Meark Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 the substitution of "dominate" for "dominant" has become one of my biggest pet peeves, thanks to this board. it's up there with "definately." but back to the topic at hand- the OP said it himself: Top tier talent at QB and excellent coaching trump all. i do think the pats*' model is a good one that most teams try to follow, but i'd bet the pats* would still be about the same level competitively regardless of their amount of roster turnover as long as belicheat and brady are still in place. and as far as the bills situation - they are on the right track since nix has been GM, but still need to acquire some additional talent. it's unlikely an all time great qb and coach fall into their lap, but the rest of the pieces are seemingly coming together. the bottom line is that all-pro players make the surrounding cast better. assuming the bills can hit on a couple more draft picks and add decent talent thru FA, we can expect to see improvement not only in those particular positions, but also as a team overall. One of my pet peeves is when people don't use capital letters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Having the greatest QB of all time covers up a lot of warts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The Pats have something like six players (Brady, Welker, Light, Mankins, Wilfork and Gotkowski - Koppen and Wright are on IR) left from their 2007-2008 Super Bowl team. That's about a 90% turnover in four years. So what is the take-away from this fact? - If you've got a Hall of Fame coach and a Hall of Fame quarterback, the rest is pretty much filler; - They don't overpay middle of the road veteran players. They let them walk. The holdovers from four years ago are All-Pro caliber or close to it (except for the kicker). That's why they can have a dominate team for a decade and still have a bunch of cap room. - They're ruthless in getting rid of veterans for draft picks (see above) and trading down on draft day for more picks. It allows faster turnover of roster but still brings in fresh talent. - For all their high draft picks, their drafts have been really mediocre. They've had some impressive hits (Mayo, Gronkowski, Hernandez) but a huge number of misses. (Check out their attempts to draft a wide receiver over the last ten years). Last year's draft was a joke. On a team needing defense, they draft OL, RB, RB and QB in first three rounds. - Don't know what league average is but it's probably around 75% for roster turnover in four years. That's why when the Bills or posters to this site talk about a three, four or five year plan, you can't do anything but laugh. Next year is it for Buddy and Chan to show it's going in the right direction. Welker, Wilfork and Gronkowski are "filler?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st pete gogolak Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 At the risk of being called grammar police, dominant is an adjective. Dominate is a verb. Finding talent is step 1, which the Bills still have not accomplished at the money positions, QB, LT, 43DE/34OLB, WR, and CB. There are some younger players, but nothing proven at any of those positions aside from SJ. Step 2 is deciding whom to retain, which Buffalo isn't quite at yet. Buffalo does have Johnson up for a contract, and then Byrd and Levitre next season followed by Wood. Rosters turnover quickly, but that in and of itself isn't necessarily a good thing. The Bills have done it many times over with the same mediocre result. Iknow the difference between "dominant" and "dominate". Just didn't pick up the mistake before hitting send. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A top 5 QB is worth 10+ wins. See: Colts 2002-2012 All all this 'is it Brady vs. Is is Bellicheat'.......Its their OL..... Brady sucks without it. I credit Bellicheat for maintaining the OL, and it was their Ds and kicker that won them all the superbowls...not Brady by any stretch. He was a Trent Dilfer on that first winning team. THIS!!! Praise Jesus. Somebody in this thread referred to Brady as the greatest quarterback of all time. NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!! He's made a career playing THE MOST QUARTERBACK FRIENDLY SYSTEM OF ALL TIME. All he has to do is stand there make the throws. Remember who his predecessor was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 THIS!!! Praise Jesus. Somebody in this thread referred to Brady as the greatest quarterback of all time. NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!! He's made a career playing THE MOST QUARTERBACK FRIENDLY SYSTEM OF ALL TIME. All he has to do is stand there make the throws. Remember who his predecessor was. wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 At the risk of being called grammar police, dominant is an adjective. Dominate is a verb. Finding talent is step 1, which the Bills still have not accomplished at the money positions, QB, LT, 43DE/34OLB, WR, and CB. There are some younger players, but nothing proven at any of those positions aside from SJ. Step 2 is deciding whom to retain, which Buffalo isn't quite at yet. Buffalo does have Johnson up for a contract, and then Byrd and Levitre next season followed by Wood. Rosters turnover quickly, but that in and of itself isn't necessarily a good thing. The Bills have done it many times over with the same mediocre result. Good points, but step 1 is still having a real owner. Even if the Bills had Belicheck & Brady, Ralph would still find a way to mess things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts