I haven't peed my pants for three days, so I'm proud.soxfan121 said:
You're the kid who peed his pants waiting for permission to go to the potty, aren't you?
Dopes and Geeks aren't the only people who can take responsibility for starting a new thread. In fact, if you build it (i.e. start the thread) and then PM a Dope or Geek with a request to fold in related posts, they usually get it done really quickly.
Come on Elway has been at it for what, 4 years at most?rodderick said:
I agree that it's way too soon to evaluate Elway, but signing Manning at the very least took skills as a negotiator. And you could also reduce Belichick as a GM to "Step 1: draft top 5 GOAT QB in the 6th round. All skill. Step 2: profit". That's not entirely fair.
lol I am actually at the vet and would rather not try to split out a dozen posts on my smartphone. My hands are toasty from waiting for the doc though. On the other hand, Skrub is a great mod and I'm sure he will chime in whenever he feels appropriate.Darnell's Son said:Maybe if the guy running this corner of SoSH could split it out we would all win. Whoever that guy is, he's probably just sitting on his hands waiting for Skrub to fix it.
Appreciate the reminder SF121.soxfan121 said:
You're the kid who peed his pants waiting for permission to go to the potty, aren't you?
Dopes and Geeks aren't the only people who can take responsibility for starting a new thread. In fact, if you build it (i.e. start the thread) and then PM a Dope or Geek with a request to fold in related posts, they usually get it done really quickly.
The only GM that has been "reduced" is Elway and I said Ozzie is great but overrated in my eyes since his teams don't preform(10+ wins) consistently.rodderick said:People, I'm not saying Belichick is a bad GM, all I'm saying is that when you extol his virtues and reduce other GMs' careers to luck or pulling off no brainer moves, it's pretty unfair. Yeah, no shit, Belichick did a lot more as a GM to bring the Pats to 3 titles and a decade+ of contention than merely drafting Brady.
soxfan121 said:
Anthony Pleasant, Bobby Hamilton, Richard Seymour, Mike Vrabel, Otis Smith and Ty Poole beg to differ.
Super Nomario said:I think to seriously study this question you need to develop a framework for evaluating GMs. At a high level, what are the responsibilities of the job? What are characteristics of an effective GM? What are characteristics of an ineffective GM?
I think all signings, resignings, trades, and drafts count. Cutting fringe guys is more a responsibility of the coach. So when Vrabel got cut by the Steelers, that would go against Cowher, not the Pittsburgh GM. However, the signing of Vrabel does go to BB the GM. An effective GM allocates the cap space and draft resources effectively to give his coaching staff a leg up on his competitors.Super Nomario said:I think to seriously study this question you need to develop a framework for evaluating GMs. At a high level, what are the responsibilities of the job? What are characteristics of an effective GM? What are characteristics of an ineffective GM?
The GM has the final call in all personnel decisions......why would Cowher be responsible for cutting Vrabel? It's crucial for HC and GM to be on seams page and a HC opinion certainly weighs heavily on the decision but that is 100% the GM's final decision.Darnell said:I think all signings, resignings, trades, and drafts count. Cutting fringe guys is more a responsibility of the coach. So when Vrabel got cut by the Steelers, that would go against Cowher, not the Pittsburgh GM. However, the signing of Vrabel does go to BB the GM. An effective GM allocates the cap space and draft resources effectively to give his coaching staff a leg up on his competitors.
This.ivanvamp said:The Patriots have produced more winning seasons, more Super Bowl titles, more Conference Championships, and have a higher winning percentage than anyone during the BB era.
Toe Nash said:This.
I'll add that the perhaps most impressive bit is that they have never had a "re-set" year. Every other team has had at least one year where they were poor for whatever reason. Sometimes bad luck, sometimes bad drafting, sometimes injuries, usually a combination. This kind of year not only allows you to get higher draft picks the following year, but also allows you to re-evaluate and re-work your roster without the pressure of trying to make the playoffs. You can give players who maybe aren't ready more reps to help their development. You can cut an older player who may only have a year left because you don't need his contributions so much. You can sign more castoffs from other teams who may be able to contribute because your roster isn't so deep. And so on. As we know, 2008 would have been a perfect year for this as no one expected them to do much without Brady, but they still won 11 games and I don't think they made many moves to sacrifice the present for the following year (at least no more than usual).
