Something to consider when thinking about trading away draft picks . . . look at the Patriots

[TheLongshot]

So' date=' a lot of the fans are like you but a lot of the fans don't have the patience you have.

That makes sense.[/quote']

What was unspoken in your statement in talking about me is that I'm one of the ones that "step into line", so to speak, in that despite what has happened in the past we come back and root for the team. That was the aspect I was talking about. I don't necessarily agree with that characterization of me, but I was using it to make a point.

[Oldfan]

System? Auerbach had six plays.

A basketball system is more than plays. That's true in Football as well.

Jerry Rice was a great receiver at age 40 on the Raiders. Who was going to be pretty good regardless of where he played. Ditto with Ronnie Lott.

Lott had a better chance of making the HOF with another team than Rice whose production, like Montana's and Young's, was largely dependent on the scheme and team.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

A basketball system is more than plays. That's true in Football as well.

Define Auerbach's system.

Hint: you can't because it does not exist.

[The Tris]

makes it impossible to have anything but win-now mediocrity because we're not willing to pay the price for excellence. Hiring retreads is a win-now move.

I see you fail to categorize Belichick as a retread, and ignore him many veteran stop-gap signings. Hardly shocking.

[Oldfan]

...Finally' date=' I have read three books either by or on Auerbach. I've never seen a quote like that. So, produce one...[/quote']

Red said the same thing several times in different ways. Here's one of them:

"Some say you have to use your five best players, but I found out you win with the five that fit together best as a team."

— Red Auerbach

Here's a link, but if you search the quote you will get several pages with the same quote. LINK

[Oldfan]

Define Auerbach's system.

Hint: you can't because it does not exist.

If I had said that Red used the same system over his years in basketball, you would have a good counter. But I didn't, so you don't. Basketball changed and Red changed with it.

[Oldfan]

I see you fail to categorize Belichick as a retread, and ignore him many veteran stop-gap signings. Hardly shocking.

I didn't ignore his FA signings as gap fillers. I was the first to mention it.

Belichick was a retread who happened to work out. He's the exception to the rule. In Bob Kraft's shoes, I would not have picked him.

[The Tris]

8 of the past 13 Super Bowls have been won by retread coaches.

[MattFancy]

8 of the past 13 Super Bowls have been won by retread coaches.

Belichick

Coughlin

Dungy

Who else?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If I had said that Red used the same system over his years in basketball, you would have a good counter. But I didn't, so you don't. Basketball changed and Red changed with it.

So you need a system, and you must stick to the system, but if the league changes, you must change the system as the system will no longer work. And you should not hire retread coaches, even though the one coach who follows what you believe to be the correct system is a retread that you would not have hired. Moreover, you must only use the draft except when you need stopgap FAs because that can also work within the system, which can be changed if the system no longer works.

Got it.

Wouldn't "Get really good players at below market values" be a better plan?

The Redskins under Snyder get average players at above market salaries. The Patriots are currently getting average players at below market salaries. Neither is a good system (which should be flexible).

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Belichick

Coughlin

Dungy

Who else?

Off the top of my head, Gruden and Shanahan.

Maybe you should not hire retreads aside from Al Davis retreads.

This means that Lane Kiffin will win the 2016 Super Bowl.

[TheLongshot]

Belichick

Coughlin

Dungy

Who else?

Gruden (Basically rode Dungy's team to the SB)

Shanahan (not sure I'd count him, since his previous stint with the Raiders lasted just a little over a season.)

Vermiel

But, not exactly a long list of guys who actually built SB teams. Belichick and Vermiel fit into that, but Dungy inherited Manning, which was the missing element in Tampa. Coughlin benefitted from his team getting hot at the right time, which put off his firing for a few years. As I said above, Gruden was able to give Tampa the nudge to put them over the top, but wasn't able to build anything himself at Tampa.

[Oldfan]

So you need a system' date=' and you must stick to the system, but if the league changes, you must change the system as the system will no longer work. And you should not hire retread coaches, even though the one coach who follows what you believe to be the correct system is a retread that you would not have hired. Moreover, you must only use the draft except when you need stopgap FAs because that can also work within the system, which can be changed if the system no longer works.[/quote'] You're adept at ridicule but a tad slow at finding contradictions.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You're adept at ridicule but a tad slow at finding contradictions.

And you are adept at vagaries but suck at specifics.

Define the Patriots/Belichik system. (And do not use the name Coryell when doing so).

[The Tris]

Gruden (Basically rode Dungy's team to the SB)

Shanahan (not sure I'd count him, since his previous stint with the Raiders lasted just a little over a season.)

Vermiel

But, not exactly a long list of guys who actually built SB teams. Belichick and Vermiel fit into that, but Dungy inherited Manning, which was the missing element in Tampa. Coughlin benefitted from his team getting hot at the right time, which put off his firing for a few years. As I said above, Gruden was able to give Tampa the nudge to put them over the top, but wasn't able to build anything himself at Tampa.

I actually didn't include Gruden for just that reason. My counts were Belichick(3), Shanahan (2), Coughlin, Dungy, Vermiel.

[Oldfan]

And you are adept at vagaries but suck at specifics.

This line makes no sense. What do vagaries have to do with specifics? I suspect you misused the word "vagaries" but I'm not sure what you meant.

Define the Patriots/Belichik system.

Why? Would it serve a purpose in this discussion?

[Frostx08]

Some more key points I'll add. Moss will always be a factor in games. Even if he doesn't get any catches, he opens up other receivers.

Another thing to remember is that the Patriots actually trade picks in the draft, with that many draft picks they'll trade what they have for a higher pick

However I find some of you over rate youth. I'm not saying young great talent doesn't matter....but I for one believe that a nice mix of veterans, free agents, and youth makes a great team. Again it depends on the team's philosophy and culture but different strokes for different folks

If it was up to me I'd focus draft picks on defense and other less bust risky positions like RB, Center, and O-linemen, and then sign or trade for reliable solid receivers. I personally think we're in the perfect position with a leader like McNabb. From there, you can sign or trade for some Wide Receivers and build in key positions

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Another thing to remember is that the Patriots actually trade picks in the draft, with that many draft picks they'll trade what they have for a higher pick

No, they won't. Belichik will trade down or trade 2011 picks for 2012 picks. He rarely trades up.

[Frostx08]

I looked at a Pats message board this morning. Some of their fans are excited that getting rid of Moss will make them a more ball-controlled team - which is kind of like ripping out the engine of your car to save gas money' date=' but whatever.

When the Patriots were winning titles, everything was built around their defense. The 16-0 team was a once in a lifetime combination of offensive talent that ultimately didn't win anything.[/quote']

People don't realize just how dominant that defense was...not just in yards allowed, but the turnovers they created constantly was astounding. Played a huge part in their success and once that left they kind of fell off

Offensively they've always been solid...solid underrated receivers and running backs that got the job done. Right in line with the Belicheck mindset...they were damn good but the only name that mattered was the name of the team

[Kindred]

i think having lots of draft picks is a great way to allow for the trading for quality veterans

[The Tris]

This line makes no sense. What do vagaries have to do with specifics? I suspect you misused the word "vagaries" but I'm not sure what you meant.

Why? Would it serve a purpose in this discussion?

I believe it would, as you have made numerous references to some vague, overarching Pats system that overrides talent. I'd be curious if you could define it in some way other that abstract terms.

[Frostx08]

No' date=' they won't. Belichik will trade down or trade 2011 picks for 2012 picks. He rarely trades up.[/quote']

If they saw strong talent I'm sure they would, however you have a point as in the last draft they acquired more picks in trades by going down. Actually, I was impressed at how they moved up and down, then up again in the draft

[[[ghost]]]

The Pata might not have a team full of young starters, but having that many early picks increases the likelihood of hitting on a star player.

Most of the Pats best players are homegrown.

[Farbod21]

Seriously people need to stop looking at the Pats. When you have a franchise QB you can afford to pretty much do anything. They have the luxury of trading away players like candy. So do the Colts. Most of the league has to do it a different way...

[TheLongshot]

I actually didn't include Gruden for just that reason. My counts were Belichick(3), Shanahan (2), Coughlin, Dungy, Vermiel.

I was wondering who you weren't counting. I was thinking that you had overlooked Vermiel.

I wouldn't dismiss Gruden like that because he did help build that Raiders team (well, as much as you can help with the cryptkeeper being the owner of the team) which he defeated in that SB. Course, the argument of whether that 2001 Raiders team should have been in that SB rather than the Patriots will go on.

However I find some of you over rate youth. I'm not saying young great talent doesn't matter....but I for one believe that a nice mix of veterans, free agents, and youth makes a great team. Again it depends on the team's philosophy and culture but different strokes for different folks

That being said, we have one of the oldest teams in the league and a lot of holes. While I value veterans, this team is in need of a serious injection of youth at many positions.