This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
When critics want to point out how teams aren't great, they point to the Patriots. When critics want to point out how the Patriots aren't great, they point to some imaginary Patriots franchise that is even better than the real Patriots.
Cue Yudkin in 3.... 2.... 1.....
Not exactly accurate, but I like the way you worded that.
While I think it certainly hurt the last couple years, particularly in the playoffs, there can be little doubt they got more then fair value and Seymour was becoming a negative on the team.He may have become an even worse problem for them from a "team" standpoint then not having him. Tough decisions are tough.
They set themselves up perfectly to capitalize on the new players deal.
I don't think that's what I was doing at all. I didn't go in search of the Patriots to criticize them, my touchy friend. I responded to a post putting them on a high pedestal for their amazing ability to obtain draft picks. "I don't know how they do it every year, but these guys are the masters of manipulating the draft," the OP said.It was a reminder that the cost should be taken into account including possible extended ramifications -- in this case the very real possibility that the player given up could have been the difference in a playoff game -- instead of simply being an awestruck fan seemingly mesmerized by some magical ability to conjure up picks out of thin air.
Nice.
I may be wrong but since the draft is after the new CBA i dont think picks can be traded for players this year (until after the new CBA is complete).Either way, yes you are correct.
My guess is they would not have used the franchise tag on Seymour this past season, as the Raiders did, thus he would not have been on the team this past season any way. Belichick and Seymour's relationship had run its course.
They would need to use both their firsts to move up in to the top ten. Perhaps BB will change his criteria in drafting LB's and seriously consider Miller but from what I have read he is not especially stout against the run and wouldn't fit that well int BB's current system. He certainly appears to be a dynamic outside presence who would be great at getting to the QB; time will tell.My GUESS is that he will look at one of the 5-technique type players. It was nice to have the option of moving Wilfork around the line lasst season but they gave up too much in the middle when he was out. With Ty Warren coming back, Wilfork in the middle and a RDE who can hold up against the run and pressure the pocket the outside players will be more effective.As for Green, their Offense isn't the problem; at least not the passing game. The defense is a work in progress and they could use a more impactful RB.
This really isn't correct...Seymour had one year left on his deal when the Pats traded him two years ago...at the time he had a somewhat contentious relationship with the team and no one really thought he was going to re-sign with them so the chances he would be on the 2010 team was minimal...now if you want to say they have not done a good job replacing him I fully agree with that...
I really don't hope they don't that...this strategy has worked well in the past but I really believe they need to address as many needs as possible...Brady's not going to be around forever and the time to win more rings is right now...turning these picks into a couple of impact players whether they are rookies or veterans gets them closer to that goal...it will be interesting to see if a rookie salary-cap is implemented if they actually trade-up this year...no doubt they have the ammo to do so if they wish...
Part of the problem is going to be the labor issue. At the moment, teams can't trade players or sign free agents, and by then I believe they will not even be able to sign their own players. All they will be allowed to do is trade picks and only picks. I don't think anyone really knows what the landscape will be by then . . .I really don't see the Pats being able to come up with a package to move far enough up the draft board (or a clear cut, can't miss player for that matter) without paying a king's ransom. It would probably take both their first round picks to get into the Top 5 or Top 10, and I'm not sure the player they would get there would be more valuable than the two other guys they could get in the first round.IMO, I don't really fault the trading down for extra picks strategy over the years. If they get the guy they wanted anyway, why not add some picks along the way. A completely different argument is why they haven't tried to move up more. They actually have made a few moves in the last few years to move up and snag someone. The problem has been the players they traded up for bombed (and were mostly second round picks not top 5 picks).
We're basically on the same page...I have liked that strategy in the past I just feel the combo of this team being close and Brady's age means they should really concentrate on this year...as for trading-up I'm thinking more along the lines of turning that second rounder from Carolina into another first-rounder...I'd love to see them come out of the first with a DE, a OLB and an O-lineman...
I don't think anyone is saying mortgage the future by making foolish deals...the issue is in the past the Pats have had drafts where they have rolled assets into the future...with Brady being 33 and this team having a very solid (and young) foundation I would like to see them concentrate all their draft assets into making this team a champion in 2011...it's been seven years since the last title and while BB maybe here after Brady they are very close and quite honestly just making the playoffs isn't good enough...
Belichick strikes me as a lifer. Football is all he does. He will coach until he's dead.
Its already been pointed out that Seymour only had 1 year left on his deal when he was traded. He would not have been on this year's 14-2 team anyway.
Had u made this post after LAST years playoff loss it would have made more sense.Seymour left TWO YEARS ago, they traded away his services for 2009; he wasn't under contract for 2010 and there was little chance they would have been able to re-sign him. If you want to criticize them for sacrificing 2009 that is fair, however, if you want to extend that criticism beyond 2009 you are reaching.Right or wrong they sacrificed in 2009 for the potential to improve in 2011; the 2010 season is moot, they would have lost him anyway and got nothing. Yes, you can argue that they could have given seymour the gazillion dollars he wanted in 2011 (and beyond), but you can't pay every1 a gazillion. Most that are familiar with the situation understand that signing Brady, Wilfork and Seymour to huge contracts all at the same time was not really feasible and imho, the continued seymour criticism into 2011 and beyond isn't warranted or justified.
