K-9 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Good post. During the early '90s, the Bills had a number of superstar players; and went to the Super Bowl every year. Then the superstars began to age. Butler added a little talent here and there. A few of his draft picks worked out, such as Ruben Brown. Some of his free agent signings were good. The aging superstars, plus the other stuff, was good enough to get the Bills into the playoffs in the late '90s. Not only that, we were 16 seconds away from beating the Titans. If we were good enough to beat them, we might have been good enough to get to another Super Bowl. (As they went on to do.) Once TD took over, he decided the Bills were in full-on rebuilding mode. There were very few good, young players on the roster. Antoine Winfield and Eric Moulds come to mind, but very few other players do. The Bills' playoff appearances of the late '90s were due mostly to older players, or to younger players who had a few good years, then flamed out. Butler was not as good a GM as his late '90s records would indicate. Is the current Patriots team in a similar position to the Bills of the late '90s? If Tom Brady were to retire tomorrow, would there be enough good, young players on their roster to justify not going into full-on rebuilding mode? TD also inherited a cap mess left by John Butler. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurmal34 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 The many draft picks and free agents that did work out ............ Examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) Examples? Any/all of the players on the team not named Brady and Wilfork (the only two remaining players from the last SB winning year) Edited September 1, 2013 by Pneumonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurmal34 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Any/all of the players on the team not named Brady and Wilfork (the only two remaining players from the last SB winning year) Loosely translated - "I'm a pink hat. I can't name any impact players on the club but I know they ahh wicked pissah!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 The Patriots are 39-9 in the past 3 seasons and 76-20 in the last 6. The seem to do well enough with personnel, and I expect them to rout the Bills on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 @shalisemyoung #patriots claimed 4 players off waivers: LB Chris White (MissSt), OL Braxston Cave (ND), DT AJ Francis (Maryland), OL Chris Barker (Nev) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 The CHEATRIOTS are 39-9 in the past 3 seasons and 76-20 in the last 6. The seem to do well enough with personnel, and I expect them to rout the Bills on Sunday. fixed it for you when this giant falls it will fall hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Per Albert Breer. From 2007-12, Pats spent 8 picks in 1st 4 rounds on DBs. Only 2 are left - Devin McCourty and Tavon Wilson. 33rd overall pick in 2011, CB Ras-I Dowling, cut today. P.S. Should we sign him We need to pick up Dowling now so he can tell us what Bill A Cheat is doing then cut him like they will do to Chris White Tit for tat !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsBytheBay Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Have they dominated us for the last decade? Have they gone deep in the playoffs? Been in the Superbowl? Won a couple? Yes, their FO is better than ours. So they strike out on some of their draft picks, they still produce wins on the field. the star of that team is a sixth round draft pick, who the owner didn't even know his name. And we want to give credit to their FO? Brady WAS dumb luck. I'm sure BB liked him, but come on folks, its kinda crazy to think BB's plan was to wait for his superstar QB for six rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Gotta love dumb luck. Tom Brady will go down in history as the luckiest draft pick of all time. To think a 6th round pick would end up being the foundation of a winning franchise for nearly 15 years now. There have been something like 3000 players drafted during his career and based on draft position at least 2700 were projected by some team at the respective time of the draft, as having more potential impact to their team. The Pats convert it into a first ballot hall of fame career, and arguably a top 3 player on the, list of those 3000 drafted. If the universe has any parity at all, the Pats should become the worst franchise in the league after Brady retires for 50 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 the star of that team is a sixth round draft pick, who the owner didn't even know his name. And we want to give credit to their FO? Brady WAS dumb luck. I'm sure BB liked him, but come on folks, its kinda crazy to think BB's plan was to wait for his superstar QB for six rounds. The Bills best WR was drafted in a later round. So what? You judge a team by results. Anyone who wants to compare the results of the Patriots and Bills would be hard-pressed to come up with any meaningful comparison. You can hate them all you want, but how much do you wish that the Bills history of the last decade was the Patriots history over that decade? On one hand you claim Brady is everything and the reason they are great and your icon has him in a dress. Which is it? I wish the Bills had a pansy like Brady. Some of you remind me of Red Sox fans from before they won a World Series. They thought there was a rivalry with the Yankees. No one in NYC knew about it, though. Let the Bills have a .500 season for once and be happy with that instead of always crying about the team you wish played at the Ralph. Let's see if the Bills can even finish ahead of the Jets for a change, or Miami, before crying about the Pats all of the time. It gets old. If all we have to think about is crying about the Pats, we have nothing as Bills fans. Hey, under that logic, perhaps you're right. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 The Bills best WR was drafted in a later round. So what? It's still luck. Had either team known how good the player would become, they would have used a significantly higher pick on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 It's still luck. Had either team known how good the player would become, they would have used a significantly higher pick on him. Of course it's partially luck, partially skill, and partially hard work. Everything is. In order to be lucky, you better have those other two traits also, to increase your chances of getting lucky. The Pats have displayed this tenfold. The Bills haven't, at least not in recent memory. Brady is an all-time great. Belichick is an all-time great. We can cry and call them cheats and blahblahblah about it, but they win. Consistently. Brady goes down and Cassel looks like an all-pro. He gets a mega-deal and plays worse than a Bills QB. The Pats rotate garbage wide receivers in and out and they continue to win. The receivers play well there, stink it up elsewhere and return to be good again. This is great management of resources and putting players in a position to excel. That organization is the model for how to run a franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 (edited) Of course it's partially luck, partially skill, and partially hard work. Everything is. In order to be lucky, you better have those other two traits also, to increase your chances of getting lucky. The Pats have displayed this tenfold. The Bills haven't, at least not in recent memory. No, it's entirely luck. Even moreso when you consider the guys they picked before Brady in that 2000 draft, and the failed QB's they've drafted (some in higher rounds than they took Brady) since they drafted him. Nevermind the fact that the only reason Brady got onto the field is because a guy who hadn't missed many games up until that point suffered a life-threatening injury and missed most of the season. Not to mention the Pats didn't even know what they had in Brady even after being on the team for a year, since they gave Bledsoe a 10-year $100M contract prior to that fateful 2001 season. Brady is an all-time great. Belichick is an all-time great. We can cry and call them cheats and blahblahblah about it, but they win. Consistently. Brady goes down and Cassel looks like an all-pro. He gets a mega-deal and plays worse than a Bills QB. The Pats rotate garbage wide receivers in and out and they continue to win. The receivers play well there, stink it up elsewhere and return to be good again. This is great management of resources and putting players in a position to excel. That organization is the model for how to run a franchise. In a QB-driven league (and one where QB's are protected like never before, and would have prolonged Kelly's career), if you have a good one, you're already ahead. Add-in a defensive genius like Belichick and a guy like Ernie Adams who has a photographic memory and can tell you when a particular formation was used and what the play was and how to defend it, and you have a formidable team, so much so that a guy like Cassel, who hadn't played in a real game since high school, could take them to an 11-5 record. But even still, they had to use videotaping to win their SB's and haven't won one since being caught, which taints their legacy. Edited September 2, 2013 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 No, it's entirely luck. Even moreso when you consider the guys they picked before Brady in that 2000 draft, and the failed QB's they've drafted (some in higher rounds than they took Brady) since they drafted him. Nevermind the fact that the only reason Brady got onto the field is because a guy who hadn't missed many games up until that point suffered a life-threatening injury and missed most of the season. Not to mention the Pats didn't even know what they had in Brady even after being on the team for a year, since they gave Bledsoe a 10-year $100M contract prior to that fateful 2001 season. In a QB-driven league (and one where QB's are protected like never before, and would have prolonged Kelly's career), if you have a good one, you're already ahead. Add-in a defensive genius like Belichick and a guy like Ernie Adams who has a photographic memory and can tell you when a particular formation was used and what the play was and how to defend it, and you have a formidable team, so much so that a guy like Cassel, who hadn't played in a real game since high school, could take them to an 11-5 record. But even still, they had to use videotaping to win their SB's and haven't won one since being caught, which taints their legacy. Your logic is that the loser of the Super Bowl is no different than every other team. Even if we accept your premise that they won Super Bowls because of cheating - something I find to be absurd - they have won the division every year since then and have remained a perennial Super Bowl contender. To dismiss that accomplishment is just so incredibly absurd. It is nice to see that someone else is willing to call Belichick a genius here, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Your logic is that the loser of the Super Bowl is no different than every other team. Even if we accept your premise