There is? Really? Off to the intertubes....There is video footage of Belichick’s expressions and comments on draft day when he sees that Brady is falling.
Go find it and watch it.
There is? Really? Off to the intertubes....There is video footage of Belichick’s expressions and comments on draft day when he sees that Brady is falling.
Go find it and watch it.
I'm not aware of any video of this, but if you have a link that would be dope.There is video footage of Belichick’s expressions and comments on draft day when he sees that Brady is falling.
Go find it and watch it.
Oh, I agree—I don’t mean to overstate the case at all.We can disagree Rev. But there is no Way I can buy that BB was that good of poker player to let a guy who he thought could be an NFL Starter Fall and Fall and Fall. He knows how valuable that is and He has NEVER done that again and driven many of us insane because of it.
Basically he picks you where he believes you should go. After these qoutes and expressions did he trade up to snag this falling gem?
This is the same guy who year in year out takes guys way "out of slot" because he like them and sees things others dont.
It simply doesnt make sense that he gambled that Martin (Pit 163), Bulger (NO 168) and Wynn (Cle 183) gets picked before a guy he REALLY likes.
(Ok betting against Cleveland usually does make sense )
Smart that he DID take him around that 200 mark as 4 of the next 14 picks were QBs. (202,205,212, 214).
I will try to find the video when i get home to see if that changes my mind (work firewalls). But I suspect that the quote in question is from like pick 180+ (or 160 ) which kinda supports my point that we were lucky that other QB desperate teams didnt reach for him sooner or didnt take him between 180-199.
Basically at 199 BB felt the gamble was worth it, and not sooner.
I will go to my grave believing we were Very Lucky with a bit of great talent assessment.
Do you have a source for this? The statistical record seems to bear out the opposite. Of the top 10 teams by W/L since 2001, only Atlanta (which is 10th) has a worse record in division than outside. The Colts, Packers, and Seahawks all have far better records in divisional games than outside, and the Steelers have a significantly better record in divisional games. The Patriots, Eagles, Broncos, Ravens, and Saints are all very close inside and out.Someone did this but every winning record team intra-division record over time is generally materially worse than out of division. Except NE. Rivalries and playing teams twice tend to bring teams closer to norm.
There is? Really? Off to the intertubes....
Ugh, I thought you guys would have seen it.Please post if/when you find it
Good lord this an atrocious post.Which may have said more about Micheal Bishop then Tom Brady.
Plus Bledsoe had played 122 of the previous 128 regular season games. (missed 2 in 98, 1 in 95 and 3 his rookie year).
I am not saying they didnt see promise in Brady. Its the level of that promise that I question. I have to assume that at 199, with Bishop and Bledsoe (and a tail end of his career Friesz) that they had to be thinking "He could become an adequate backup to Drew, And we need a Backup".
I think timing is also important. Drafting him 199 was very lucky. After having him in house for a few months they may have realized what a real steal they had. But no way they knew he was starter material and a possible usurper to (at the time "Future HOFer") Bledsoe on Draft night and yet wait till 199 to secure him.
Even if you buy the idea that Belicheck was unhappy with Bledsoe and looking to move on, if he felt Brady was that guy he drafts him earlier then 199. Remember 199 wasn't their only Pick around there. They had 127,141,161 and 187 as well.
If your BB and you think "This guy could replace Bledsoe" he has proven time and time again that he takes him at 127 (or whatever) and lets all the pundits sit there mouth open and aghast.
They also had 201 which they used on David Nugent (DE). In Between were the Saints who picked Sherrod Gideon (wr, Never played). The Saints had also picked a QB (Bulger) at 168 so the odds of doubling up for Brady at 200 Was very low especially when they also had the 195 pick bypassed him again and took a DB (Mike Hawthorn).
So actually it was terrible use of resources by Belicheck. He should have waited and taken him 201. Imagine how pissed off and "out to prove everyone wrong" he would have been then.
Kind of hard when you are always drafting at the end of the first round.There's one place they're succeeded where they haven't had great luck and that's in acquiring hall of fame/first team pro bowl level players. Brady and Gronk obviously, Vinatieri maybe although I'm not sure a kicker is as important, and some short terms who were here for a spell late in their careers (like Moss and Seau) but who else makes the hall from what is now a 17 year run? There are a few terrific players who are notch below in talent (Mankins, Wilfork, DMC, Seymour, Light) but for a team that was great for a long period of time there weren't a lot of superlative individual talents.
Drafting is part luck and part skill obviously but usually when you see teams that have long periods of success you see that they've built around three or four or even more hall of famers who were on the teams for long periods of times (I'm thinking of Lott/Rice/Montana/Haley, Kelly/Reed/Thomas/B.Smith, Aikman/Irvin/Smith/Larry Allen, the entire 1970s Steelers, and maybe even the Ravens with Ogden/Lewis/Reed/maybe Suggs).
