SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Patriots 2023 Season Thread
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Jan 8, 2024 18:34:15 GMT -5
He did not say that. He said, "Yeah, look, I'm for whatever, collectively, we decide as an organization is the best thing to help our football team ..." That is a somewhat vague statement, certainly open to interpretation, but is decidedly not, "I'll give up FO duties & only coach the team." To be continued ... which isn't one sentence without context. Yeah, I watched it too. That these reporters you cite offered a sloppy interpretation of what was said does not make it so. In fact, I'd cast more scrutiny in the future on what those reporters report. I'd suppose several slanted their interpretation towards "talking points." But Bill said what he said and, again, it was not what you said he said. Hey, suggestion: It's 2024, maybe now would be a good time to admit you have it wrong? First time for everything, eh? C'mon, take the leap. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 8, 2024 19:55:08 GMT -5
That's the take away from multiple reporters that actually watched his speech, which isn't one sentence without context. Yeah, I watched it too. That these reporters you cite offered a sloppy interpretation of what was said does not make it so. In fact, I'd cast more scrutiny in the future on what those reporters report. I'd suppose several slanted their interpretation towards "talking points." But Bill said what he said and, again, it was not what you said he said. Hey, suggestion: It's 2024, maybe now would be a good time to admit you have it wrong? First time for everything, eh? C'mon, take the leap. I'm passing information along and it's not just that article saying the same exact thing. If you think they're wrong, go talk with them! |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 8, 2024 20:03:14 GMT -5
Why? I'd say you shouldn't draft a guy at #3 if you feel you need to take another QB with around a top 100 pick in the same draft. Because even the top QBs tend to be busts. I'd rather have a plan B ready to go instead of being empty handed and starting over from scratch. The odds of the 4th rounder being nothing more than a backup are high, but they do sometimes hit (Kirk Cousin, Dak Prescot, Russell Wilson (3rd, but still)). The RG3/Kirk Cousins draft being the most prime example of getting a franchise QB with said backup plan. Best case scenario you trade one of the two guys for future compensation after you decide which one is the better player/fit. Not to mention the rate of injuries, the odds are high both guys will have a chance to showcase themselves at some point anyways. It's just such an important position that I want to take as many shots as possible. I hate that approach, you have so many needs and 4th round pick is number 104 I think. Now maybe if a QB you have highly rated slides it makes sense, just not the my goal is to take two QBs. Sure you can find diamonds in the rough, the odds are slim. It's certainly not ideal having two rookie QBs and if you're that worried about the QB at #3 busting, you shouldn't be taking him at #3. That's the problem at 3, if like you it's take best available QB no matter what stuff. Maybe look at other players that are safer, a bust at #3 is something we can't have happen! |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 9, 2024 7:02:04 GMT -5
Because even the top QBs tend to be busts. I'd rather have a plan B ready to go instead of being empty handed and starting over from scratch. The odds of the 4th rounder being nothing more than a backup are high, but they do sometimes hit (Kirk Cousin, Dak Prescot, Russell Wilson (3rd, but still)). The RG3/Kirk Cousins draft being the most prime example of getting a franchise QB with said backup plan. Best case scenario you trade one of the two guys for future compensation after you decide which one is the better player/fit. Not to mention the rate of injuries, the odds are high both guys will have a chance to showcase themselves at some point anyways. It's just such an important position that I want to take as many shots as possible. I hate that approach, you have so many needs and 4th round pick is number 104 I think. Now maybe if a QB you have highly rated slides it makes sense, just not the my goal is to take two QBs. Sure you can