Maybe we need a little luck...

[grog]

Ok, don't laugh too hard at this, because I think this is quasi legitimate.

First of all, the luck I am talking about has nothing to do with karma, although we at the planet have done a terrible job with the karma threads over the last few years, so maybe there is a connection there too. In the early years of the run we took good care of feeding karma...

No, this is about Andrew Luck, the QB everybody raves about. I am not very good at forecasting who will be a great pro out of college, but everybody seems to think this kid won't just be good in the pros, but will be great. He seems to be well grounded and good guy too, wanting to go back to college for another year when he could make a ton of money this year.

So I am wondering, with another year to position ourselves, if the Pats should use their draft picks to bloster both lines and to add even more future picks. Then, if we do it right, have enough amo to trade up and pick this kid 2years from now. Have him sit the bench behind Brady for a couple of years, ala Steve Young behind Montana, and then be set for another 10 - 12 year run.

Everybody knows that good teams come and go, but great teams have 2 common elements. A strong and stable coaching staff and a top tier QB. But QBs have a shelf life, and only a few teams in history have gone from one great QB to another.

Of course, it all depends on if this kid really has it. But if BB and staff grade him out like all the talking heads and really believe he is the second coming of Tom Brady and Peyton Manning all rolled up into one, why not take this strategy?

Thoughts?

 

[Flagg the Wanderer]

1) I think Brady has another 2+ years of peak-ish performance, and 3+ more of excellent performance.

2) I don't think he would be psychologically pushed by a real challenger to his position; I do think he'd be kind of revved by the role of mentor, though.

3) Realistically, we'd be paying one of the two a shit-lot of money to ride the pine, barring some revolutionary 2 true QB offensive system. Even with a rookie cap, a likely top-5 pick is going to get some serious money, and we just signed Brady again.

4) Honestly, I think Belichick probably would keep trying to find his successor in the later rounds to ensure little-to-no attitude, etc.

5) No. But I do really like Luck's lightning reads, release, and accuracy on the short and intermediate routes.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Jewfro]

This thread makes me sad.

 

[midgar8784]

Well it would take a top 5 draft pick at least, and about 50 mil guaranteed. Thats the bad thing, when you already have a QB you have to get lucky and get one low, because you cannot go that high for one when its not a need. QB's that weird position, you cannot really stack it like you can at Dline and such.

 

[grog]

This thread makes me sad.

It makes me sad too, but the fact is BB has done this with many of our favorite players over the years. And the 49ers did it with Joe Montana for crying out loud and everyone called them geniuses too. Do you ride Brady until he becomes Favre like, or do reload at that position too? I think many Patriots fans (and this is true for Colts fans too), think their runs are over when Nos 18 and 12 are done. I don't think that has to be the case and am throwing out a scenario that could work, especially with a rookie salary cap.

 

[OopsWoops]

It's just not financially feasible. We can't have pay a bonus to a Top 5 QB after just having made Brady the league's highest paid player. Kraft won't go for it, BB won't go for it.

Also, I think BB has been remarkably successful with QBs in the later rounds (not just Brady but also Cassel). I bet Tom's successor isn't coming from round 1.

 

[Grumpy_Bottom]

Build the defense into a juggernaut, build the O-line, QB will take care of itself

 

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Actually, building the OL into a juggernaught is easier, and maybe more effective. How good would Brady be if he could really pick his spots and have teams fearing the run?

Our defensive style is a perfect complement to that - force the offense to make long, perfect drives to score, and carve up the defense.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Hawg73]

If I thought we could realistically get him, then it would be interesting, but it isn't going to happen.

For one thing, Luck will likely be the overall one two drafts from now. We'd have to be smart enough to figure out who is going to be the worst team in the league next year and load them up this year in order to even get the pick. There is no way to predict that, so......we won't do it even if we loved Luck.

Then there is the unknown of the salary/cap number for a guy that probably couldn't beat out Brady for a number of years. Not our system to do that.

He looks good on the field, for sure, and will be fought over, but I just don't see any way this happens.

Brady had a rough game along with the team. I don't think we need to really think about replacing him for the near forseeable future. We can think about it, sure, but replacing him with somebody as good is probably impossible.

The Pats will probably draft another QB this year, but he'll be another attempt at finding a lower-round gem like the last 5 or so QBs we drafted. Luck would have to lay a major egg next season for us to even get a sniff at him and that still wouldn't work.

 

[Jaric]

It makes me sad too, but the fact is BB has done this with many of our favorite players over the years. And the 49ers did it with Joe Montana for crying out loud and everyone called them geniuses too. Do you ride Brady until he becomes Favre like, or do reload at that position too? I think many Patriots fans (and this is true for Colts fans too), think their runs are over when Nos 18 and 12 are done. I don't think that has to be the case and am throwing out a scenario that could work, especially with a rookie salary cap.

The best way to prepare for the future is to build a team that doesn't require a QB like Manning or Brady to be successful.

It should be no suprise that teams that are good have better success with QB than teams that are not. Build things around him. Strong running game. Reliable recievers. Impressive defense. Set him up for success. Expecting a young QB to carry a team is a recipe for high draft picks every year.

 

[tehrick67]

We've got Hoyer the destroyer:shrug:

 

[grog]

I agree mostly and I know TFB is going to be impossible to replace. I just wanted to kick the tires on the idea to see what others thought. I think our year without Brady showed we have a team that is built the right way. I agree that it really does all start with the line(s) and we need to beef those up, especially the OL.

Thanks for playing along!

 

[dchester]

Actually, building the OL into a juggernaught is easier, and maybe more effective. How good would Brady be if he could really pick his spots and have teams fearing the run?

Our defensive style is a perfect complement to that - force the offense to make long, perfect drives to score, and carve up the defense.
Posted via Mobile Device

I'd rather see them get a stud running back, than a successor QB right now. The Jets were daring the Pats to run, with all the DBs they were using. If we had a Corey Dillon type of back, that defensive formation they were using would have been gone in a hurry.

 

[Hawg73]

I'd rather see them get a stud running back, than a successor QB right now. The Jets were daring the Pats to run, with all the DBs they were using. If we had a Corey Dillon type of back, that defensive formation they were using would have been gone in a hurry.

What about an Emmit Smith type of back? Would that work for you? Because that could be doable this year.

Mark Ingram. Some draftniks don't like him, but I think he would be perfect and would upgrade our ground game significantly.

Before anyone jumps on me about how we need a pass rusher, I have about 3 months to go over the field and find out who is who, but this kid just flat out has it and RB is certainly a position of need, considering the age of Taylor, Faulk, and Morris.

 

[chevss454]

What about an Emmit Smith type of back? Would that work for you? Because that could be doable this year.

Mark Ingram. Some draftniks don't like him, but I think he would be perfect and would upgrade our ground game significantly.

Before anyone jumps on me about how we need a pass rusher, I have about 3 months to go over the field and find out who is who, but this kid just flat out has it and RB is certainly a position of need, considering the age of Taylor, Faulk, and Morris.

I guess I'm not as sold on Ingram as you are. Against Auburn Ingram had less than 2 yards/carry. Unimpressed.

 

[PatsFanLisa]

Some of the boards have us taking RB Mike Leshoure. I was sold on Ingram earlier in the year, but have backed away from him.

 

[tehrick67]

IMO this team needs to get better on the line of scrimage, on BOTH sides of the ball.

In the last 3 playoff loses, they've lost all those battles.

 

[StoneWalled]

I like Ingram. He has been super-solid every year. I wouldn't dismiss him based on a game against the Nat'l Champs. All of his production came against what is conceivably the best D-line talent in the country, being the SEC. While he has been on the top of the RB rankings for so long now there is a tendency for Draftniks to find someone else to place over him or at his level. This could probably let him drop and he would be a steal at the #33 pick but still a pretty good pick at #28.

 

[dchester]

IMO this team needs to get better on the line of scrimage, on BOTH sides of the ball.

In the last 3 playoff loses, they've lost all those battles.

Agreed. We've become a little too much like the Colts.

BTW, does anyone remember how many sacks the 2003 o-line gave up in all the playoff games combined?

I believe it was zero.

 

[tehrick67]

Agreed. We've become a little too much like the Colts.

BTW, does anyone remember how many sacks the 2003 o-line gave up in all the playoff games combined?

I believe it was zero.

They've lost the physical battle in all 3 of the plaoff games....something that never happened.