PostGame Thread OFFICIAL 2023 Post Game Thread: Week 16 - NE @ DEN

[n6249c]

He's wasn't a well liked player in Seattle either. He did some weird **** not allowing his teammates to call him - he'd call them from an unlisted number. There's video's on YouTube of Sherman, Cliff Avril and now Marshawn Lynch explaining what went on with him there.

Regarding Denver, he's got a $35M cap hit and $85 dead cap. They are stuck with him for two more years.

Great video clip. Very telling. Guys in the locker room know who you are. It shows on the field.

Contrast the level of play when Corky is in, compared to when Zappe is playing.

it says a lot.

 

[The Gr8est]

TB was the GOAT because he had that fire in his gut to prove wrong all the naysayers who said he was too small, too slow, not athletic enough, etc. I don't think Mac ever had that fire and he always had an all-star supporting cast in college. Zap may have that fire (don't know for sure yet). With their defense, even a moderately decent offense would, IMHO, make this current team at least a wild card possibility. We need a solid 2024 draft and some good FA signings to be a relevant team again. Potential SB appearances are still several seasons down the road.

Another factor against picking a QB first, or very high.

They may feel entitled and not have fire they could have.

It worked for Brady, and after what happened with Zappe, he may have a chip on his shoulder as well.

 

[Ring 6]

Agree. Those were some bad years.

2008-2013 72 wins 24 losses.
5 division titles
4 post season wins
1 trip to the SB
Put the team in place that would go to 4 of the next 5 Sbs and win 3 of them.
How many franchises in the last 50 years would call that “bad years”?

 

[TheRainMaker]

2008-2013 72 wins 24 losses.
5 division titles
4 post season wins
1 trip to the SB
Put the team in place that would go to 4 of the next 5 Sbs and win 3 of them.
How many franchises in the last 50 years would call that “bad years”?

Stop going off topic. The topic was the secondary.

 

[upstater1]

Agree. Those were some bad years.

I didn't like these moves either. Also, letting McGinest walk and not addressing the LB situation caught up to them in the 2006 AFCCG. They ended up not being able to defend a TE all year long and the lightbulb went off with Manning who got every TE involved on the roster that game.

The constant negativity about benchings, players lost, etc. never seems to account for the teamwork and team spirit gained that leads to cohesiveness and winning, nor for the new players brought in to shore up other parts of the team. Moss and Welker arrive in 2007 at a time when we weren’t in the hook for Givens or Branch. Other teams were. By benching Welker and Butler, you lose those games. But can you account for all the times the Patriot Way won games?

 

[PaulThePat]

I've seen some insane takes on here recently, but the idea that we can now pass on a QB in the draft because we've got Zappe is right up there.

 

[upstater1]

Didn't try to but responded with what I did when you gave it all to TB. BTW, I love TB but I played the sport and even the assistant coaches get a piece of the credit. TB does nothing at all without the rest of the team.....even in Tampa.

And that was a loaded team in Tampa. 13 Pro Bowlers

 

[Ring 6]

Stop going off topic. The topic was the secondary.

Ok
8,5,8,15,9,10 on points allowed
Average of 9th. best in the nfl. Top 10 5 of the 6 years and never below average.
How many teams would define 6 years of at least above average and 5 in the top 10 as “bad years”?

 

[TheRainMaker]

The constant negativity about benchings, players lost, etc. never seems to account for the teamwork and team spirit gained that leads to cohesiveness and winning, nor for the new players brought in to shore up other parts of the team. Moss and Welker arrive in 2007 at a time when we weren’t in the hook for Givens or Branch. Other teams were. By benching Welker and Butler, you lose those games. But can you account for all the times the Patriot Way won games?

I was just responding to a post I saw, I didn't bring it up. But the reason why there's so much criticism is because the Pats were capable of more.

 

[n6249c]

2008-2013 72 wins 24 losses.
5 division titles
4 post season wins
1 trip to the SB
Put the team in place that would go to 4 of the next 5 Sbs and win 3 of them.
How many franchises in the last 50 years would call that “bad years”?

Missed the playoffs one year.

Lost the last game of the season every year. Every.Frigging.Year.

what a mess!

/s

 

[upstater1]

Another factor against picking a QB first, or very high.

They may feel entitled and not have fire they could have.

It worked for Brady, and after what happened with Zappe, he may have a chip on his shoulder as well.

If this is true why isn’t that almost no one past the 1st round ever becomes a decent starter? Dak Prescott and Jalen Hurts are rarities and they’re not even great. Brock Purdy, Russell Wilson and Tom Brady are unicorns. I did this exercise a while back, went thru the drafts from 2000 on, and it was shocking to see the complete lack of success past the 1st round except for a handful of guys. Don’t get me wrong, you can find a Matt Hasselbeck after the 1st but not a Steve McNair

 

[upstater1]

I was just responding to a post I saw, I didn't bring it up. But the reason why there's so much criticism is because the Pats were capable of more.