Obviously we know the Colts' story. Most of the teams (maybe all?) that are good now have had multiple years in which to rebuild and are now built with those players who they not only drafted during the lean years but also discovered during that time with less pressure. I mean, Newsome had a nice run, but he had a core of two HoFers and the team looks mediocre now. Maybe he will be able to rebuild it and I wouldn't be surprised if he did. But it's a lot easier to do so when you have a year or two "off."
Deathofthebambino said:If we're talking about BB's as GM, I'm not sure how you can really discuss it thoroughly without at least mentioning Scott Pioli.
Deathofthebambino said:If we're talking about BB's as GM, I'm not sure how you can really discuss it thoroughly without at least mentioning Scott Pioli. I mean, it's clear BB held the final word on player personnel decisions, but Pioli did basically hold the title as GM for all of the Pats Super Bowl victories and by every account, was a huge contributor in bringing the players to New England during that time, including identification of talent. I'd also argue that Jonathan Kraft deserves a ton of credit on the same front, because from what I know, he's actually the guy that places a dollar value on the guys they sign. He's much, much more involved with the player/personnel decisions than anyone gives him credit for.
None of this should be viewed as a slight on BB as the GM. IMO, it's a silly argument to even have because the record speaks for itself, and every GM in the league has guys that contribute and give opinions, insight and research that helps the GM make the final decision, but I just thought those two guys at least bear mentioning at this point in a thread that's almost 70 posts deep.
I think this lack of the need for a re-set year speaks to two things:Toe Nash said:This.
I'll add that the perhaps most impressive bit is that they have never had a "re-set" year. Every other team has had at least one year where they were poor for whatever reason. Sometimes bad luck, sometimes bad drafting, sometimes injuries, usually a combination. This kind of year not only allows you to get higher draft picks the following year, but also allows you to re-evaluate and re-work your roster without the pressure of trying to make the playoffs. You can give players who maybe aren't ready more reps to help their development. You can cut an older player who may only have a year left because you don't need his contributions so much. You can sign more castoffs from other teams who may be able to contribute because your roster isn't so deep. And so on. As we know, 2008 would have been a perfect year for this as no one expected them to do much without Brady, but they still won 11 games and I don't think they made many moves to sacrifice the present for the following year (at least no more than usual).
Obviously we know the Colts' story. Most of the teams (maybe all?) that are good now have had multiple years in which to rebuild and are now built with those players who they not only drafted during the lean years but also discovered during that time with less pressure. I mean, Newsome had a nice run, but he had a core of two HoFers and the team looks mediocre now. Maybe he will be able to rebuild it and I wouldn't be surprised if he did. But it's a lot easier to do so when you have a year or two "off."
Saints Rest said:BB had to make it work for one year with Cassel, but let's see what we think of both BB the coach, and more saliently to this discussion, BB the GM, when he is having to make the decisions as to how to make do with finding a QB.
Saints Rest said:
The simple fact of #12. No other GM in this conversation has been blessed with a 15 year run of a Top-10 of all time QB. It's the single most important position in football, and arguably the single most important position in all of team sports (hockey goalie being the only other one in the discussion, IMO). BB had to make it work for one year with Cassel, but let's see what we think of both BB the coach, and more saliently to this discussion, BB the GM, when he is having to make the decisions as to how to make do with finding a QB. I'm not saying he can't do it, but until he does, it will be hard to parse out the primacy of Brady's role in this organization's 15-year run of consistent success.
Wow, that's an amazing stat. But I bet there's also a non-qualitative fact of the fact that many FA's are likely more interested in signing with a team that has not only quality but continuity at QB, whether that means Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers, etc. Does Randy Moss agree to the trade and pay cut in 2007 if Matt Cassel was the QB? I'm not saying that TB denigrates everything that BB has done as GM (just as it shouldn't zero out his work as a coach) but TB has to be a factor in both discussions, and one that we won't be able to tease out until after he retires (assuming BB continues on post-Brady -- as many have opined on this board elsewhere about BB wanting to prove his abilities sans Brady).Super Nomario said:
I think this is totally fair. Having to draft a QB sucks. From 2000-2013 only the Saints and Patriots didn't drafted a QB in the first two rounds. That's a significant advantage in the draft and in the offseason, to have the most important position on the team basically nailed down. That let the Pats use resources on higher percentage positions.
