Simplify the defense

This is why LeBeau needs to go his defense is too complex for rookies to start. This team needs a infusion of young talent say you draft some defensive players in 2013 draft with early picks some of them would need to play right away. Maybe Keith Butler takes over as DC in 2013.

 

I think Dicks problem is all of his players are hurt

 

Seriously, the way this defense has done things has proven to be successful for well over a decade. Starting rookies that are not ready isn't going to solve the problem. Fans will have a field day with rookies that don't play within the defense at a high level.

 

The game has changed. You can't just stop the run and expect to have success because teams are suddenly one dimensional. Many teams choose to be one dimensional all on their own. Just because something has worked for decades doesn't mean it will work now.

 

But Lebeau's strategies have changed. Perhaps not as drastically as some want, but there have been changes in the last few seasons.

I do tend to get frustrated that we don't see more rookies starting, especially when they shine. But I also tend to think that Madden-chair head coaches who believe that younger automatically equals better can overstate things a tad.

 

All around the league young guys are stepping in and playing well, and that includes young guys on very good teams. Look at Chandler Jones in NE. Not just stepped in and played, but is arguably their best Dlineman. Why do our guys need 3 years to learn the system? How the hell is it so complicated it takes 3 years? That alone is a problem, but it was a problem that didn't need addressing when it worked. Now that Lebeau's system is no longer working, everything comes to the forefront.

I have not seen any changes in Lebeaus system, at least nothing significant. In fact, players and analysts around the league are saying we are running the same defence we have always run.

The days of LB'ers and DL's dropping into coverage have changed. While LB's will of course always have a place in coverage and they are needed for that purpose, it's not like it used to be. TE's these days are too damn fast and most LB'ers can't cover them anymore. Look at Harrison trying to cover Cook. Some on here say that was a broken play and Harrison wasn't supposed to cover Cook. I haven't watched a replay of that play nor do I want to, but if it was a broken play, why was a TO not called by Lebeau or whoever the hell the defensive captain is these days?

 

Right. And sometimes we get a guy who does that. My point was more (and not, tbh, particularly aimed at you) that the belief that younger is always better can be misguided.

The scheme is the same, no doubt. But some folks (again, not you particularly) are making out like Lebeau does no planning, no changes for each opponent, no adjustments after everyone "sussed out" the way to beat us was dink and dunk, etc. etc. And that just isn't true.

Can't argue there.

 

Go look at where this defense ranked in every statistical category last season. The defense wasn't just about stopping the run. They wanted to stop the run, apply pressure to QB's, and limit big plays. There is a reason why defenses wanted to emulate the Steelers defense. I think fans need to get use to the idea that the days of consistently dominating defenses are probably over. That's because the league has slanted most of the rules towards offenses.

It would be a mistake to make drastic changes because of one season that doesn't live up to expectations. This season is far from over.

 

I don't need to look up the stats last year. The stats are flawed. Going into this week, we were ranked as the 5th best defence in the league, that shows how much of a joke the stats are. We were not a good defence last year, we just had the benefit of playing against a bunch of awful QB's.

Our defence is terrible

 

Defence? Where are you from?

 

The defensive scheme is predicated on players winning one on one matchups. The Steelers don't have enough athletes on that side of the ball that can do that on a regular basis. The other option would be what was tried 1998-2000 when the D sat back in a zone and got picked apart slowly. The talent needs to be improved and some hard decisions are upcoming with some of the big money veterans on the decline.

 

I will give you this, but also add in the fact the young guys drafted to step in aren't stars in waiting, they are pretty average. That is a problem.

 

This arguement is really old and flawed in of itself.

Every other team who had a "top defense" last year played a schedule with QBs just as so-called "weak" as the ones we played. SF played weak QBs, Baltimore played weak QBs, Houston played weak QBS. None of these defenses played overall better than our defense. Facts are the days of total dominating shut-down defenses are over. The rules are way too slanted toward the offense to allow this.

 

This arguement is really old and flawed in of itself.