And Ted Thompson trades back for every pick in the 6th round. Fortunately he did trade up for Clay Matthews.No doubt they will draft impact players that are able to contribute on-field as rookies towards another regular-season championship for the Patriots.But in all seriousness, yeah, they are doing very well for themselves. I thought I saw a thread or comment somewhere asking folks to guess the over/under on how many of the picks they actually use, and how many they trade away for more picks."And with that final move, the Patriots have successfully traded for every pick in the second round of the 2015 draft!"
IMHO,I obviously don't have anything concrete to base it on, but my gut tells me BB will not be staying around all that long after Brady is gone. He will be close to 65 by then (and have won a couple more SBs
); imho, it will probably be as good a time as any to retire/transition to GM and or move on to another org.Put me down firmly in the "5 year window is now" category and that window will indeed have a large affect on their drafting and FA signing.
So, in other words, Patriots fans remain in denial that the tactic of getting rid of quality players for draft picks likely cost them a couple trips to the SB. Got it.
I have people tell me this all the time (and I mean the past ten of years). But prior to this year, in the salary cap era, they want to combine the best of all worlds and keep everyone the Pats ever had.They want the Pats to have kept Branch, Seymour, Samuel, Law, etc. but have them still pick up guys like Welker, Moss, etc. The fact of the matter was that they would have never been able to field a team with all the guys they let go AND all the guys they picked up.Someone I know went year by year with me and slotted in guys that "could" have been with the team that were there and left. His argument was that if the Pats kept Branch they would have won in 2006. If the Pats kept Woody and other linemen they would have won in 2007. If the Pats had Seymour and Vrabel they would have won in 2009 and 2010. Basically, the Pats "blew it" and should have won at least 7 titles by now.It's very easy to say that with PLAYER X in the mix they would have won, but the likelihood of any team winning a title in any year is pretty small. I believe the favorite at the beginning of the year and again at the start of the playoffs has 20% or 25% chance of winning. So in reality, having one extra guy would not tilt the balance of power as much as many would like it to.
So, based on those percentages we can discount them having a chance, so get rid of the players for picks....got it. It's amazing how we justify things in our own mind.
Seriously. Where do you guys come up with these things? They got rid of these thes guys for picks: Cassel and Vrabel (together), Seymour, Moss, and Maroney. Where's the outrage in trading Cassell? Moss? Maroney?It's been made pretty clear that Seymour was the unhappy camper Moss was and was becoming both less productive on the field and a distraction of the field. He was going to complain about not getting a new deal at the pay he wanted (he had done that before and threatened to hold hold previously). He would have only been a Patriot in 2009 and would not have been at the top of his game, no way, no how. The Pats took that opportunity to trade a one year rental and flipped him for a first round pick.I don't think any sane person looked at the 2009 Patriots and saw a SB winning team. They were not going to win with or without Seymour. Now they get to reap the benfeit of trading him when with a huge amount of certainty they would not have won the SB and would not have had him on their roster.So at this point, which is better, getting a third for Moss, a fourth for Maroney (which turned into Branch the sequel), a first rounder for Seymour, and Patrick Chung (the player taken with the draft pick from the Cassell/Vrabel deal).OPTION A: Moss, Maroney, a compensatory pick for Seymour, Cassell, and VrabelOPTION B: Chung, Branch, a 1st, and a 3rd in the upcoming draft
I'm sure we'll never hear them say but you gotta believe they thought they were going to get a top 10 pick with the Seymour deal in the year where a rookie salary cap was being implemented...
Couldn't agree more, TBC is not a starting olb and neither is Ninkovich (imo). They need an impact player in that postition and this is the year to make it happen. Of course they could also stand pat and take BPA among OL, DL, LB ,RB (and maybe a special WR, not likely imo) and I wouldn't be terribly upset if they did. 9 picks aren't going to make this team so they can move up or down; I feel (hope) this year, more than any other it will be the former rather than the latter.
Sig, if we are to believe Jaws he stated on WEEI that i his review of the game tape Brady had open receivers but didn't see them. He mention check downs to Woodhead being available but was rather open ended in his comments. I think that after the interception he threw to Harris on the first drive and getting wacked around a bit he was very hesitant to throw to spots and was looking for the perfect play. Jaws stated he was seeing ghosts and Troy Brown concured that it was natural for a QB to get antsy after getting beat up a bit. The Pats certainly need an impact player; I just hope it is an impact defensive player. They are a pretty balanced offensive team. With the D-line depth in this draft and with a couple of second day O-line prospects stepping into the forefront in Moble this week it would be nice to see them come away with a G/C and an RB in the first three rounds as well.
Just normally intelligent people who become irrational haters when conversations about a rival team arise. There is a post above from a Packers fan whose handle is "onlyseventeenpoints". Go figure! Why isn't this guy asking how many SBs the Packers "gave away" in some parallel universe because Favre left?In general, I like the draft moves BB makes. I'm a big fan of trading a current pick for a higher future pick. However, I have been disappointed that he hasn't packaged some of those picks to move up aggressively. At some point, you need to hit on those picks to justify trading players. It will be interesting to see what NE does with the Raider's first this year.David Yudkin said:
