up the farm to draft JC?And during those early seasons, who in the hell was coaching JC? Who was responsible for his development in practice and during the offseason? Why can Zorn come in on day one, and see immediate problems that Gibbs and his staff hadn't worked on? Drafting JC...that would be Gibbs. Don't confuse that for Gibbs not realizing that JC had issues. How Gibbs developed JC -vs- how Zorn developed JC is a silly argument. The only thing I am saying is I think Gibbs knew JC had problems, but had no other choice but to play him. Zorn...same thing. End result of both of their "development"? Same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 How they panned out is irrelevant to your theory...How they selected players is all that is relevant. Based on their picks their intent was to bolster the lines. How any player pick up pans out is another story. Let's stick with my assertion that the Patriots did not build their lines first. Your evidence that "their intent was to bolster the lines" is a watered-down statement that does not come close to proving my assertion wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 Meanwhile the Redskins have used how many 1st-2nd picks on OL/DL since 2000? I don't know, but the question has nothing to do with this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Let's stick with my assertion that the Patriots did not build their lines first. Your evidence that "their intent was to bolster the lines" is a watered-down statement that does not come close to proving my assertion wrong. If 5 of their top 7 picks in 2 back to back years is not evidence to you I don't know what is. What was their intent in taking 5 lineman in two years with their top 7 picks? To get receivers? Running Backs? Do you disagree the money picks are in the top 4 rounds where they have used 50% of their picks on lineman? Do you disagree that Bellichek knew he had a QB who could run his offense? If you throw in tight ends as blocking lineman, my premise is even stronger. In my brief evaluation of the Patriots drafts, it is obvious they did one thing the Redskins did not. They consistantly drafted lineman even though they didn't have that as a primary need. I certainly could ascertain they in any way ignored the lines. 5 of 7 in top picks is enough to prove my point. 50% lineman in the top 4 rounds in the initial years I posted is pretty telling. As I said, I usually agree with your posts, I think this time your evaluation of what was done missed the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 Great post Oldfan. Definitely well thought out, and intelligent. Thank you. First, without pulling up stats, one thing I noticed about both the Patriots and the Colts during their dominant years was that the qb simply didn't get sacked... That could be attributed to exceptional talent evaluation, or it could be due to...superior coaching. My guess is a combination of both. Amazing that Zorn can come in the first day and immediately see major problems with JC. Why didn't the previous QB coach see that all of those years? Among coaches, there are two schools of thought on the value of QB mechanics. Many coaches think them unimportant. Their attitude is "As long as the ball gets there, it doesn't matter." Joe Gibbs obviously belongs in that group. That's why he gave up three picks for a QB with lousy mechanics and that's why nothing was done to work on Jason until Al Saunders got here. Al did major surgery on Jason's mechanics, but JZ needed to do more because he wanted Campbell to run the WCO which requires the QB to be much quicker and more compact. Jim Zorn, like Jaws and some other former NFL QBs, thinks that a QB's potential is limited by the quality of his mechanics. I think they're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 As I said, I usually agree with your posts, I think this time your evaluation of what was done missed the mark. Okay, we disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Okay, we disagree. I would call that Checkmate....as you weren't able to defend your position of the Patriots not building the lines even though 5 of their top seven picks in the first 2 years were lineman. I do appreciate your analysis though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 I would call that Checkmate.... You can call it chicken salad if you want to. To me, that was nothing but nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 You can call it chicken salad if you want to. To me, that was nothing but nonsense. If it's nonsense I would love to see why. We both should agree that statistical analysis is nothing but a lie. I can accurately say 71% of his picks of his highest 7 picks in 2 years were on lineman. That is a real statistic without even looking a team roster to see why they took this approach. That also tells me lineman were important. That is a big number, which would lead me to believe it was a priority....especially given they had a QB they thought they could work with. Your shroud of turin premise falls apart after that...but I do love your analysis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 Chip, this is the sentence that you'd like to challenge from the OP: Well, they didn't go out and spend a #1 pick on a franchise QB to build around; and they didn't build in the trenches first. Did they go out and spend a #1 pick on a franchise QB? No. They drafted Brady with a #6 pick in 2000. So, that statement's true. Did they build in the trenches first? No. The Patriots started their winning ways in 2001. At that point, they had drafted two linemen to bolster the starting group they already had. So, that statement's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 And a lot of us for years were saying that Brady was better than Manning, except he didn't have the receivers. It's not like they didn't win their 3 SB's without those receivers. Manning still did the annual playoff choke even with Harrison, Wayne, and Stokley, and Clark. Branch and Givens were one of the more underrated pair of WRs in the game when they were with the Pats, though injuries derailed them afterward. Brady struggled thru 06 without a bonafide WR and their season ended when no one at that spot could step up in the playoffs. To which they reacted that offseason, acquiring Moss, Welker and Stallworth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.