find diamonds in the rough, the odds are slim. It's certainly not ideal having two rookie QBs and if you're that worried about the QB at #3 busting, you shouldn't be taking him at #3. That's the problem at 3, if like you it's take best available QB no matter what stuff. Maybe look at other players that are safer, a bust at #3 is something we can't have happen! Just going off the first overall quarterbacks Bryce Young Kenny Pickett Trevor Lawrence Joe Burrow Kyler Murray Baker Mayfield Mitchell Tribusky Jared Goff Jameis Winston Outside of Burrow and maybe Goff (needed to change teams to thrive) that's a lot of mediocrity. The QB position is the most important position in all of sports. Unless the Patriots are planning on being real contenders in 2024 I just feel more comfortable taking 2 shots at the position. Plus, I like there being some sort of real competition behind the first QB as a way of saying, "we have options". But just a difference of philosophy. |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 9, 2024 7:06:12 GMT -5
If the Patriots traded Dugger, Zeke, Brown, and/or Uche, do the Patriots still draft at 3 or do they lose another game and draft at 2? That 1 win might now be the difference in a franchise QB. Not to mention getting additional draft capital.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 9, 2024 11:57:41 GMT -5
I hate that approach, you have so many needs and 4th round pick is number 104 I think. Now maybe if a QB you have highly rated slides it makes sense, just not the my goal is to take two QBs. Sure you can find diamonds in the rough, the odds are slim. It's certainly not ideal having two rookie QBs and if you're that worried about the QB at #3 busting, you shouldn't be taking him at #3. That's the problem at 3, if like you it's take best available QB no matter what stuff. Maybe look at other players that are safer, a bust at #3 is something we can't have happen! Just going off the first overall quarterbacks Bryce Young Kenny Pickett Trevor Lawrence Joe Burrow Kyler Murray Baker Mayfield Mitchell Tribusky Jared Goff Jameis Winston Outside of Burrow and maybe Goff (needed to change teams to thrive) that's a lot of mediocrity. The QB position is the most important position in all of sports. Unless the Patriots are planning on being real contenders in 2024 I just feel more comfortable taking 2 shots at the position. Plus, I like there being some sort of real competition behind the first QB as a way of saying, "we have options". But just a difference of philosophy. I'd say Goff, Lawrence and Mayfield are good QBs. Every class is different and if you don't like those guys, why the I take a QB at #3 no matter who goes off the board with the first two picks? That's just proof that teams overdraft QBs and you need to be picky about who you take. Guys like Stidham and Zappe are good picks as 4th round QBs, that's just a fact. Most won't start and win games. If you want to look at percentages, do those guys also. Say were co GMs and you're saying this to me. My first response is let's see your draft board. As in show me the value in that 4th round QB you want or guys if they drop who you'd take versus other players on the board. Here's the thing, if you take a guy at #3 you better believe he's a great QB, if not you should pass. We aren't the 49ers, who were a great QB away. We have many needs and our biggest need is difference makers at multiple positions. Not in love with a QB at #3, look at WR, TE and OT. Huge need areas that in this draft have elite talent there for the taking. For me Caleb Williams is a no doubt pick. Yeah you never know, but I make that pick thinking we just got our QB for a decade plus. I'm high on Maye, but he's currently ranked below Williams. After those two, I'm not currently sold on a QB at #3. Maybe that will change as I watch tape and do more research. Which I would recommend everyone do if we want to have some great discussions on QBs. It's early now, but in a short amount of time many people will start creating draft videos breaking down the QBs. After that I like to watch the games against top competition, along with their best and worst games. It's time consuming, but it will open up your eyes about certain players. Take when I did WRs the year Thornton went 2nd round, I hated that pick because he was raw. Loved Dubbs and Shakir, Dubbs