Malcolm Butler Signed, Returning to Patriots for 2 Years

[DropKickFlutie]

=D

 

[aloyouis]

It's hard to erase 20 years of conditioning where you were always the favs to come out of the AFC or at least get to the conference championship game. Also, some folks mistakenly believed that the success of the two decades was primarily driven by Bill and are now just waking up the reality that the GOAT QB was the main reason for the historic run.

GO


AWAY


We prefer mosquitos over you.

Because they are honest and you are not.

 

[aloyouis]

I agree. But my point was is most thought Bill would pick things up and the team would be back on top the division and a contender. I think all of us, myself included, are getting an education on the value of just an elite QB much less the GOAT.

What we are getting is a lesson in what a dangerously obsessed person looks like.

It ain't pretty.

 

[aloyouis]

It. Just. can't. be. stopped.

It can be. Talk to the clown.

 

[aloyouis]

I think the Patriots are going to win more this year than people are giving them a chance to.
Last year, no one expected them to make the playoffs, and that was with a team with mostly new players and a rookie QB.

Getting distracted by FA signings is a trap every NFL fan falls into every year. How many of them actually work out?

THIS^^^

 

[DropKickFlutie]

He's good depth but he could be CB3. Or possibly CB2. Now, when does TC start again?

He's old. Probably a bench buy. Jon Jones is one of the best slot CBs in the league. Problem is Mills has no business playing CB1. They really need a CB1

 

[Big/Sky/Fly]

He's old. Probably a bench buy. Jon Jones is one of the best slot CBs in the league. Problem is Mills has no business playing CB1. They really need a CB1

Yes. He sucks. Ass.

 

[Flagg the Wanderer]

He's old. Probably a bench buy. Jon Jones is one of the best slot CBs in the league. Problem is Mills has no business playing CB1. They really need a CB1

But getting CB2s and 3s as they are able is a positive thing, right? As opposed to not getting them?

And what about the possibility of getting guys who will never be CB1s or even 2s playing in a man system, but are skilled and valuable as zone DBs? Because Butler was never a Revis Island guy, but he did have a "particular set of skills" that included being dangerous dropping into zone. Should we just be saying screw it since we can't find Revis/Talib/Law/Gilmore in their prime?

 

[TommyD420]

But getting CB2s and 3s as they are able is a positive thing, right? As opposed to not getting them?

And what about the possibility of getting guys who will never be CB1s or even 2s playing in a man system, but are skilled and valuable as zone DBs? Because Butler was never a Revis Island guy, but he did have a "particular set of skills" that included being dangerous dropping into zone. Should we just be saying screw it since we can't find Revis/Talib/Law/Gilmore in their prime?

If they're switching to a majority zone coverage scheme, it's not the worst signing, and there are CBs out there who are good at it, who can be signed for cheap.

If they're switching to a majority zone coverage scheme though, expect much gnashing of teeth from the fanbase this season. In theory, playing zone would allow a strong pass rush to get home much more frequently, and do a better job not having slow LBs isolated on running backs. Drawback of course being, accurate QBs and precise offenses should be able to tear it apart.

 

[deec77]

It's hard to erase 20 years of conditioning where you were always the favs to come out of the AFC or at least get to the conference championship game. Also, some folks mistakenly believed that the success of the two decades was primarily driven by Bill and are now just waking up the reality that the GOAT QB was the main reason for the historic run.

Try 45 years .....lol then come back. The Patriots sucked long before both Bill and Brady. Get over yourself.
And what does this have to do with the Butler deal.

~Dee~

 

[aloyouis]

Try 45 years .....lol then come back. The Patriots sucked long before both Bill and Brady. Get over yourself.
And what does this have to do with the Butler deal.

~Dee~

It doesn't.

One trick pony.

 

[TommyD420]

Ignore is your friend.

 

[Flagg the Wanderer]

If they're switching to a majority zone coverage scheme, it's not the worst signing, and there are CBs out there who are good at it, who can be signed for cheap.

If they're switching to a majority zone coverage scheme though, expect much gnashing of teeth from the fanbase this season. In theory, playing zone would allow a strong pass rush to get home much more frequently, and do a better job not having slow LBs isolated on running backs. Drawback of course being, accurate QBs and precise offenses should be able to tear it apart.

Well, two of the top QBs in the conference have had the hardest time dealing with defenses that can get pressure with 3 or 4 while dropping 7 or 8 into messy zone-based and man-zone scenes, which is, as it happens, also a good way to handle scrambling QBs, so...

It's how BB owned Peyton in the early part of the dynasty, and how he wrecked Mahomes day on several occasions.

I'm a fan of man coverage as a baseline, but there's a lot you can do when you can trot out a couple safeties and hybrids that can cover alongside a handful of CB2s with zone skills. Like going man on a WR3 that is a good matchup or a TE1, allowing the zone to be denser around the top threats you can't cover well 1-on-1.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we've won Lombardis with CBs worse than this group. The keys are flexibility, coachability/buy-in, and excellent play from your safeties.

 

[Mazz22]

Well, two of the top QBs in the conference have had the hardest time dealing with defenses that can get pressure with 3 or 4 while dropping 7 or 8 into messy zone-based and man-zone scenes, which is, as it happens, also a good way to handle scrambling QBs, so...

It's how BB owned Peyton in the early part of the dynasty, and how he wrecked Mahomes day on several occasions.

I'm a fan of man coverage as a baseline, but there's a lot you can do when you can trot out a couple safeties and hybrids that can cover alongside a handful of CB2s with zone skills. Like going man on a WR3 that is a good matchup or a TE1, allowing the zone to be denser around the top threats you can't cover well 1-on-1.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we've won Lombardis with CBs worse than this group. The keys are flexibility, coachability/buy-in, and excellent play from your safeties.

The league has changed though. It is nearly impossible to contain these high flying offenses for 60 minutes without top CBs. This is obviously a reset year pretty much the same as 2020 with the draft being key to bolster the roster with young talent.

 

[HSanders]

Well, two of the top QBs in the conference have had the hardest time dealing with defenses that can get pressure with 3 or 4 while dropping 7 or 8 into messy zone-based and man-zone scenes, which is, as it happens, also a good way to handle scrambling QBs, so...

It's how BB owned Peyton in the early part of the dynasty, and how he wrecked Mahomes day on several occasions.

I'm a fan of man coverage as a baseline, but there's a lot you can do when you can trot out a couple safeties and hybrids that can cover alongside a handful of CB2s with zone skills. Like going man on a WR3 that is a good matchup or a TE1, allowing the zone to be denser around the top threats you can't cover well 1-on-1.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we've won Lombardis with CBs worse than this group. The keys are flexibility, coachability/buy-in, and excellent play from your safeties.

good points. i was thinking today i'd rather see a heady safety drafted high, with a year or 2 of dmac as a partner. in 04, because they had rodney, losing law wasn't as painful.

 

[deec77]

Well, two of the top QBs in the conference have had the hardest time dealing with defenses that can get pressure with 3 or 4 while dropping 7 or 8 into messy zone-based and man-zone scenes, which is, as it happens, also a good way to handle scrambling QBs, so...

It's how BB owned Peyton in the early part of the dynasty, and how he wrecked Mahomes day on several occasions.

I'm a fan of man coverage as a baseline, but there's a lot you can do when you can trot out a couple safeties and hybrids that can cover alongside a handful of CB2s with zone skills. Like going man on a WR3 that is a good matchup or a TE1, allowing the zone to be denser around the top threats you can't cover well 1-on-1.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we've won Lombardis with CBs worse than this group. The keys are flexibility, coachability/buy-in, and excellent play from your safeties.

good points. i was thinking today i'd rather see a heady safety drafted high, with a year or 2 of dmac as a partner. in 04, because they had rodney, losing law wasn't as painful.

This and lots of this..... exactly

~Dee~

 

[Flagg the Wanderer]

The league has changed though. It is nearly impossible to contain these high flying offenses for 60 minutes without top CBs. This is obviously a reset year pretty much the same as 2020 with the draft being key to bolster the roster with young talent.

Show receipts. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Show receipts. You have no idea what you're talking about.

To be more specific, the top scoring offense of all time was in 2013. Only 3 or the top 10 are since then, and one of those was the 2019 Ravens, who were 29th in the league against the pass. #3 was Mahomes in 2018. #6 was the 2016 Falcons. In both cases the offenses were in exactly the situation I described. But there are as many offenses from before 2000 than since 2013 in the top 10, once you exclude the Ravens running offense.

So tell me, Person On The Board Who No One Wants To Hear From, how has the game changed where you NEED not just 1, but apparently multiple "top CBs"?

Or were you talking out of your ass, just spewing something to suit The Only Narrative You Have, as usual?

 

[Mazz22]

To be more specific, the top scoring offense of all time was in 2013. Only 3 or the top 10 are since then, and one of those was the 2019 Ravens, who were 29th in the league against the pass. #3 was Mahomes in 2018. #6 was the 2016 Falcons. In both cases the offenses were in exactly the situation I described. But there are as many offenses from before 2000 than since 2013 in the top 10, once you exclude the Ravens running offense.

So tell me, Person On The Board Who No One Wants To Hear From, how has the game changed where you NEED not just 1, but apparently multiple "top CBs"?

Or were you talking out of your ass, just spewing something to suit The Only Narrative You Have, as usual?

Tell me something , why do top CBs make so much money? Why did Bill pay Gilmore all that money in 2017?

 

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Tell me something , why do top CBs make so much money? Why did Bill pay Gilmore all that money in 2017?

You weren't arguing that CB1s are valuable. You were arguing that "the game has changed" because "high flying offenses." To the extent that the game has changed, it's not because of high flying offenses.

Two main drivers of price, right? Supply and demand. You're arguing that demand for them is higher because of high flying offenses because the game has changed, but you're on the wrong side of the equation. Rule changes have made dominant CB1s a rarer commodity, you used to have the dominant physical corners (like Ty Law) and the dominant technical corners (Like Deion Sanders) in this group. Prices are high now because your physical corners as a class have been devalued, slicing the supply of available CB1s THAT makes the cost of those that remain go up.