that they won Super Bowls because of cheating - something I find to be absurd - they have won the division every year since then and have remained a perennial Super Bowl contender. To dismiss that accomplishment is just so incredibly absurd. It is nice to see that someone else is willing to call Belichick a genius here, though. It's hardly absurd to attribute their SB wins to cheating. They got caught cheating and haven't won a Super Bowl since, despite having better teams than the ones that did win Super Bowls. As for being perennial contenders, they deserve to be commended for that, but I mentioned that having Brady, Belichick and Ernie Adams is a huge advantage, but that Brady was pure dumb luck on their part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 If one searches hard and long enough they'll figure out something which they believe rationalizes away greatness and use said excuse as an argument against the greatness point. One common rationalization you see all of the time is to excuse a head coach (or FO's) greatness due his/them having at their disposal superior players at strategic positions. One just has to read this thread to see this point being made wrt the Pats dynasty ...... the Pats, and BB, have Brady and he's solely responsible for the teams success no matter who else the GM sticks alongside him. We see the exact same thing argued when it comes to other NFL dynasties too; Lombardi had Starr and Taylor Walsh had Montana and Rice Noll had Badshaw, Harris and Swann JJ had Aikman, Smith and Irvin The NFL may well be the ultimate team sport. To signal out a few superstars is natural but, to minimize the impact and importance of 50+ non superstar players is doing these guys a gross injustice and makes for a very weak argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Your logic is that the loser of the Super Bowl is no different than every other team. Even if we accept your premise that they won Super Bowls because of cheating - something I find to be absurd - they have won the division every year since then and have remained a perennial Super Bowl contender. To dismiss that accomplishment is just so incredibly absurd. It is nice to see that someone else is willing to call Belichick a genius here, though. A while ago, the 49ers beat the Chargers in the Super Bowl by a score of 49-24. Had the Patriots won their Super Bowls with margins like that, there'd be no need to ask whether cheating affected the outcome of the game. But for narrow Super Bowl victories, you really have to wonder if cheating gave them that extra boost they needed. In the 2001 Super Bowl, the Patriots beat the Rams by three points. In the 2004 Super Bowl, the Patriots beat the Panthers by three points. In the 2005 Super Bowl, the Patriots defeated the Eagles by three points. If you knew the other team's signals, might that cause a different outcome in a moderate number of plays per game? Yes, it might. And might those plays cause a swing of more than three points? Absolutely! As far as I'm concerned, all three of the Patriots' Super Bowl wins have been tainted by cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 (edited) A while ago, the 49ers beat the Chargers in the Super Bowl by a score of 49-24. Had the Patriots won their Super Bowls with margins like that, there'd be no need to ask whether cheating affected the outcome of the game. But for narrow Super Bowl victories, you really have to wonder if cheating gave them that extra boost they needed. In the 2001 Super Bowl, the Patriots beat the Rams by three points. In the 2004 Super Bowl, the Patriots beat the Panthers by three points. In the 2005 Super Bowl, the Patriots defeated the Eagles by three points. If you knew the other team's signals, might that cause a different outcome in a moderate number of plays per game? Yes, it might. And might those plays cause a swing of more than three points? Absolutely! As far as I'm concerned, all three of the Patriots' Super Bowl wins have been tainted by cheating. Or, maybe the Bolts just sucked more than did the Pats opponents on them SB days. Edited September 3, 2013 by Pneumonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 If one searches hard and long enough they'll figure out something which they believe rationalizes away greatness and use said excuse as an argument against the greatness point. One common rationalization you see all of the time is to excuse a head coach (or FO's) greatness due his/them having at their disposal superior players at strategic positions. One just has to read this thread to see this point being made wrt the Pats dynasty ...... the Pats, and BB, have Brady and he's solely responsible for the teams success no matter who else the GM sticks alongside him. We see the exact same thing argued when it comes to other NFL dynasties too; Lombardi had Starr and Taylor Walsh had Montana and Rice Noll had Badshaw, Harris and Swann JJ had Aikman, Smith and Irvin The NFL may well be the ultimate team sport. To signal out a few superstars is natural but, to minimize the impact and importance of 50+ non superstar players is doing these guys a gross injustice and makes for a very weak argument. I agree with your general point, but not necessarily with all your examples. The Cowboys of the '90s were stacked with talent. They had so much talent that even a talking monkey could have won a Super Bowl with that team. Which Jerry Jones proceeded to prove by firing Jimmy Johnson and hiring Barry Switzer. Vince Lombardi and Bill Walsh were much better football coaches than Jimmy Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts