Pats Learning from Seattle

[Super Nomario]

You've since added Wheatly and Wilhite, but you still haven't included Butler (who was so. damned. fast. [I had high hopes].) and noted that McCourtney ended up at safety.
 
The wash-out rate at CB for the Patriots in the draft has been fairly incredible, even given the notion that every projection is at best probablistic. So part of the problem with how this debate has turned is that the issue isn't whether or not BB thought he needed high end CBs is that it's clear that he did--he was spending 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks on them. The change is that he went out to get some CB outside of the draft.
 
So this whole discussion is sort of a red herring based on Theo asserting that BB "should have known" something that we have fairly good evidence that he did. Again, the issue isn't the position, but the means of acquisition.

I agree with your point that the Pats have invested resources in the secondary, but they've gone outside the org - Bodden was an outside acquisition, as were Deltha O'Neal and Shawn Springs. Obviously, these moves didn't work out any better than the failed draft picks. They weren't as high-profile as Revis / Browner, but they were reasonably big names at the time. Also, I don't think the draft failures at CB were incredible - almost every team has a blind spot / run of bad luck like this over a period of time (look at Ted Thompson's track record with OL, for instance).
 

Also, I think they may have decided they are better at evaluating DL talent in the draft better than DB talent, but we shall see.

What kind of DL talent? Interior track record has been good, but the track record with edge rushers is probably even worse than DBs - it's Chandler Jones, and then Tully Banta-Cain is probably #2, with notable misses Bequette, Cunningham, and Crable.
 
Of course, like any draft analysis, this is splitting hairs, and no more or less valid than looking just at DBs drafted from 2006-2011.
 

Butler...Butler was an interesting case, Rev. He was extremely promising at first, and then hit that dreaded developmental wall that so many young DBs for the Pats have hit over the years. He's since revived his career in Indy, so maybe the talent was there all along and he had a crisis or confidence/coaching before finding himself again.

I think Butler's problem is that he's Kyle Arrington minus the toughness and tackling ability. He's a decent slot corner that's weak outside, but he doesn't bring the ability to the do the LB-type things that Pats demand from their slot corners, and he doesn't provide the ST value that KA does. I think his career revival is overstated. He's found a role as an average-ish third corner on a below-average pass D; it's not like he's an emerging star.
 

Wow. I don't watch college football and don't know Stanford's defensive scheme, but that looks to me like an attempt to evaluate a man-to-man god playing in a zone defense.

Sherman started as a WR at Stanford, only converting to DB his last two years. That scouting report might have been accurate but didn't factor in how raw Sherman was.
 
Carroll was the guy who stumped for Tebucky Jones (6'2" 220) as a "press corner." Jones had started at Syracuse as a RB before transitioning to safety (coincidentally, drafted the same year as Robert Edwards, who started as a S and converted to RB. I can't explain why I remember this stuff). Carroll still apparently thinks Jones might have worked out, but there's no doubt a fifth on Sherman was better value. 
 

Maybe by just giving him a side of the field and saying "that's your man" Carroll is just putting him into a position to succeed. That's interesting, and likely a good talking point as the Pats play a ton of zone. Will BB do what the Jets did and have Revis play man? Or will he actually pull a Schiano (a guy he likes) and put Revis in zone at times as well? So many factors.

The Pats haven't played as much zone since acquiring Talib and moving McCourty to FS. Even when they play zone, it's often a pattern-matching principle where they don't just drop into an area but rather "look for work," where they pass off players according to zone rules but cover them tight like in man coverage.

 

[Leather]

 
I like that you posted an ad-hominem rant, and then thought to yourself, "wait, that isn't harsh enough", and went back to edit it and add another personal slam.  That's conscientious message-boarding right there, always trying to add more value.

 
Personal issues aside, Dogman's overall point is one that I'll echo.  The Seattle secondary was their defining feature, and the fact that this thread exists when "What can the Pats learn from the Giants/Saints/Broncos/Steelers..." threads never did is, in itself, a tacit and specific condemnation of the philosophy with which Belichick has build the secondary over the past five-or-so years.  It must be that because the obvious answer to "How can the Pats be more like Seattle" is simply: draft better guys.
 
It's 100% fair to criticize the individual decisions that BB has made.  However, it's the very definition of Monday Morning Quarterbacking to make an argument that boils down to:  "Well, if Seattle and friggin PETE CARROLL can build a great defense, then the reason that Belichick wasn't able to build a good defense all these years is because his overall philosophy of team building must be second rate." 
 
Attacking that argument opens oneself up to the Dcmissile counterpunch of "So nothing BB ever does is second rate?", but that is missing the point entirely.   It's the difference between criticizing someone's shitty individual stock investments in a retirement portfolio, and looking at those stocks' shitty performance and drawing the conclusion  "You obviously don't value stocks as part of a good retirement portfolio."   

 

[coremiller]

FWIW, the Seahawks don't actually play much straight man.  Their base D is a press/Cover-3 zone.  Don't confuse the press aspect with man coverage.  

 

[Dogman]

I like that you posted an ad-hominem rant, and then thought to yourself, "wait, that isn't harsh enough", and went back to edit it and add another personal slam.  That's conscientious message-boarding right there, always trying to add more value.
 

 
 
I did nothing of the sort. If you would like to pinpoint where I edited and went back and was "personal" point it out.  Because you, of all people, view it this way convinces me that I did not and that this is another conversation in which you are out of your realm, similar to your "Jones is a bust" comment.

 

[TheoShmeo]

 
Personal issues aside, Dogman's overall point is one that I'll echo.  The Seattle secondary was their defining feature, and the fact that this thread exists when "What can the Pats learn from the Giants/Saints/Broncos/Steelers..." threads never did is, in itself, a tacit and specific condemnation of the way Belichick has build the secondary over the past five-or-so years.
 
It's 100% fair to criticize the individual decisions that BB has made.  However, it's the very definition of Monday Morning Quarterbacking to make an argument that boils down to:  "Well, if Seattle and friggin PETE CARROLL can build a great defense, then the reason that Belichick wasn't able to build a good defense all these years is because his overall philosophy of team building must be second rate." 
 
Attacking that argument opens oneself up to the Dcmissile counterpunch of "So nothing BB ever does is second rate?", but that is missing the point entirely.   It's the difference between criticizing someone's shitty individual stock investments in a retirement portfolio, and looking at those stocks' shitty performance and drawing the conclusion  "You obviously don't value stocks as part of a good retirement portfolio."   

I don't agree with that premise.
 
That someone didn't think to start a thread a few years ago doesn't sharpen the inquiry when it occurs to someone to start such a thread now.  Threads don't get started or get started at different times for all sorts of different reasons, and reading in such a tight a causal link is weird science. 
 
Much more to the point, however, I did not start this thread. 
 
The opening post was made in another thread and one of the powers that be here decided "we need more threads" or whatever and a thread appeared with my name on it.  So to the extent your posts are premised on some imagined intent because I started a thread on this and did not in the past, that premise is flat wrong.  Maybe starting a thread suggests a deeper level of question or criticism than I ever intended but if it does, that intention was not mine.

 

[Leather]

Your personal involvement in creating the thread is immaterial.  I'm not singling you out.  
 
Fervent criticism of the Patriots' secondary has existed since at least 2009.   It was/is not undeserved.   However, it's a bridge too far to suggest that the fault lies with Belichick's failure to take the same steps as  the Seattle Seahawks (i.e. that they could teach him a thing or two about building a secondary).

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Personal issues aside, Dogman's overall point is one that I'll echo.  The Seattle secondary was their defining feature, and the fact that this thread exists when "What can the Pats learn from the Giants/Saints/Broncos/Steelers..." threads never did is, in itself, a tacit and specific condemnation of the philosophy with which Belichick has build the secondary over the past five-or-so years.  It must be that because the obvious answer to "How can the Pats be more like Seattle" is simply: draft better guys.

 
Well, lots of people have made the point (SJH perhaps best among them) that one needs to consider lots of exogenous factors before considering whether BB should have done better, or just could work in some particular tactics or roster strategies based on what he's seen work elsewhere.  It's a fair point, and one that TheoShmeo made himself in his "real" opening post, as Stitch observed.
 
I was criticizing the way Dogman's message was delivered, not the underlying, topical content that it was included with.  And, predictably, his response was "no way was I making an ad-hominem!  I never make ad-hominems!  Furthermore, anything coming from you specifically is dumb and suspect, because you confused Chandler Jones in another thread."  Which is hilarious enough it probably needs no further reply, and I can only hope it was an intentional attempt at humor.
 
As others have observed, nobody comes on this board to read one poster delivering a personal takedown of someone's sincerely-intended, intelligently-presented point.  What we need are more people offering things like this for consideration and discussion, and less tripping over ourselves to misconstrue a point or a poster's intentions in order to get in a few really good digs.  If everyone had to meet whatever Dogman's standards are for purity of football knowledge, this forum would just be him and like two other guys talking to themselves in here.

 

[Dogman]

 
Well, lots of people have made the point (SJH perhaps best among them) that one needs to consider lots of exogenous factors before considering whether BB should have done better, or just could work in some particular tactics or roster strategies based on what he's seen work elsewhere.  It's a fair point, and one that TheoShmeo made himself in his "real" opening post, as Stitch observed.
 
I was criticizing the way Dogman's message was delivered, not the underlying, topical content that it was included with.  And, predictably, his response was "no way was I making an ad-hominem!  I never make ad-hominems!  Furthermore, anything coming from you specifically is dumb and suspect, because you confused Chandler Jones in another thread."  Which is hilarious enough it probably needs no further reply, and I can only hope it was an intentional attempt at humor.
 
As others have observed, nobody comes on this board to read one poster delivering a personal takedown of someone's sincerely-intended, intelligently-presented point.  What we need are more people offering things like this for consideration and discussion, and less tripping over ourselves to misconstrue a point or a poster's intentions in order to get in a few really good digs.  If everyone had to meet whatever Dogman's standards are for purity of football knowledge, this forum would just be him and like two other guys talking to themselves in here.

 
 
The first point was made by numerous posters, including myself, in this very thread with plenty of supporting posts as evidence.
 
I really don't care that you are criticizing me.  My response wasn't that I never make ad-hominems, it's that I did not make one in this case.  So, wrong again, MDL, similar to your Jones "confusion" (labeling this as "confusion" is laughable, btw, you were flat out wrong) and other similar posts in this forum. 
 
Again, I haven't personally taken him down.  I have replied to the substance of his posts and applied his rationalization in this post to another post (the Chia post) as evidence of his thinking. That isn't personal. I haven't misconstrued anything or misstated Theo's intent.  I'm calling into question his usage of the phrase "BB should have known" as it pertains to the subject matter at hand.
 
Your ad-hominem in your last sentence is laughable and expected.
 
You can PM me to continue this.  I'm done with you here.

 

[Reverend]

I agree with your point that the Pats have invested resources in the secondary, but they've gone outside the org - Bodden was an outside acquisition, as were Deltha O'Neal and Shawn Springs. Obviously, these moves didn't work out any better than the failed draft picks. They weren't as high-profile as Revis / Browner, but they were reasonably big names at the time. Also, I don't think the draft failures at CB were incredible - almost every team has a blind spot / run of bad luck like this over a period of time (look at Ted Thompson's track record with OL, for instance).

 
I agree with all of this and may have overstated my point which this actually effectively underscores: they sure as heck were trying to beef up the CBs, so the premise that is the core of an argument here is faulty which I think impedes discussion.
 
I totally agree that any team can have a run of misses at a given position and, in fact, probablistically, it's likely that any given team will have a run of misses if you look at just one position.
 
 

What kind of DL talent? Interior track record has been good, but the track record with edge rushers is probably even worse than DBs - it's Chandler Jones, and then Tully Banta-Cain is probably #2, with notable misses Bequette, Cunningham, and Crable.

 
I think I was thinking in terms of high picks not being busts. But now that I look, I don't think I realized just how few picks from the top three rounds they have used on defensive linemen--Jones and Brace being the only two since Wilfork? Is that right?
 
 

 

Sherman started as a WR at Stanford, only converting to DB his last two years. That scouting report might have been accurate but didn't factor in how raw Sherman was.

 
Heh. Accurate, except for the shit left out...  :buddy:

 

[Tony C]

"Discussing" with Dogman on any issue is a bit like "discussing" a topic with the crazy guy on a street corner -- useless, since he'll always shout more loudly, more tirelessly, more repetitively, and more emphatically. And before you go there Dogman, no need to retrieve some stupid post I once made (or more than once) as proof of my irremediable stupidity -- I'm willing to stipulate that such posts no doubt exist and kudos to you for having the research ability to call them up on anyone who expresses disagreement with you on any level. Well done -- always adds so much to conversation here. 

 

[Dogman]

"Discussing" with Dogman on any issue is a bit like "discussing" a topic with the crazy guy on a street corner -- useless, since he'll always shout more loudly, more tirelessly, more repetitively, and more emphatically. And before you go there Dogman, no need to retrieve some stupid post I once made (or more than once) as proof of my irremediable stupidity -- I'm willing to stipulate that such posts no doubt exist and kudos to you for having the research ability to call them up on anyone who expresses disagreement with you on any level. Well done -- always adds so much to conversation here. 

 
You are also welcome to PM me instead of using this thread. 
 
Thanks.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

And you're welcome to PM, well, anybody, the next time you feel like using a thread to vent your spleen about someone rather than sticking to the content.
 
I'll give you some quotes as a guide to help tip yourself off.  If you feel the need to type anything like the following into a post, please just don't:
 
"___ is the same poster that said..."
 
"___ overreacts before using his head all the time so this isn't new for him."
 
"Like a lot of things in this forum lately, you are completely missing the point"
 
"It's pure fanboyism, similar to ___'s Chia line."
 
"If ___ spent 30 seconds thinking about any of this, I'm quite sure ___ would have prevented posting something that would absolutely be questioned. "
 
"you shouldn't be butthurt. I feel the criticism is warranted."
 
"this is another conversation in which you are out of your realm"
 
 
That of course is just from your past ~8 posts in this thread alone.  I have neither the time nor the inclination to keep pointing out all the many ways in which you go after the poster rather than the content, in this and many, many other threads.  And of course, nobody wants to read it, either.  But every so often, it drives me crazy enough that I lose my sense of discretion and stoop to the level of mini-modding.  I edited my own post a few minutes later, but too late - you were already on top of it ready to flame back.  Mea culpa for that.  But don't mistake my point: you are positively Pedros-Hairstylist-esque in your fervent desire to make sure everyone knows that, not only are you right, but also that THAT guy is WRONG, and furthermore, is an idiot.  The fact that 99% of posters (and mods/dopes) hold their tongue 99% of the time does not change that fact.  I wish you wouldn't do that, because this board is not just knowledgeable but quite civil of late.

 

[Dogman]

 

[DJnVa]

Um, I understand your point is that you think dogman2 shouldn't call out posters by name, but in your post you took a shot at a poster, albeit a former poster.

 

[URI]

[background=#f9f9f9]That of course is just from your past ~8 posts in this thread alone.  I have neither the time nor the inclination to keep pointing out all the many ways in which you go after the poster[/size][/background]

After reading this post, I don't believe you.

Everyone chill out and be grownups, ok?