Every other team who had a "top defense" last year played a schedule with QBs just as so-called "weak" as the ones we played. SF played weak QBs, Baltimore played weak QBs, Houston played weak QBS. None of these defenses played overall better than our defense. Facts are the days of total dominating shut-down defenses are over. The rules are way too slanted toward the offense to allow this.[/quote:3c318slw]

Are you kidding me? SF's defence played far, far better than ours did. They also did shut teams down all season long, including giving up only 1 rushing TD all season I believe. They were far superior to us in every way.

Our defence last year is exactly the same as it is this year, the difference is that we're playing good QB's this year and we played a lot of terrible QB's last year. Hell, even Curtis Painter put up 20 points on us.

 

This arguement is really old and flawed in of itself.

Every other team who had a "top defense" last year played a schedule with QBs just as so-called "weak" as the ones we played. SF played weak QBs, Baltimore played weak QBs, Houston played weak QBS. None of these defenses played overall better than our defense. Facts are the days of total dominating shut-down defenses are over. The rules are way too slanted toward the offense to allow this.[/quote:26jkelhi]

Are you kidding me? SF's defence played far, far better than ours did. They also did shut teams down all season long, including giving up only 1 rushing TD all season I believe. They were far superior to us in every way.

Our defence last year is exactly the same as it is this year, the difference is that we're playing good QB's this year and we played a lot of terrible QB's last year. Hell, even Curtis Painter put up 20 points on us.[/quote:26jkelhi]

SF has alot of top draft picks on that defense, from being down for so long. they haven't picked below the top 10 for years. it's finally paying off for them. we didn't have that luxaury. our first round picks are usually around the level as their second rounders, but we have to pay ours as first rounders. our second rounders are at the level of their third rounders, yet we pay second round money for them and so on. makes a big difference.

 

This arguement is really old and flawed in of itself.

Every other team who had a "top defense" last year played a schedule with QBs just as so-called "weak" as the ones we played. SF played weak QBs, Baltimore played weak QBs, Houston played weak QBS. None of these defenses played overall better than our defense. Facts are the days of total dominating shut-down defenses are over. The rules are way too slanted toward the offense to allow this.[/quote:3j79p5ms]

Are you kidding me? SF's defence played far, far better than ours did. They also did shut teams down all season long, including giving up only 1 rushing TD all season I believe. They were far superior to us in every way.

Our defence last year is exactly the same as it is this year, the difference is that we're playing good QB's this year and we played a lot of terrible QB's last year. Hell, even Curtis Painter put up 20 points on us.[/quote:3j79p5ms]

SF has alot of top draft picks on that defense, from being down for so long. they haven't picked below the top 10 for years. it's finally paying off for them. we didn't have that luxaury. our first round picks are usually around the level as their second rounders, but we have to pay ours as first rounders. makes a big difference. [/quote:3j79p5ms]

I have no idea about their past drafts, but even if what you say is true and they have a lot of high draft picks on the defence, I'm not sure how that's even relevant. Sure, I guess it can make a difference, although other teams around the league draft high every year and never field a good team, and teams like us and the Pats normally don't draft high and still field a contender every year. Plus, at the end of the season they don't award the SB based on how few high draft picks you have, they award it based on the best team. That just sounds like an excuse for our awful play. We've been drafting high for a long time now and it's never affected us negatively until the last few years. We've always managed to turn LB'ers into studs regardless of how high or low they were drafted, or whether they were even drafted at all.

 

This arguement is really old and flawed in of itself.

Every other team who had a "top defense" last year played a schedule with QBs just as so-called "weak" as the ones we played. SF played weak QBs, Baltimore played weak QBs, Houston played weak QBS. None of these defenses played overall better than our defense. Facts are the days of total dominating shut-down defenses are over. The rules are way too slanted toward the offense to allow this.[/quote:2nbbwpwn]

Are you kidding me? SF's defence played far, far better than ours did. They also did shut teams down all season long, including giving up only 1 rushing TD all season I believe. They were far superior to us in every way.