been a good player since day one and Shakir is just now breaking out for Bill's. Same draft I loved Sky Moore, till I watched his tape. Small school guy that got production off his natural ability in a lower league and didn't show the route running and technique you want to see from a 2nd round pick. It can be eye opening even for an amateur scout. First we need to figure out who our coach and GM is, what system they install so we know what to look for. Certain guys like Williams fit any system, but guys like Jackson and Fields require much different systems built around their running games. I will say I'm big on taking QBs, I like having guys in the pipeline. Zappe is better than Mac Jones for example, even if he wasn't. The guy can help you win games and that could be big with no injury. I'd just say, outside of some massive value pick at QB in the 4th and right now I don't even know who that would be. Who know because we don't even have the list of QBs you are in the draft yet. I'd wait till year two or three to go after another QB. Big believer in if you take a QB high in first, you surround him with talent to make sure you give him the best chance of doing well. My ideal draft if we get a QB at 3, is taking a WR or TE in the 2nd. Give him a weapon to grow with! Really want to see QB, WR, TE and OT taken with top 4 picks. Now maybe that isn't realistic, we'll have to see how the draft unfolds. It's all about helping that high pick, another QB doesn't do that. So it would have to be unreal value. So who are you targeting in the 4th at QB? For me if I'm targeting a 2nd QB, it would be a guy like Sam Hartman in the 6th or 7th rounds. His stock dropped because Notre Dame lacked good weapons, tons of experience in multiple systems and looked much better a year ago with better weapons. Throws a beautiful deep ball and is mobile at QB. |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 10, 2024 9:57:18 GMT -5
Just going off the first overall quarterbacks Bryce Young Kenny Pickett Trevor Lawrence Joe Burrow Kyler Murray Baker Mayfield Mitchell Tribusky Jared Goff Jameis Winston Outside of Burrow and maybe Goff (needed to change teams to thrive) that's a lot of mediocrity. The QB position is the most important position in all of sports. Unless the Patriots are planning on being real contenders in 2024 I just feel more comfortable taking 2 shots at the position. Plus, I like there being some sort of real competition behind the first QB as a way of saying, "we have options". But just a difference of philosophy. I'd say Goff, Lawrence and Mayfield are good QBs. Every class is different and if you don't like those guys, why the I take a QB at #3 no matter who goes off the board with the first two picks? That's just proof that teams overdraft QBs and you need to be picky about who you take. Guys like Stidham and Zappe are good picks as 4th round QBs, that's just a fact. Most won't start and win games. If you want to look at percentages, do those guys also. Say were co GMs and you're saying this to me. My first response is let's see your draft board. As in show me the value in that 4th round QB you want or guys if they drop who you'd take versus other players on the board. Here's the thing, if you take a guy at #3 you better believe he's a great QB, if not you should pass. We aren't the 49ers, who were a great QB away. We have many needs and our biggest need is difference makers at multiple positions. Not in love with a QB at #3, look at WR, TE and OT. Huge need areas that in this draft have elite talent there for the taking. For me Caleb Williams is a no doubt pick. Yeah you never know, but I make that pick thinking we just got our QB for a decade plus. I'm high on Maye, but he's currently ranked below Williams. After those two, I'm not currently sold on a QB at #3. Maybe that will change as I watch tape and do more research. Which I would recommend everyone do if we want to have some great discussions on QBs. It's early now, but in a short amount of time many people will start creating draft videos breaking down the QBs. After that I like to watch the games against top competition, along with their best and worst games. It's time consuming, but it will open up your eyes about certain players. Take when I did WRs the year Thornton went 2nd round, I hated that pick because he was raw. Loved Dubbs and Shakir, Dubbs been a good player since day one and Shakir is just now breaking out for Bill's. Same draft I loved Sky Moore, till I watched his tape. Small school guy that got production off his natural ability in a lower league and didn't show the route running and technique you want to see from a 2nd round pick. It can be eye opening even for an amateur scout. First we need to figure out who our coach and GM is, what system they install so we know what to look for. Certain guys like Williams fit any system, but guys like Jackson and Fields require much different systems built around their running games. I will say I'm big on taking QBs, I like having guys in the pipeline. Zappe is better than Mac Jones for example, even if he wasn't. The guy can help you win games and that could be big with no injury. I'd just say, outside of some massive value pick at QB in the 4th and right now I don't even know who that would be. Who know because we don't even have the list of QBs you are in the draft yet. I'd wait till year two or three to go after another QB. Big believer in if you take a QB high in first, you surround him with talent to make sure you give him the best chance of doing well. My ideal draft if we get a QB at 3, is taking a WR or TE in the 2nd. Give him a weapon to grow with! Really want to see QB, WR, TE and OT taken with top 4 picks. Now maybe that isn't realistic, we'll have to see how the draft unfolds. It's all about helping that high pick, another QB doesn't do that. So it would have to be unreal value. So who are you targeting in the 4th at QB? For me if I'm targeting a 2nd QB, it would be a guy like Sam Hartman in the 6th or 7th rounds. His stock dropped because Notre Dame lacked good weapons, tons of experience in multiple systems and looked much better a year ago with better weapons. Throws a beautiful deep ball and is mobile at QB. Goff I think needed a change of scenery, but he was good either way so that's a fair one. Cleveland felt the need to move on from Baker after taking him 1st overall in 2018. They traded him to Carolina for a 5th round pick which things didn't work out well for him there. He signed with Tampa and it has been a good fit. Granted at one point he needed shoulder surgery, but overall, it was a bust for Cleveland. Who the coach/gm will be is a big question and Robert needs to figure that out ASAP. That's going to change what they do in the draft for sure. I'm not going to pretend I'm well versed in the middle-round QBs, just more of a blanket statement. If they can find a kid who thrived in a small school or a all tools, no foundation kind of player in the middle rounds (4-6), I'm ok with it. It's just the philosophy you're taking two cracks at it. If they can find that guy in the 6th round, so be it. Who you just described is exactly the kind of guy I'm thinking of with the 2nd option. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 10, 2024 12:09:43 GMT -5
It's absolutely the philosophy. You have been very out spoken about Bill's drafting and you want a draft philosophy not built on the players available, draft value and overall strengths of the draft.
If you want to go by draft trends, the recent lower rounds finds are all big school productive players from Wisconsin, Mississippi State, Michigan State and Michigan. Even a guy like Zappe, while not from a major program was crazy productive breaking division one passing records. So production should be #1 trait, raw tools type mid round QBs have a horrible track record. Small school guys are so hit and miss by the 4th round or later.
Washington took Cousins not because of some draft strategy, it was because of value and where he was ranked on their draft board. Draft experts went off on them, but it turned out brilliantly. So if that's what you want, I'd say do some research and see if it makes sense. You can spot them, I'm on record liking Purdy for Patriots after his Junior year for example, he then didn't enter draft and went back to College.
If we're talking 6th or 7th, that changes things for me, but again it needs to be about the player and value available, not just take two QBs no matter what type crap. So if that's what you think the Patriots need, go see if it makes sense.
Personally if we bring in a high round pick rookie, I'd want a veteran to help him out to go along with Zappe over another rookie.
Sure you can debate Mayfield, he just had another great year. He isn't Mac Jones with only one. I think the Browns messed up everything trading him and then trading for Watson. All the issues OBJ caused on that team with Mayfield because he wanted more catches. Imagine the Browns with Mayfield, more money and all those picks. Frankly if you wanted to talk veteran QB to bring in if Bill is back, Mayfield should be on that list.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 10, 2024 18:01:54 GMT -5
It's absolutely the philosophy. You have been very out spoken about Bill's drafting and you want a draft philosophy not built on the players available, draft value and overall strengths of the draft. If you want to go by draft trends, the recent lower rounds finds are all big school productive players from Wisconsin, Mississippi State, Michigan State and Michigan. Even a guy like Zappe, while not from a major program was crazy productive breaking division one passing records. So production should be #1 trait, raw tools type mid round QBs have a horrible track record. Small school guys are so hit and miss by the 4th round or later. Washington took Cousins not because of some draft strategy, it was because of value and where he was ranked on their draft board. Draft experts went off on them, but it turned out brilliantly. So if that's what you want, I'd say do some research and see if it makes sense. You can spot them, I'm on record liking Purdy for Patriots after his Junior year for example, he then didn't enter draft and went back to College. If we're talking 6th or 7th, that changes things for me, but again it needs to be about the player and value available, not just take two QBs no matter what type crap. So if that's what you think the Patriots need, go see if it makes sense. Personally if we bring in a high round pick rookie, I'd want a veteran to help him out to go along with Zappe over another rookie. Sure you can debate Mayfield, he just had another great year. He isn't Mac Jones with only one. I think the Browns messed up everything trading him and then trading for Watson. All the issues OBJ caused on that team with Mayfield because he wanted more catches. Imagine the Browns with Mayfield, more money and all those picks. Frankly if you wanted to talk veteran QB to bring in if Bill is back, Mayfield should be on that list. Correct. Bill had no plan at QB post-Brady, took the last guy available when Mac was selected and the next year picked Zappe to back him up. Bill missed so now they need to force it, which likely will result in more wasted capital. Bill had a team with a pretty good defense and still only won 4 games. He needs a QB who can play. Ideally, not one who is 35 coming off an ACL for anything more than a stop gap. I loved the Zappe pick. Just didn't work, like most 4th rounder QBs don't. Maybe being so specific about 4th round wasn't the right thing to say. I don't want them taking a guy who would be there in the 7th just because. I'm envisioning there's going to be a 4th or 5th round talent QB available in those rounds. I'm just making up obscure numbers, but at this point I'm more interested in a guy with a 10 percent chance to be a good starting QB and a 90 percent chance of being a bust vs a guy who is a 60% chance of being a decent backup. Wherever that player exists, if they exist, I want to take that shot between 4-7. What's wrong with Jordan Travis in the 5th or Spencer Rattler in the 4th? Baker might be having a Geno Smith type of season, but this being his 3rd team makes me think any future success is because he found the right fit for him which wasn't the team that drafted him. Not a knock on Baker, just it wasn't great for the Browns who flipped him for a 5th rounder. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 11, 2024 15:44:04 GMT -5
First off what's a good starting QB? I ask because you make it sound like Mayfield isn't one! He didn't just have his first good season like Geno Smith, he had his 3rd good year. It comes off like you mean great, top ten type QB.
Some of the best value guys are exactly what you seem to not want, like Brady and Purdy. Example Zappe is a good 4th round QB. If you don't think that's true, go back and look at the QBs taken in the 4th round and lower.
Why do you like Travis and Rattler? I'll give my opinion after I watch tape on all the QBs, which I won't start till the draft deadline.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 11, 2024 16:04:06 GMT -5
First off what's a good starting QB? I ask because you make it sound like Mayfield isn't one! He didn't just have his first good season like Geno Smith, he had his 3rd good year. It comes off like you mean great, top ten type QB. Some of the best value guys are exactly what you seem to not want, like Brady and Purdy. Example Zappe is a good 4th round QB. If you don't think that's true, go back and look at the QBs taken in the 4th round and lower. Why do you like Travis and Rattler? I'll give my opinion after I watch tape on all the QBs, which I won't start till the draft deadline. Baker had a good year and was 9th in passer rating. If he continues this trend he'll be a good QB. As of right now it was a good season. Maybe not giving enough credit to Baker during his Cleveland run, but the Panthers and how the Browns dumped him made me sour on the experience, but yes, if he plays like he did he's going to be a good one. In fact, looking at his numbers he wasn't nearly as bad as I remembered him. Weird the Browns would dump him for a 5th. Just what I read on Travis and Rattler was that both were great with the medium and deep ball, not as much on the short passes. I would think you could work on those. Not sure of their pocket awareness and ability to pick up coverage. Don't seem like statues, but not Lamar Jackson types either. |
|
|
