this is a much more honest conclusion to what they are doing. they have three second round picks again this coming draft (and a 1st) after having 4 second rd picks in the last draft. then add to that 2 first rounders in 2011 (1 being possibly a top 10 selection), and they are still in the drivers seat from a realistic stand point. i knew reading this board today would be amusing, but it's only week 1 in the books and that isn't going to send us to the superbowl. get a grip on things. it is good to see so the higher expectations for a change.
the guys a major reason they have 3 superbowls, and you don't think he's a hall of famer? they don't give them away, and many, most nfl players never even get to play in one, never mind win one. i think 3/4 of nfl fans would most likely disagree with you.
I think it looks as if they need that number of picks to get it right. The Pats have really whiffed on the draft the last few seasons. We gripe about Gholston, but they've really missed the boat of late. 2005 was what could be construed as a solid year, but 2006 and 2007 were nearly a total wash. With the exception of Mayo, 2008 doesn't look like such a picnic either. I think 1 first round pick from Oakland will have a hard time measuring up to, as I said, two more seasons plus of Seymour's prime. -X-
16 & 0 season, superbowl appearance 1 1/2 years ago (a loss, but still ?) they have to still be considered in the dynasty phase until another couple years go by without a superbowl appearance again. they are still a top one or two winningest franchise in the last ten years...
good thing you're not a GM, it is guys that think like you that belicheat keeps raping to the pats benefit. lets see, in a year and a half, when there is probably going to be a rookie cap, thous making top ten picks more desirable and valuable, and you think it wasn't worth the trade for a guy who will be on the decline in a year or two?? most GM's make that trade seven days a week and twice on sunday. why isn't tanny in touch with al davis more often. he's there to be had, obviously by the way BB rapes him!!!
You're right, Super Bowl losses are totally significant. Just ask the Buffalo Bills. Their dynasty was amazing. Pffffffffffft. Losing in the Super Bowl does not extend a dynasty. Or even a dynasty***. I don't give a shit how dominant they have been, you win the ring or you lose the title. Nobody's calling the 2000 Colts a dynasty, but they were more dominant over the first half of this decade than the Pats have been in the second half. Nobody's calling the 2000 Steelers a dynasty, but they have pretty much dominated over the past couple of decades. Stop enabling a loser mentality.
I think some on this board are getting a little carried away. The Patriots did not play well last night and poor production from their defensive line certainly played a part in that. But let's keep in mind all the loses that team has "suffered" and how they've always managed to overcome this to varying degrees of success. They have a LOT of talent on that DL in Warren, Green, Brace, Banta-Cain, and of course Wilfork. The biggest factor the Jets have in their favor right now is that they have, for the first time in a LONG time, a coach with defensive knowledge that compares to Belichick's. Ryan is akin to Belichick in that he can put his players in a position that takes full advantage of their skillsets and allows them to contribute as much as possible. The Patriots have a lot of young players on their team and a QB coming back after missing a year; they'll get better as the season goes on. The Jets have a rookie QB and, outside of Cotchery, a young WR corps; they will get better as the season goes on as well. This matchup, I think, is going to be a testing period for what I think will be epic battles to come. Both coaches will assess areas where they matchup well and poorly and will make dramatic adjustments. I expect this game to be physical and chippy, but the game up in Foxborough is going to be a more intense game. I also think it will be telling because we will see there which coach can adapt and gameplan better. I haven't been this excited about a non-Giants game in some time!
sorry, but the pat's 'dynasty' ended with the hiring of rex and with these words: "with the 5th pick in the 2008 draft..."
Charles Haley has three rings with the cowboys in the 90's and 2 rings with the 49ers in the 80's. he played a valuable part in all those victories. he averaged 8 sacks a year throughout his career vs seymour's 5. he has an nfl record 5 superbowl rings. he is passed over by the hall of fame comittee. just having rings should not put you in the hall. its a team game and you need everyone working on a high level to succeed. seymour has less rings...less sacks. hes not hall worthy
I think the Raiders will be an improved team in 2011. That division is full of garbage, so the Raiders will hopefully win 8 or 9 games in 2011. Jamarcus Russell is definitely not the answer at quarterback for them, but McFadden and Bush both look like very solid running backs and their defensve is full of top talent.
russell is so consistently terrible, it makes me wonder how anyone wanted to draft him he's big and has a strong arm, that's about it he isn't smart, he isn't accurate
cannot argue with that - i was impressed by them on monday. maybe we can get them to bite on one of our QB's provided sanchez impresses this year. jil
Will Al Davis even return a phone call from a Jersey area code? I can't think of any single person who hates the Jets more. The Raiders have always been a team that has won with a strong running game and a gritty, resourceful quarterback. Russell might be Al Davis wet dream with his big arm, but those Raiders teams have never really been as good as the pound the rock Raiders teams. Despite Russell, the Raiders have some nice players on defense and some very solid young running backs. They are not that far away from being a wild card contender. -X-