Drafting two hall of famers in 17 years is nothing to sneeze at but winning like the Pats have won without having better luck with top end talent in the draft is rare.
Not at all.Good lord this an atrocious post.
So your point is they didn’t know Brady would be a HOFer and that taking him at 199 was terrible because it could have been 201?
Yikes.
So you admit to not knowing if B.B. secretly knew someone was going to draft Brady at 200, eh?The 199/201 thing was a humorous throwaway line that i noticed while researching the post.
This could only ever occur in a Moriarty-master criminal style video released after his death.Until I see the Video of BB laughing maniacally and saying " All part of my Plan to Draft the GOAT" then I admit nothing!
Most of those teams were pre-cap, and I think you can argue the exceptions prove the rule - the Cowboys petered out post-cap, and the Ravens have struggled to put together offenses to match their Ds, in part because of cap issues. Could you keep Rice / Lott / Montana / Haley all under the cap nowadays? Probably not without seriously compromising the rest of the roster.There's one place they're succeeded where they haven't had great luck and that's in acquiring hall of fame/first team pro bowl level players. Brady and Gronk obviously, Vinatieri maybe although I'm not sure a kicker is as important, and some short terms who were here for a spell late in their careers (like Moss and Seau) but who else makes the hall from what is now a 17 year run? There are a few terrific players who are notch below in talent (Mankins, Wilfork, DMC, Seymour, Light) but for a team that was great for a long period of time there weren't a lot of superlative individual talents.
Drafting is part luck and part skill obviously but usually when you see teams that have long periods of success you see that they've built around three or four or even more hall of famers who were on the teams for long periods of times (I'm thinking of Lott/Rice/Montana/Haley, Kelly/Reed/Thomas/B.Smith, Aikman/Irvin/Smith/Larry Allen, the entire 1970s Steelers, and maybe even the Ravens with Ogden/Lewis/Reed/maybe Suggs).
It is amazing that few Pats from this run outside of Brady get mentioned as viable candidates for the Hall. Moss should get in or they should close the place, but who knows . I'd like to think Vinateri and Law get in, but they are admittedly longer shots. Gronk's got a good case for tight end, but may need to pitch in one more season.There's one place they're succeeded where they haven't had great luck and that's in acquiring hall of fame/first team pro bowl level players. Brady and Gronk obviously, Vinatieri maybe although I'm not sure a kicker is as important, and some short terms who were here for a spell late in their careers (like Moss and Seau) but who else makes the hall from what is now a 17 year run? There are a few terrific players who are notch below in talent (Mankins, Wilfork, DMC, Seymour, Light) but for a team that was great for a long period of time there weren't a lot of superlative individual talents.
Drafting is part luck and part skill obviously but usually when you see teams that have long periods of success you see that they've built around three or four or even more hall of famers who were on the teams for long periods of times (I'm thinking of Lott/Rice/Montana/Haley, Kelly/Reed/Thomas/B.Smith, Aikman/Irvin/Smith/Larry Allen, the entire 1970s Steelers, and maybe even the Ravens with Ogden/Lewis/Reed/maybe Suggs).
Drafting two hall of famers in 17 years is nothing to sneeze at but winning like the Pats have won without having better luck with top end talent in the draft is rare.
Sorry, but it never, ever gets old.On a day when they could have had impact players David Terrell or Koren Robinson or the second-best tackle in the draft in Kenyatta Walker, they took Georgia defensive tackle Richard Seymour, who had 1 sacks last season in the pass-happy SEC and is too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end. This genius move was followed by trading out of a spot where they could have gotten the last decent receiver in Robert Ferguson and settled for tackle Matt Light, who will not help any time soon.
Jesus christ that 1997 pick was the worst play everCouple of other lucky moments from the Steelers AFCG. Oh, sorry, not that one. Oh, yeah right, not that one either. 2001:
The spot (hash mark)on the repunt that led to Brown's return touchdown was screwed up, leading to the Steelers taking wrong lanes and opening up the return.
Bledsoe almost threw a horrific pick to a defensive lineman, similar to the one that cost them in the 97 regular season loss against the Steelers. Mercifully, this one was dropped.
Also, god bless the time keeper who bled the last second off the clock after Adam's fg in XXXVI.
Which is why GFIN and Cap is Crap(TM) are such BSThe fact is, you have to be both good AND lucky to win it all in the NFL.
The Pats have addressed this problem by increasing the sample size.