BB the coach carries BB the Gm!!!SeoulSoxFan said:BB is the only 6th head coach in the history of NFL to reach 200 wins. Just sayin'.
theapportioner said:I think an interesting thought experiment would be as follows: instead of Brady,
One way of assessing Belichick the GM is by looking at his overall career, the success of which is undisputed. Another is by looking at how he handles things at the margins -- how good has he been with making each individual choice, knowing that alternative players are available on the draft and in free agency, and needing to balance it all in the setting of a salary cap. I don't know if this metric exists, but an interesting one would be, what is a GM's "draft deficit" for every given draft.
It would work something like this: Best player available - actual player picked = player deficit (the unit would be something akin to WAR, maybe).
Draft deficit = summation of player deficits per draft, normalized by number of picks and pick position.
Deficit could increase as players have longer careers. e.g. the deficit could be better, or worse, from 2010 to 2011 to 2012.
Compare an individual GM's draft deficit to the mean. Above the mean, GM is successful. Below, unsuccessful.
jsinger121 said:See 2008 with Matt Cassel leading the team to an 11-5 record.
jsinger121 said:
See 2008 with Matt Cassel leading the team to an 11-5 record.
Great point. To go a step further he carried 4 qb's in 2000 because he thought Brady could be something special.Ed Hillel said:I say this every time this argument is brought up, but Bill Belichick is probably the only coach in the entire league who would have left Brady in charge of the team in 2001 when Bledsoe, who had just signed the biggest contract in NFL history, returned. He gets points for that.
I think he also has to get a ton of credit for developing Brady and other QBs. Brady improved an incredible amount in his first six or seven years in the league and he's not the only BB QB to wildly outstrip his draft status: There are only 7 starting QBs (6 if you exclude Anderson) not picked in the first third rounds and three are Brady Hoyer and Cassell.Ed Hillel said:I say this every time this argument is brought up, but Bill Belichick is probably the only coach in the entire league who would have left Brady in charge of the team in 2001 when Bledsoe, who had just signed the biggest contract in NFL history, returned. He gets ))for that.
Shelterdog said:I think he also has to get a ton of credit for developing Brady and other QBs. Brady improved an incredible amount in his first six or seven years in the league and he's not the only BB QB to wildly outstrip his draft status: There are only 7 starting QBs (6 if you exclude Anderson) not picked in the first third rounds and three are Brady Hoyer and Cassell.
It did. I don't think people recall how big a deal it was in Cleveland when he unseated Kosar. He was a brand new HC, vilified for it but knew he was right and didn't care.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:Belichick has twice inherited entreched starting QBs who were considered untouchable icons ( Kosar, Bledsoe), has twice controversially replaced them with QBs of his own choosing (Testaverde, Brady), and has both times beenproven right in his choices over the fullness of time. I'm sure the Kosar/Testaverde switch he made allowed him to have the fullness of his convictions when he decided to stay with Brady once Bledsoe was healthy again.
It bears repeating that keeping Brady as the starter in November 2001 caused an absolute sports firestorm in New England, which cumulated in Ron Borges' infamous hit piece he ran on Nov.22, 2001. It's well worth looking up today.
Are we talking just drafting CBs or including CBs he acquired as well?He might not be great at picking CBs but the man clearly knows how to identify talent at the game's most important position.
The real root of the problem is that people radically overestimate his good draft picks should be. Roughly half of second round picks so going 0 for 3 on recent second round corners is bad but not shockingly bad-particularly since it's a cherry picked example of what he's done worst.redsahx said:
Are we talking just drafting CBs or including CBs he acquired as well?
Even here the results are a bit more mixed than many people seem to acknowledge. As far as the busts go, yes Wheatley was absolutely one. The problem with Ras-I Dowling appeared to be more health than ability (though in fairness to the critics that was a pretty obvious concern to begin with). Darius Butler seemed to just have a really short leash with Bill for some reason, and actually has stuck in the league with the Colts.
On the flip side he drafted Samuel. Hobbs was solid. Randall Gay (UDFA) was a good contributor as well. McCourty was great that first year but obviously is better suited to safety, Dennard and Logan Ryan are both solid intriguing young players.
For other acquisitions, there is the question of how much credit to give him for trading a 4th round pick to get Talib. Bodden also turned out to be a pretty good signing his first year here, then injuries derailed him after his extension. I'm not sure how to rate the Revis pickup given how obvious his talent was, but I guess there is something to be said for BB deciding to commit that salary to address the position. We'll see how Browner pans out.
It definitely seems like the Wheatley/Butler/Dowling 2nd round picks drive the narrative, but his overall record at the position isn't that bad considering those marks against him.