Having slept on it, the most amazing aspect of that game was that the Pats drag ass defense managed to play as well as it did for as long as it did.
Shame on Belichick for cutting Sanders and Bodden with such stiffs in their wake. I'm not elevating either one to star status but damn, you've got to have a better Plan B when you get rid of competent players. This reminds me of letting Givens go and trading Branch when Plan B was the heaping pile of shit known as Reche Caldwell and the other useless guys (except Troy) they had at receiver in 2006.
How Chung did not light Ballard's head on fire on that play confounds me. And Chung is our first or second best guy in the damn secondary. Pathetic.
Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?
Big Blue Balls: Giants at Patriots
Started by
RedOctober3829
, Nov 02 2011 01:41 PM
-
This topic is locked
2008 replies to this topic
#2002
-
-
- 3,082 posts
Posted 07 November 2011 - 10:19 PM
Having slept on it, the most amazing aspect of that game was that the Pats drag ass defense managed to play as well as it did for as long as it did.
Shame on Belichick for cutting Sanders and Bodden with such stiffs in their wake. I'm not elevating either one to star status but damn, you've got to have a better Plan B when you get rid of competent players. This reminds me of letting Givens go and trading Branch when Plan B was the heaping pile of shit known as Reche Caldwell and the other useless guys (except Troy) they had at receiver in 2006.
How Chung did not light Ballard's head on fire on that play confounds me. And Chung is our first or second best guy in the damn secondary. Pathetic.
That middle paragraph is spot on. I love Belichick, but there's some hubris there, seemingly. He makes some bold moves without a backup plan. Similarly, all the value picks have me wondering what this team would look like if the Pats, God forbid, drafted based on need here or there...perhaps even trading up to do so.
#2003
-
-
- 3,961 posts
Posted 08 November 2011 - 12:21 AM
Why is there this pseudo-religious belief that trading up is the cure to all ills? Lots of high draft picks are busts, too.
#2004
-
-
- 8,395 posts
@jsinger121
Posted 08 November 2011 - 06:57 AM
Why is there this pseudo-religious belief that trading up is the cure to all ills? Lots of high draft picks are busts, too.
Yes but if you identify the guy you want who is a stud then trade up to get him instead of trading down and trying to draft 3-4 ford fusions instead of that porsche. The Jets identified Revis and David Harris and moved in the draft to get them. You need to be aggressive in drafting good players. They are not always going to fall to you to draft.
Edited by jsinger121, 08 November 2011 - 06:58 AM.
#2005
-
-
- 7,720 posts
SoSH Member
Posted 08 November 2011 - 07:22 AM
Why is there this pseudo-religious belief that trading up is the cure to all ills? Lots of high draft picks are busts, too.
Because the Brace, Chad Jackson and Daniel Graham picks were so terrific.
Anyone who actually looks at this stuff carefully realizes that the Pats really don't trade down all that far--they trade into the future more than anything.
#2006
-
-
- 7,032 posts
made johnny damon think long and hard
Posted 08 November 2011 - 07:33 AM
Side point but Daniel Graham was no super star, but he was a contributor and a champion. Just saying that he looks a lot different to me than the other two.Because the Brace, Chad Jackson and Daniel Graham picks were so terrific.
Anyone who actually looks at this stuff carefully realizes that the Pats really don't trade down all that far--they trade into the future more than anything.
As to trading into the future, it's hard to be too upset about that...except when the present really needs help. True, the 2010 Pats went 14-2, but that defense last year needed all the upgrade it could get at really all three levels. This was one year when I would have preferred that he looked only to the present.
#2007
-
-
- 9,391 posts
SoSH Member
Posted 08 November 2011 - 08:38 AM
Side point but Daniel Graham was no super star, but he was a contributor and a champion. Just saying that he looks a lot different to me than the other two.
As to trading into the future, it's hard to be too upset about that...except when the present really needs help. True, the 2010 Pats went 14-2, but that defense last year needed all the upgrade it could get at really all three levels. This was one year when I would have preferred that he looked only to the present.
In other words, Solder may be a terrific player in this League for a dozen years -- 9 of which are spent protecting a League average QB. That's plenty to get upset about in my book.
#2008
-
-
- 8,395 posts
@jsinger121
Posted 08 November 2011 - 08:57 AM
Side point but Daniel Graham was no super star, but he was a contributor and a champion. Just saying that he looks a lot different to me than the other two.
As to trading into the future, it's hard to be too upset about that...except when the present really needs help. True, the 2010 Pats went 14-2, but that defense last year needed all the upgrade it could get at really all three levels. This was one year when I would have preferred that he looked only to the present.
They traded up to get him but they traded up for the wrong guy. They went from 32 to 21 to take Graham when they should have selected Ed Reed instead who was taken at 24 that same year.
#2009
-
-
- 7,720 posts
SoSH Member
Posted 08 November 2011 - 09:38 AM
They traded up to get him but they traded up for the wrong guy. They went from 32 to 21 to take Graham when they should have selected Ed Reed instead who was taken at 24 that same year.
And they used the 21st pick on a blocking TE who can't really catch. When you draft a TE in the first you're counting on a pro bowler and they didn't get one.
Anyhow I started a new thread on this draft related stuff.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