I know you were responding. I was just adding on

I disagree with the idea they could’ve done more. My post was arguing against that. If you’re lax in discipline you have no idea how many players and/or games you’ll lose. Always remember Belichick in the sideline against the Saints talking to Brady in 09. He knew there was no discipline and he admitted that no matter how hard he tried, he couldnt get through and get them to play. With a coach like Belichick he requires almost total buy in by the players. He’s not rahrah so if he doesn’t have that discipline the whole thing unravels

 

[Ring 6]

If this is true why isn’t that almost no one past the 1st round ever becomes a decent starter? Dak Prescott and Jalen Hurts are rarities and they’re not even great. Brock Purdy, Russell Wilson and Tom Brady are unicorns. I did this exercise a while back, went thru the drafts from 2000 on, and it was shocking to see the complete lack of success past the 1st round except for a handful of guys. Don’t get me wrong, you can find a Matt Hasselbeck after the 1st but not a Steve McNair

How do you say something never happens then call the many examples unicorns?

 

[Ring 6]

I was just responding to a post I saw, I didn't bring it up. But the reason why there's so much criticism is because the Pats were capable of more.

They did more than any franchise has ever done. They did far more than they ever could have been expected to.

But of course you argue they were so great they could have been greater than the greatest they are then trash the guy who built it as an incompetent boob.

 

[n6249c]

If this is true why isn’t that almost no one past the 1st round ever becomes a decent starter? Dak Prescott and Jalen Hurts are rarities and they’re not even great. Brock Purdy, Russell Wilson and Tom Brady are unicorns. I did this exercise a while back, went thru the drafts from 2000 on, and it was shocking to see the complete lack of success past the 1st round except for a handful of guys. Don’t get me wrong, you can find a Matt Hasselbeck after the 1st but not a Steve McNair

It‘s not an easy analysis. For one thing, very basic question, how many QBs are taken after round 1? We hear a lot more about first round QB candidates so the impression is that there may be more of them, thus just more opportunities. It would be interesting to see rates not just counts. Also, there is a very stringent evaluation process, so those taken earlier should be superior candidates, and those taken later flawed in some way. The fact that some later picks succeed just shows that process is not perfect.

There’s also no way to measure how differently candidates are treated due to their draft position. How much do first round picks get more opportunity to succeed? How much does the Sunk Cost Fallacy skew the results?

 

[PATS16N0]

Please don’t lump me in with the Robs on the board. I’m one of the original Zappeites.

^

 

[TheRainMaker]

Ok
8,5,8,15,9,10 on points allowed
Average of 9th. best in the nfl. Top 10 5 of the 6 years and never below average.
How many teams would define 6 years of at least above average and 5 in the top 10 as “bad years”?

The secondary was a weak link during those years with the turnover of players and switching McCourty over to S because he was bad at CB and Chung was injured. They allowed 3 TD's to Sanchez in 2010 divisional game. They couldn't stop Manning when it counted in the 2011 Super Bowl where they barely escaped Flacco and the Ravens two weeks prior. They got exposed again in 2012 with Flacco tossing 3 TD's after Talib (who they traded for because of how weak they were) got injured and in 2013 allowing 400 yards.

You can point to your stats all you want, but they drafted 12 DB's during that time, traded for Talib in 2012 and signed Revis and Browner for a reason in 2014.

 

[signbabybrady]

Without Brady he's a far cry from the greatest ever.

The numbers don't support it at all.

it's you who's cherry picking

Bill left quite a few titles out there by refusing to address the WR situation for almost the entire time he's been here and that 5 year stretch where he couldn't find a defense back to save his life.

What happens to the resumes of other great coaches when you take their best player away?

 

[upstater1]

It‘s not an easy analysis. For one thing, very basic question, how many QBs are taken after round 1? We hear a lot more about first round QB candidates so the impression is that there may be more of them, thus just more opportunities. It would be interesting to see rates not just counts. Also, there is a very stringent evaluation process, so those taken earlier should be superior candidates, and those taken later flawed in some way. The fact that some later picks succeed just shows that process is not perfect.

There’s also no way to measure how differently candidates are treated due to their draft position. How much do first round picks get more opportunity to succeed? How much does the Sunk Cost Fallacy skew the results?

But, it’s almost none. Not some.

It‘s not an easy analysis. For one thing, very basic question, how many QBs are taken after round 1? We hear a lot more about first round QB candidates so the impression is that there may be more of them, thus just more opportunities. It would be interesting to see rates not just counts. Also, there is a very stringent evaluation process, so those taken earlier should be superior candidates, and those taken later flawed in some way. The fact that some later picks succeed just shows that process is not perfect.

There’s also no way to measure how differently candidates are treated due to their draft position. How much do first round picks get more opportunity to succeed? How much does the Sunk Cost Fallacy skew the results?

I’ve got 7 out of 221 in the last 25 years

Brady, Hurts, Carr taken at the 36th pick, Prescott, Purdy, Kirk Cousins, Russell Wilson.

Your chances of success are under 3%

When you look at the #s you should only draft for backups after the 1st round and you should never take a QB in the 2nd or 3rd

 

[upstater1]

What happens to the resumes of other great coaches when you take their best player away?

Especially when you think back on the 2001 and 2018 Super Bowls. These were master classes by the defense. A combined 2 offensive TDs in both SBs while the defenses gave up a combined 20 points to 2 historic offenses.