Our defence last year is exactly the same as it is this year, the difference is that we're playing good QB's this year and we played a lot of terrible QB's last year. Hell, even Curtis Painter put up 20 points on us.[/quote:2nbbwpwn]

SF has alot of top draft picks on that defense, from being down for so long. they haven't picked below the top 10 for years. it's finally paying off for them. we didn't have that luxaury. our first round picks are usually around the level as their second rounders, but we have to pay ours as first rounders. makes a big difference. [/quote:2nbbwpwn]

I have no idea about their past drafts, but even if what you say is true and they have a lot of high draft picks on the defence, I'm not sure how that's even relevant. Sure, I guess it can make a difference, although other teams around the league draft high every year and never field a good team, and teams like us and the Pats normally don't draft high and still field a contender every year. Plus, at the end of the season they don't award the SB based on how few high draft picks you have, they award it based on the best team. That just sounds like an excuse for our awful play.

. We've always managed to turn LB'ers into studs regardless of how high or low they were drafted, or whether they were even drafted at all.[/quote:2nbbwpwn]

when have we been drafting high lately?

NE takes players they got in free agency and turns them into high draft picks every year. even the year they had their first rounder taken from them because of cheating, they still had a first rounder banked. they had two last year. SF didn't win a SB with that great defense that i'm aware of. if we are going to build through the draft, we can't expect to take the 25th best player in every round and make it work.

 

This arguement is really old and flawed in of itself.

Every other team who had a "top defense" last year played a schedule with QBs just as so-called "weak" as the ones we played. SF played weak QBs, Baltimore played weak QBs, Houston played weak QBS. None of these defenses played overall better than our defense. Facts are the days of total dominating shut-down defenses are over. The rules are way too slanted toward the offense to allow this.[/quote:2a7rkfo5]

Are you kidding me? SF's defence played far, far better than ours did. They also did shut teams down all season long, including giving up only 1 rushing TD all season I believe. They were far superior to us in every way.

Our defence last year is exactly the same as it is this year, the difference is that we're playing good QB's this year and we played a lot of terrible QB's last year. Hell, even Curtis Painter put up 20 points on us.[/quote:2a7rkfo5]

SF has alot of top draft picks on that defense, from being down for so long. they haven't picked below the top 10 for years. it's finally paying off for them. we didn't have that luxaury. our first round picks are usually around the level as their second rounders, but we have to pay ours as first rounders. makes a big difference. [/quote:2a7rkfo5]

I have no idea about their past drafts, but even if what you say is true and they have a lot of high draft picks on the defence, I'm not sure how that's even relevant. Sure, I guess it can make a difference, although other teams around the league draft high every year and never field a good team, and teams like us and the Pats normally don't draft high and still field a contender every year. Plus, at the end of the season they don't award the SB based on how few high draft picks you have, they award it based on the best team. That just sounds like an excuse for our awful play.

. We've always managed to turn LB'ers into studs regardless of how high or low they were drafted, or whether they were even drafted at all.[/quote:2a7rkfo5]

when have we been drafting high lately?

NE takes players they got in free agency and turns them into high draft picks every year. even the year they had their first rounder taken from them because of cheating, they still had a first rounder banked. they had two last year. SF didn't win a SB with that great defense that i'm aware of. if we are going to build through the draft, we can't expect to take the 25th best player in every round and make it work.
[/quote:2a7rkfo5]

I meant we have been drafting low. Yes, NE had a 2 picks last year, but perhaps you should go look at their past drafts, they almost always trade back, quite often right out of the 1st round altogether. High draft picks are only one small part of building a team. We've built SB contenders for a long time now without having high picks. It is absolutely possible to take the 25th best player in the draft and make it work because we've done it for a long time, NE has done, GB has done it, the Colts did it for a long time, etc. Look at teams like St. Louis, how many high draft picks have they had and they are still among the bottom feeders. Where a team drafts is a small part of building a contender.

 

This arguement is really old and flawed in of itself.

Every other team who had a "top defense" last year played a schedule with QBs just as so-called "weak" as the ones we played. SF played weak QBs, Baltimore played weak QBs, Houston played weak QBS. None of these defenses played overall better than our defense. Facts are the days of total dominating shut-down defenses are over. The rules are way too slanted toward the offense to allow this.[/quote:2k1vcnb6]

Are you kidding me? SF's defence played far, far better than ours did. They also did shut teams down all season long, including giving up only 1 rushing TD all season I believe. They were far superior to us in every way.

Our defence last year is exactly the same as it is this year, the difference is that we're playing good QB's this year and we played a lot of terrible QB's last year. Hell, even Curtis Painter put up 20 points on us.[/quote:2k1vcnb6]

SF has alot of top draft picks on that defense, from being down for so long. they haven't picked below the top 10 for years. it's finally paying off for them. we didn't have that luxaury. our first round picks are usually around the level as their second rounders, but we have to pay ours as first rounders. makes a big difference. [/quote:2k1vcnb6]

I have no idea about their past drafts, but even if what you say is true and they have a lot of high draft picks on the defence, I'm not sure how that's even relevant. Sure, I guess it can make a difference, although other teams around the league draft high every year and never field a good team, and teams like us and the Pats normally don't draft high and still field a contender every year. Plus, at the end of the season they don't award the SB based on how few high draft picks you have, they award it based on the best team. That just sounds like an excuse for our awful play.

. We've always managed to turn LB'ers into studs regardless of how high or low they were drafted, or whether they were even drafted at all.[/quote:2k1vcnb6]

when have we been drafting high lately?

NE takes players they got in free agency and turns them into high draft picks every year. even the year they had their first rounder taken from them because of cheating, they still had a first rounder banked. they had two last year. SF didn't win a SB with that great defense that i'm aware of. if we are going to build through the draft, we can't expect to take the 25th best player in every round and make it work.
[/quote:2k1vcnb6]

I meant we have been drafting low. Yes, NE had a 2 picks last year, but perhaps you should go look at their past drafts, they almost always trade back, quite often right out of the 1st round altogether. High draft picks are only one small part of building a team. We've built SB contenders for a long time now without having high picks. It is absolutely possible to take the 25th best player in the draft and make it work because we've done it for a long time, NE has done, GB has done it, the Colts did it for a long time, etc.

Where a team drafts is a small part of building a contender.[/quote:2k1vcnb6]

they have won more games then we have this season.

 

It's funny that we talk about the defense being too complex for our young players but I've heard other players around the league and analysts talk about how simple our defense is to go against once it's figured out. It's obvious that a lot of OCs have DL's number and he has been unwilling or unable to adjust.

 

This arguement is really old and flawed in of itself.

Every other team who had a "top defense" last year played a schedule with QBs just as so-called "weak" as the ones we played. SF played weak QBs, Baltimore played weak QBs, Houston played weak QBS. None of these defenses played overall better than our defense. Facts are the days of total dominating shut-down defenses are over. The rules are way too slanted toward the offense to allow this.[/quote:1c8up124]

Are you kidding me? SF's defence played far, far better than ours did. They also did shut teams down all season long, including giving up only 1 rushing TD all season I believe. They were far superior to us in every way.

Our defence last year is exactly the same as it is this year, the difference is that we're playing good QB's this year and we played a lot of terrible QB's last year. Hell, even Curtis Painter put up 20 points on us.[/quote:1c8up124]

SF has alot of top draft picks on that defense, from being down for so long. they haven't picked below the top 10 for years. it's finally paying off for them. we didn't have that luxaury. our first round picks are usually around the level as their second rounders, but we have to pay ours as first rounders. makes a big difference. [/quote:1c8up124]

I have no idea about their past drafts, but even if what you say is true and they have a lot of high draft picks on the defence, I'm not sure how that's even relevant. Sure, I guess it can make a difference, although other teams around the league draft high every year and never field a good team, and teams like us and the Pats normally don't draft high and still field a contender every year. Plus, at the end of the season they don't award the SB based on how few high draft picks you have, they award it based on the best team. That just sounds like an excuse for our awful play.

when have we been drafting high lately?

NE takes players they got in free agency and turns them into high draft picks every year. even the year they had their first rounder taken from them because of cheating, they still had a first rounder banked. they had two last year. SF didn't win a SB with that great defense that i'm aware of. if we are going to build through the draft, we can't expect to take the 25th best player in every round and make it work.
[/quote:1c8up124]

I meant we have been drafting low. Yes, NE had a 2 picks last year, but perhaps you should go look at their past drafts, they almost always trade back, quite often right out of the 1st round altogether. High draft picks are only one small part of building a team. We've built SB contenders for a long time now without having high picks. It is absolutely possible to take the 25th best player in the draft and make it work because we've done it for a long time, NE has done, GB has done it, the Colts did it for a long time, etc.

they have won more games then we have this season. [/quote:1c8up124][/quote:1c8up124][/quote:1c8up124]

I see you missed the part where I said where a team drafts is a small part of that teams success. How long has Cleveland been drafting near the top? What about Buffalo? Kansas City and Oakland normally draft high (when Oakland doesn't trade away all their picks). How has that worked out for those teams?

I laid out a list of teams that rarely get high draft picks and are always contenders, NE, GB, Indy (when they had Manning) and until recently, us. You do not need high draft picks to be successful, you need to draft well, develop well and coach well.

Since you focused on NE and them apparently getting high draft picks, since 2007 they have had exactly the same number of top 20 picks as we have, 2. We have been making this formula work for a long time, and so have other teams. We do not need top 10 picks to remain competitive. Sure, we will have down years where we end up with a top 20 picks, perhaps a top 15 pick even, but for the most part we haven't had a lot high picks over the years and it has never negatively affected us until now. Not only are we a bad team, but there doesn't appear to even be a light at the end of the tunnel. Other than Timmons, who is hit or miss, who do we have that's a long term starter on defence and will produce at a high level? Don't say Heyward, because we don't know that yet. Maybe he will, maybe he won't.

The other thing I notice about other teams draft picks, is they actually start. The Patriots have their 2 1st round picks starting for them this year, we still don't have Heyward starting for us. That's a problem.

 

This arguement is really old and flawed in of itself.

Every other team who had a "top defense" last year played a schedule with QBs just as so-called "weak" as the ones we played. SF played weak QBs, Baltimore played weak QBs, Houston played weak QBS. None of these defenses played overall better than our defense. Facts are the days of total dominating shut-down defenses are over. The rules are way too slanted toward the offense to allow this.[/quote:2v93xw39]

Are you kidding me? SF's defence played far, far better than ours did. They also did shut teams down all season long, including giving up only 1 rushing TD all season I believe. They were far superior to us in every way.

Our defence last year is exactly the same as it is this year, the difference is that we're playing good QB's this year and we played a lot of terrible QB's last year. Hell, even Curtis Painter put up 20 points on us.[/quote:2v93xw39]

SF has alot of top draft picks on that defense, from being down for so long. they haven't picked below the top 10 for years. it's finally paying off for them. we didn't have that luxaury. our first round picks are usually around the level as their second rounders, but we have to pay ours as first rounders. makes a big difference. [/quote:2v93xw39]

I have no idea about their past drafts, but even if what you say is true and they have a lot of high draft picks on the defence, I'm not sure how that's even relevant. Sure, I guess it can make a difference, although other teams around the league draft high every year and never field a good team, and teams like us and the Pats normally don't draft high and still field a contender every year. Plus, at the end of the season they don't award the SB based on how few high draft picks you have, they award it based on the best team. That just sounds like an excuse for our awful play.

when have we been drafting high lately?

NE takes players they got in free agency and turns them into high draft picks every year. even the year they had their first rounder taken from them because of cheating, they still had a first rounder banked. they had two last year. SF didn't win a SB with that great defense that i'm aware of. if we are going to build through the draft, we can't expect to take the 25th best player in every round and make it work.
[/quote:2v93xw39]

I meant we have been drafting low. Yes, NE had a 2 picks last year, but perhaps you should go look at their past drafts, they almost always trade back, quite often right out of the 1st round altogether. High draft picks are only one small part of building a team. We've built SB contenders for a long time now without having high picks. It is absolutely possible to take the 25th best player in the draft and make it work because we've done it for a long time, NE has done, GB has done it, the Colts did it for a long time, etc.

they have won more games then we have this season. [/quote:2v93xw39][/quote:2v93xw39][/quote:2v93xw39]

I see you missed the part where I said where a team drafts is a small part of that teams success. How long has Cleveland been drafting near the top? What about Buffalo? Kansas City and Oakland normally draft high (when Oakland doesn't trade away all their picks). How has that worked out for those teams?

I laid out a list of teams that rarely get high draft picks and are always contenders, NE, GB, Indy (when they had Manning) and until recently, us. You do not need high draft picks to be successful, you need to draft well, develop well and coach well.

We have been making this formula work for a long time, and so have other teams. We do not need top 10 picks to remain competitive. Sure, we will have down years where we end up with a top 20 picks, perhaps a top 15 pick even, but for the most part we haven't had a lot high picks over the years and it has never negatively affected us until now. Not only are we a bad team, but there doesn't appear to even be a light at the end of the tunnel. Other than Timmons, who is hit or miss, who do we have that's a long term starter on defence and will produce at a high level? Don't say Heyward, because we don't know that yet. Maybe he will, maybe he won't.

The other thing I notice about other teams draft picks, is they actually start. The Patriots have their 2 1st round picks starting for them this year, we still don't have Heyward starting for us. That's a problem.[/quote:2v93xw39]


your missing the point shanner. NE has more 1st rounders and if you look, they do it in the 2nd too. top of the second round when we picked 31. they are getting two for our one in most drafts in the same round. they also have the best qb in the game to keep them in it when the defense is subpar. they are smart about getting players that most teams discard and use them effectively for a couple of years and pawn them off for high draft picks. they draft 5 top picks in the first 3 rounds to our two, and it would have been more if they didn't cheat and lose a first round pick. so, no it's not even close to drafting around the same place. cleveland is getting better , don't think they aren't. we will not beat them with the way we are playing right now. we have been lucky in the draft with a couple of players falling in our laps. decastro and mendy come to mind even pouncey. we moved up for troy. ben fell to us but we were not at the bottom then either.

 

This arguement is really old and flawed in of itself.

Every other team who had a "top defense" last year played a schedule with QBs just as so-called "weak" as the ones we played. SF played weak QBs, Baltimore played weak QBs, Houston played weak QBS. None of these defenses played overall better than our defense. Facts are the days of total dominating shut-down defenses are over. The rules are way too slanted toward the offense to allow this.[/quote:1nsxxqfj]

Are you kidding me? SF's defence played far, far better than ours did. They also did shut teams down all season long, including giving up only 1 rushing TD all season I believe. They were far superior to us in every way.

Our defence last year is exactly the same as it is this year, the difference is that we're playing good QB's this year and we played a lot of terrible QB's last year. Hell, even Curtis Painter put up 20 points on us.[/quote:1nsxxqfj]

SF has alot of top draft picks on that defense, from being down for so long. they haven't picked below the top 10 for years. it's finally paying off for them. we didn't have that luxaury. our first round picks are usually around the level as their second rounders, but we have to pay ours as first rounders. makes a big difference. [/quote:1nsxxqfj]

I have no idea about their past drafts, but even if what you say is true and they have a lot of high draft picks on the defence, I'm not sure how that's even relevant. Sure, I guess it can make a difference, although other teams around the league draft high every year and never field a good team, and teams like us and the Pats normally don't draft high and still field a contender every year. Plus, at the end of the season they don't award the SB based on how few high draft picks you have, they award it based on the best team. That just sounds like an excuse for our awful play.

when have we been drafting high lately?

NE takes players they got in free agency and turns them into high draft picks every year. even the year they had their first rounder taken from them because of cheating, they still had a first rounder banked. they had two last year. SF didn't win a SB with that great defense that i'm aware of. if we are going to build through the draft, we can't expect to take the 25th best player in every round and make it work.
[/quote:1nsxxqfj]

I meant we have been drafting low. Yes, NE had a 2 picks last year, but perhaps you should go look at their past drafts, they almost always trade back, quite often right out of the 1st round altogether. High draft picks are only one small part of building a team. We've built SB contenders for a long time now without having high picks. It is absolutely possible to take the 25th best player in the draft and make it work because we've done it for a long time, NE has done, GB has done it, the Colts did it for a long time, etc.

they have won more games then we have this season. [/quote:1nsxxqfj][/quote:1nsxxqfj][/quote:1nsxxqfj]

I see you missed the part where I said where a team drafts is a small part of that teams success. How long has Cleveland been drafting near the top? What about Buffalo? Kansas City and Oakland normally draft high (when Oakland doesn't trade away all their picks). How has that worked out for those teams?

I laid out a list of teams that rarely get high draft picks and are always contenders, NE, GB, Indy (when they had Manning) and until recently, us. You do not need high draft picks to be successful, you need to draft well, develop well and coach well.

We have been making this formula work for a long time, and so have other teams. We do not need top 10 picks to remain competitive. Sure, we will have down years where we end up with a top 20 picks, perhaps a top 15 pick even, but for the most part we haven't had a lot high picks over the years and it has never negatively affected us until now. Not only are we a bad team, but there doesn't appear to even be a light at the end of the tunnel. Other than Timmons, who is hit or miss, who do we have that's a long term starter on defence and will produce at a high level? Don't say Heyward, because we don't know that yet. Maybe he will, maybe he won't.

The other thing I notice about other teams draft picks, is they actually start. The Patriots have their 2 1st round picks starting for them this year, we still don't have Heyward starting for us. That's a problem.[/quote:1nsxxqfj]


your missing the point shanner. NE has more 1st rounders and if you look, they do it in the 2nd too. top of the second round when we picked 31. they are getting two for our one in most drafts in the same round. they also have the best qb in the game to keep them in it when the defense is subpar. they are smart about getting players that most teams discard and use them effectively for a couple of years and pawn them off for high draft picks. they draft 5 top picks in the first 3 rounds to our two, and it would have been more if they didn't cheat and lose a first round pick. so, no it's not even close to drafting around the same place. cleveland is getting better , don't think they aren't. we will not beat them with the way we are playing right now. we have been lucky in the draft with a couple of players falling in our laps. decastro and mendy come to mind even pouncey. we moved up for troy. ben fell to us but we were not at the bottom then either. [/quote:1nsxxqfj]

No I'm not missing the point at all. First you said we can't remain competitive by drafting the 25th best player in the draft, now you're talking about guys NE drafted in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. You're right though, they are smart about grabbing players other teams discard and using them effectively, but that has nothing to do with the draft and makes my point that where a team drafts is a small part of the bigger picture. You keep focusing on NE, but we have remained competitive for a long time with mostly low draft picks. Other teams have done the same thing. Then you have teams like Cleveland, Miami, Kansas City, Oakland, Buffalo and others that constantly have high picks and do nothing with them. I don't care that Cleveland is now improving, that also proves my point. They finally have a good GM, a good coach and stable ownership. That will do more for them than all those high draft picks they have wasted over the years.

Other teams make low draft picks work, including 2nd and 3rd rounders, and we used to be one of those teams. Now we can't even make our 1st round picks pan out.

If you want to insist all our problems are a result of consistently drafting late in the 1st round, then we'll have to agree to disagree, because I have shown that other teams remain successful despite also drafting late in rounds, and other teams that constantly draft high have little long term success.