The New New NFL thread

[grozeng]

[quote name='Whiskeyjack' post='1591734' date='Nov 17 2008, 13.40']I'd add Ahmad Bradshaw as a 7th round bargain. And Zac Diles was having a good season in Houston before getting hurt.[/quote]

And Michael Johnson looked pretty good for the Giants yesterday. He only has 40 tackles and 2 INTs so far this season, but the announcers kept talking about how he was all over the field and his athleticisim.

[Kalbear]

[quote]I have to agree with Roc, you need to take a wider view of the draft process. Every NFL team is given a resource for them to use to better the team, their draft picks. You then need to judge what the team did with those draft picks to evaluate things. If a team thinks that trading a pick for a vet player will increase the teams effectiveness, then you judge the use of the pick based on the effectiveness of that player, rather then on the unknown potential of that pick. And really, what combination of 2nd, 4th and 7th round players picked that year can possibly compete with what Welker and Moss have to offer the team? They didnt "attract" either of them, but acquired them.[/quote]You really don't. I'm not saying the Pats aren't good at personnel acquisition; I'm saying that their drafting hasn't been all that. And when you're asking 'how well does this team DRAFT' it's pretty stupid to look at the players they didn't draft and say 'well, they got Moss, so they drafted well'.

Evaluating Moss and Welker as good players is not the same talent as evaluating Maroney. Since the argument was about how well the Pats have drafted recently, I think it's still valid.

[quote]Out of curiosity, who do you view as the people getting older and older? The real problem with the current Pats D for instance, is their youth - they have a bunch of young cornerbacks and such who have the physical skills, but not the experience.[/quote]The biggest weakness is their LB corps - that's the group that traditionally they rely on the most, and is the group that is also getting worse and worse. AT is still got some years on him, and Mayo's good, but they've got to get at least 3 more LBs that can play. Standard injuries to older players are really hurting them here, and chances are they're going to see some cuts next year without having anything in the pipe to replace them. And unlike the last couple of years, there aren't that many good LBs forecast for the 2009 draft.

Their DLine is probably fine. Seymour might be getting worse in a year or so, but DEs can have a long, good career. They don't have a lot of backup there though, especially at NT, but that's not a huge concern.

Their secondary...is young, but more importantly to me they simply aren't that good. Good cornerbacks usually start showcasing their stuff in their second or third year, and we've not really seen that so far. It's possible they're studs, but chances are they're not.

[Arakasi]

I don't think LB is that weak for 2009. Laurinaitis, Curry, Maualuga and Cushing are all projected as first round picks. Not sure how deep the draft is past the first round, but there is plenty of first round LB talent.

[Kalbear]

[quote]I don't think LB is that weak for 2009. Laurinaitis, Curry, Maualuga and Cushing are all projected as first round picks. Not sure how deep the draft is past the first round, but there is plenty of first round LB talent.[/quote]And after that? Pretty weak. There are some really strong early talents but after that there's a big drop off, and there aren't that many projected for NFL success unless folks go early. I don't know whether any of those will be there when the Pats pick.

[Bronn Stone]

[quote name='CelticBrennus' post='1591750' date='Nov 17 2008, 10.57']And really, what combination of 2nd, 4th and 7th round players picked that year can possibly compete with what Welker and Moss have to offer the team? They didnt "attract" either of them, but acquired them.[/quote]

True about Welker, not so much about Moss. Turning Moss around was a recruiting effort as much as anything. Especially considering his antics in Oakland. The issue with Moss wasn't the pick required to acquire him (trivial) it was the willingness to accept his contract that at that point was a LOT more than he would have commanded on the open market. They were confident (and rightly so in retrospect) that their culture of winning would transform the player. The Raiders were likely to waive Moss outright if a deal could not be found. He wasn't ever going to be worth the contract value in that organization (sic).

[Arakasi]

I don't think the numbers (and scout predictions) support what you're saying Kal.

[url="http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/position?id=90&draftyear=2009"]http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/...;draftyear=2009[/url]
[url="http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/position?id=89&draftyear=2009"]http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/...;draftyear=2009[/url]

7 linebackers rated in the top 45, and another good bunch with good grades (70-80s) after. While I'm not sure how the depth compares to previous years, I am pretty sure that NE will be able to get one of the players listed above should they wish to do so. Whether they will I don't know. Also most of the named ones are ranked in the 15-20 range. I figure they will be drafting pretty close to that area and will be able to get one if they so choose. (although to get more into specifics they might need to trade up to get a targeted player, not just whomever falls to them)

I do agree with your premise that NE has done a mediocre job of pushing young players into key roles recently. It was a big part of their success when they won their superbowls. Now they are relying more on trades or free agent signings.

[Piper]

[quote name='CelticBrennus' post='1591750' date='Nov 17 2008, 13.57']And I really hope that the Pats can franchise Cassel and trade him for some nice picks, something that will give the team a lot of flexibility in the upcoming draft, given the boatload of picks they already have or should be getting in compensatory picks (Asante, here's looking at you). And hey, no Brady means no Superbowl, so for me it comes down to what can we get in the draft for next year.[/quote]

Isn't franchising a QB tremendously expensive, though? As I understand it, franchising him means they have to pay him the average of the top 5 at that position, and the top 5 QBs are probably getting paid quite handsomely. Seems like too much for Cassel.

[Rockroi]

Kal:

You are kinds off here. As others have pointed out, the Pats D does have issues, but age is not the huge problem. The D-line is tremendous- Seymour and Wilfork are studs; I also am not suire I understand your critisim of our LB core. Yes they are old, but you then say Mayo is good and rattle off a couple more names then say the Past need at least 3 or 4 wuality LBs... ah... by that metric EVERY team needs more LBs. How many do you think are out there? Finally, our DB are young, as you stated, and yes, some suck. But we have been doing things to fill in those gaps.

Also, what players did the Dolphins get for Welker? I just want to know because they could have been great and I want to see a comparison of some sort. I just do not know.

But our deficiencies are just like any other team's (with the exception of the Giants and Titans)- they are there and rarely can a team solve or even just disguise all its problems. Instead, the Pats have taken a different take- get the max value you can for draft picks and use them on young talent OR on establsihed stars and the Pats' record speaks for itself (as yuou staed, the team of the firts decade of the 21st century). Its posisble the Pats' best day sare behind them... then again, people weer saying that after the AFC Championship loss in 2006 and that next year was pretty damn good.

[quote]And I really hope that the Pats can franchise Cassel and trade him for some nice picks,[/quote]

Hate to burst your bubble here, but going on what I read, the NFLPA won't accept Cassell getting the franchise tag if the Pats are just going to trade him. I am not sure the reasoning behind it, but King mentioned in his peice how its sort of the rule with teh franchise tag that the player you name will not be traded. Hence, most experts know that Cassel is just going to make a boat load of money as the QB for Minn, Detroit, etc and the pats won't have much to show for it. I guess for the Pats their solace should come from the knowledge that when the best player in the NFL went down with an injury, instead of panicking like some yahoos said they should (like.... you know... ME), the Pats stuck to their guns and said Cassel was their guy and, by-in-large, that was the correct call. Instead of rushing something and possibly trading away draft picks (and wasting a commodity the Pats prize) for a one year QB, the Pats avoided that and went with Cassel. They saved their resources to be used later.

It may sound like fient praise, but as far as this season is concerned, that was the best we can hope for.

[Arakasi]

I would warn against those teams buying high on Cassell. NE despite its RB issues has tremendous recieving threats and a good offensive line. And they have some of the best coaching around. I think the team that buys high on him will be dissapointed unless they have offensive talent around for him to work in to. A team like Minnesota would be good, someone like Detroit it would be very bad I think.

[Rockroi]

[quote]I would warn against those teams buying high on Cassell. NE despite its RB issues has tremendous recieving threats and a good offensive line. And they have some of the best coaching around. I think the team that buys high on him will be dissapointed unless they have offensive talent around for him to work in to. A team like Minnesota would be good, someone like Detroit it would be very bad I think.[/quote]

Arakasi, I think you just crystalized why Matt Cassell will be the starting QB for the Detroit Lions come September.

Howveer, I really think he will end up in Minn, because ... well... who really wants to end up playing for the Lions?

[Kalbear]

[quote]Also, what players did the Dolphins get for Welker? I just want to know because they could have been great and I want to see a comparison of some sort. I just do not know.[/quote]The notable one is Samson Satele, who became their starting center last year and is apparently really good.

[quote]You are kinds off here. As others have pointed out, the Pats D does have issues, but age is not the huge problem. The D-line is tremendous- Seymour and Wilfork are studs; I also am not suire I understand your critisim of our LB core. Yes they are old, but you then say Mayo is good and rattle off a couple more names then say the Past need at least 3 or 4 wuality LBs... ah... by that metric EVERY team needs more LBs.[/quote]Teams need more than one good LB if they're running a 3-4. They really need more than 2. And right now, there's no indication that they have more than 2 good ones and the ones that aren't Mayo are...well, they're lacking.

Put it this way, Rock - right now, they're missing their older LB corps. How are they doing against the run? How are they doing against RB and TE passing plays? That's what you have to look forward to for the next few years until they draft new LB talent that can perform.

[CelticBrennus]

[quote]Their secondary...is young, but more importantly to me they simply aren't that good. Good cornerbacks usually start showcasing their stuff in their second or third year, and we've not really seen that so far.[/quote]

Well, Hobbs is decent, nothing fantastic, but solid. They have some decent vet backups, and a few really young guys, either just drafted or second year (first year on IR). Thats the thing, the guys they have slated for the future (I would assume), are very young.

[quote]They really need more than 2. And right now, there's no indication that they have more than 2 good ones and the ones that aren't Mayo are...well, they're lacking.[/quote]

I see it as now a 5 or 6 way LB'er situation.
Bruschi - can function as a run stopper, but thats about it right now. Still very smart player and leader on field
Mayo - A total stud so far. Good versus run, solid but not fantastic against the pass.
Thomas - Excellent all around player, his loss really hurts.
Vrabel - On the decline, still good, not as good. Will likely still be valuable for a year or two more
Guyton - A total surprise UDFA, good coverage and getting better and better each week.
Woods - Decent backup OLB, nothing special

Basically, the LB corp has some older key cogs, but has a very solid group of young players who should only get better and better. And if they can pick up another addition or two the next couple years, things should be set. Much like the situation of all teams.

[quote]I am not sure the reasoning behind it, but King mentioned in his peice how its sort of the rule with teh franchise tag that the player you name will not be traded.[/quote]

The impression I got was that you can trade them, but you cant put the franchise tag them without the good faith belief you will keep them. PFT was saying its a clause yes, but pretty unenforceable. Anyway, all the Pats need is to have some legit worry that Brady might not be ready to go at the start of the season.

[Rockroi]

[quote]Put it this way, Rock - right now, they're missing their older LB corps. How are they doing against the run? How are they doing against RB and TE passing plays? That's what you have to look forward to for the next few years until they draft new LB talent that can perform.[/quote]

So, I looked up the numbers and... the Pats (much to my suprise, I grant you) are not THAT bad on D. In fact, they are in the top half in every major stat, and 12th overall. Now, don't get me wrong, that's not a good team, but also try to remember- we are struggling with injuries (Thomas and Warren out, Thomas probably for the season; Harrison gone for the season). The Pats you depicted, Kal, sounded terrible, but the stats don't beat that out. I think they are 14 against the run (which is not great, but still better than over half the teams out there) and in similar slots against the pass, etc. So, no ,its not great, but its not the wasteland you depicted (or wanted) it to be.

CB:

[quote]The impression I got was that you can trade them, but you cant put the franchise tag them without the good faith belief you will keep them. PFT was saying its a clause yes, but pretty unenforceable. Anyway, all the Pats need is to have some legit worry that Brady might not be ready to go at the start of the season.[/quote]

I really don't know. This sounds like a problem that is begging to happen as the CBA and the Franchise Tag are always sore spots. Especially with a player who is about to be gone no matter what. I think its really a problem just on those factors alone. I sincerely think Cassel is gone and I am not sure how it will play out.

[Kalbear]

[quote]I think they are 14 against the run (which is not great, but still better than over half the teams out there) and in similar slots against the pass, etc. So, no ,its not great, but its not the wasteland you depicted (or wanted) it to be.[/quote]I'm not saying they're worst in the league, but with their offense declining (and it's going to go in decline) they will need better than 'league average' at D to beat the real powerhouses going down the stretch.

And as I said before, it's only going to get worse.

[CelticBrennus]

[quote]I'm not saying they're worst in the league, but with their offense declining (and it's going to go in decline) they will need better than 'league average' at D to beat the real powerhouses going down the stretch.[/quote]

Talk about taking the safe choice here. I mean seriously now, of course the offense is going to decline - last season was the most dominant offense the NFL has ever seen, so anything less then the best ever is a decline.

Kal, I know you would like almost nothing more then to see the Patriots fall back into NFL obscurity, but the track record would argue against it. Year in and year out they are better then virtually every other team in the league, and even this year they are still a dangerous team.

I know you will not adhere to this philosophy, but in Bill We Trust. As long as he coaches and Scott Pioli manages players and scouting, the Pats are going to be competitive, even this year where injury reports would make the British at the Somme say "ouch".

[Swordfish]

[quote name='CelticBrennus' post='1592129' date='Nov 17 2008, 17.27']Talk about taking the safe choice here. I mean seriously now, of course the offense is going to decline - last season was the most dominant offense the NFL has ever seen, so anything less then the best ever is a decline.

Kal, I know you would like almost nothing more then to see the Patriots fall back into NFL obscurity, but the track record would argue against it. Year in and year out they are better then virtually every other team in the league,[/quote]


:stunned:

[BLU-RAY]

Why do the Bills' MNF games

a) always happen when I have an appalling amount of top-priority work to do, and
b) always come down to the wire? What's the deal?

[Whiskeyjack]

[quote name='DVD ROTS' post='1592298' date='Nov 17 2008, 22.38']Why do the Bills' MNF games

a) always happen when I have an appalling amount of top-priority work to do, and
b) always come down to the wire? What's the deal?[/quote]


This has been a really fun game to watch. Beast Mode has been dominant. He and Fred Jackson have basically been the entire Bills offense, after Edwards threw a ton of interceptions early in the game.

[Jaime L]

Holy Fuck. A 57 yarder in those conidtions? I thought Romeo screwed the pooch again.

Lot of time left though and great Bills Special Teams...

[Whiskeyjack]

Cleveland being so afraid of McKelvin could easily lose them this game. They just basically gave the Bills the ball at the 44, because they were so scared of a TD return. Crazy.