I kicked in a closet door in my apartment over that. I was an angry young man, in retrospect.Jesus christ that 1997 pick was the worst play ever
I was 16 vividly remember it. Cost the Pats home field in the rematch tooI kicked in a closet door in my apartment over that. I was an anhry young man, in retrospect.
Well, technically, it is always now...Which is why GFIN and Cap is Crap(TM) are such BS
And technically the Pats are going for it every year, or at least end up in the AFCCGWell, technically, it is always now...
Agreed on all of this. If the Pats had been the Colts and spend more resources on top young talent at skill positions you could see them having more pro bowlers or even hall of famers but fewer wins.I think part of the Patriots strategy has been to target and build around these "notch below" guys, in part because they can sign them long-term at lower cost. They've basically always had interior defensive linemen who were first-round picks (Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Brown) but Chandler Jones is the only top-50 pick they've used on a pure edge guy, and they traded him before he got expensive. They've used a lot of draft capital on less glamorous positions like tight end, safety, and off-ball linebacker.
Superbowl victories seem to help players make the hall of fame--and the timing of the Pats SB victories doesn't really track the careers of a lot of the Pats near great players. If the Superbowls wins were closer together- particularly if you had the 19-0 season--there are a bunch of players you could imagine getting a "Stallworth/Swann" special and making the hall for having multiple rings without ever having been a perennial all pro (I'm thinking of players like Mankins (no rings), Welker, (no rings), Wilfork (two but at the beginning and the end of his career when he wasn't as much of a factor) or even Seymour (three rings) and Light (three rings)). Add a 19-0 seasons and a lot of those guys make it.It is amazing that few Pats from this run outside of Brady get mentioned as viable candidates for the Hall. Moss should get in or they should close the place, but who knows . I'd like to think Vinateri and Law get in, but they are admittedly longer shots. Gronk's got a good case for tight end, but may need to pitch in one more season.
As that play is seared into my brain, unfortunately it was a legal lateral. [/annoyed Steelers fan]Brought up in the other thread, but the blocked field goal return by Troy Brown (lateral to Antwan Harris) in the 2001 AFCCG should probably be on the list. Maybe not the FG block, but the ball bouncing right to Troy to allow the clean recovery without him losing stride, and then the lateral was very, very close to being a forward lateral that easily could have been called.
And the guy that authored that quote is the one making the argument for the Pats players in the HOF room.It is amazing that few Pats from this run outside of Brady get mentioned as viable candidates for the Hall. Moss should get in or they should close the place, but who knows . I'd like to think Vinateri and Law get in, but they are admittedly longer shots. Gronk's got a good case for tight end, but may need to pitch in one more season.
Anyway, whenever I see the bolded listed in the same sentence, I realize it's time to revive the most famous draft day prediction quote of all time:
Sorry, but it never, ever gets old.
...and your smug, aloof mockery of the thread rather than participation in it was the third lock of the century.His surprise at it being the first reply was the other lock of the century
Well that's the thing, they didn't just have Bledsoe and Bishop, they also had Friesz. It's absolutely unheard-of for a team to carry 4 QBs on their roster, especially the entire year. They're playing one body down for every other position, it just doesn't make sense. They could have cut him and put him on the practice squad, but Belichick just didn't want even the possibility of losing him. That's not how you think about "maybe could become a backup one day". You don't go that far against the conventional wisdom, and cost yourself not just 1 more but 2 more roster spots than usual, if you haven't developed a strong belief about Brady's potential future as a starter.Which may have said more about Michael Bishop then Tom Brady.
Plus Bledsoe had played 122 of the previous 128 regular season games. (missed 2 in 98, 1 in 95 and 3 his rookie year).
I am not saying they didnt see promise in Brady. Its the level of that promise that I question. I have to assume that at 199, with Bishop and Bledsoe (and a tail end of his career Friesz) that they had to be thinking "He could become an adequate backup to Drew, And we need a Backup".
"Absolutely unheard-of" is definitely too strong - the Jets carried four QBs last year, for instance, and it was probably more common in the old CBA when you had the emergency QB and just about everybody carried three. But the thrust of your point is right - it was an unusual move for the Patriots, who had an established starter in his prime.Well that's the thing, they didn't just have Bledsoe and Bishop, they also had Friesz. It's absolutely unheard-of for a team to carry 4 QBs on their roster, especially the entire year. They're playing one body down for every other position, it just doesn't make sense. They could have cut him and put him on the practice squad, but Belichick just didn't want even the possibility of losing him. That's not how you think about "maybe could become a backup one day". You don't go that far against the conventional wisdom, and cost yourself not just 1 more but 2 more roster spots than usual, if you haven't developed a strong belief about Brady's potential future as a starter.