sleeper;1725560 wrote:11 years ago. You are going to talk about the current strategy in the NFL by talking about a draft pick 11 years ago?

Thank you for proving my point.

He's a first round talent that Belichick kept around because of his value in stopping the run, 11 years after drafting him. Belichick never keeps defensive players that long, but he felt compelled to with Wilfork because of his value against the run.

Thanks for proving my point that Belichick was still implementing his "stop the run" philosophy last year.

lhslep134;1725563 wrote:He's a first round talent that Belichick kept around because of his value in stopping the run, 11 years after drafting him. Belichick never keeps defensive players that long, but he felt compelled to with Wilfork because of his value against the run.

Thanks for proving my point.

Apparently Belicheck liked to keep him around until he shipped him off to the Texans and went on to win a Super Bowl without him.

I can't believe you guys would rather follow a model that's based on baseless cliches rather than adopt a proven model that just won the Super Bowl. Only in Cleveland I suppose.

BR1986FB;1725562 wrote:Ty Warren & Richard Seymour were also 1st rounders.

Great. Let's have a discussion about how the current strategy in the NFL by talking about draft picks 10+ years ago. LOL.

sleeper;1725565 wrote:Apparently Belicheck liked to keep him around until he shipped him off to the Texans and went on to win a Super Bowl without him.

LMFAO you must have missed this moment....

Sleeper has officially reached FW levels of stubborn stupidity in this dicussion--saying Belichick shipped off Wilfork (not true) to the Texans (where he signed as a FA) before he won the Super Bowl (Wilfork was a FA after the SB) without him (Wilfork was clearly on the Patriots in the SB).

Apparently he valued his contributions so much that he let him go at the end of the season; according to the Browns fans, they should have given him a 10 year contract worth 4.8 billion because stopping the run is all that matters. The hyperbole is a little off the chart but you guys are delusional.

sleeper;1725570 wrote:you guys are delusional.

The only delusional person in this discussion is the person who said this

sleeper;1725565 wrote:Apparently Belicheck liked to keep him around until he shipped him off to the Texans and went on to win a Super Bowl without him.

You got a very basic and important fact wrong. You either didn't know, which means your posts on this topic re: Belichick and Wilfork are sourced from ignorance; or you did know and you were so intent on proving yourself right that you forgot, which by definition makes you delusional.

lhslep134;1725569 wrote:Sleeper has officially reached FW levels of stubborn stupidity in this dicussion--saying Belichick shipped off Wilfork (not true) to the Texans (where he signed as a FA) before he won the Super Bowl (Wilfork was a FA after the SB) without him (Wilfork was clearly on the Patriots in the SB).

Apologies for trying to have a discussion about the current strategy in the NFL. Let's just go back to circle jerking cliches like "stop the run" and "WE NEED A QB MARIOTA IS OUR SAVIOR". That'll get us somewhere, and by somewhere I mean top 10 draft picks for the next century.

lhslep134;1725571 wrote:The only delusional person in this discussion is the person who said this



You got a very basic and important fact wrong. You either didn't know, which means your posts on this topic re: Belichick and Wilfork are sourced from ignorance; or you did know and you were so intent on proving yourself right that you forgot, which by definition makes you delusional.

Who cares? Grow up. Wilfork is not why the Patriots won the Super Bowl and you know it. You are being disingenuous to the discussion because you are mad that stopping the run is increasingly becomingly less and less relevant to the current NFL strategic meta.

So yeah let's continue. Let's draft every damn run stopper in the draft this year so the Browns will hold every team to 0.0 yards per game and on to winning the next 100 Super Bowls. The delusion is real.

sleeper;1725570 wrote:Apparently he valued his contributions so much that he let him go at the end of the season; according to the Browns fans, they should have given him a 10 year contract worth 4.8 billion because stopping the run is all that matters. The hyperbole is a little off the chart but you guys are delusional.

The guy has been in the league, what, 11 years? Belichick got what he could out of him and cut bait after he used Wilfork to his advantage. Kinda like he did with Ted Washington & McGinest before the Browns were dumb enough to sign those has beens long after their prime.

As long as the players we draft are younger than my grandpa I'll be pretty happy.

I'd be pretty pissed with this....

http://cle.247sports.com/Bolt/Draft-winds-blowing-towards-Gurley-for-Cleveland-37045607

BR1986FB;1725576 wrote:The guy has been in the league, what, 11 years? Belichick got what he could out of him and cut bait after he used Wilfork to his advantage. Kinda like he did with Ted Washington & McGinest before the Browns were dumb enough to sign those has beens long after their prime.

Again, irrelevant. Do you guys even understand the discussion at hand? It's not a black and white argument of either "you stop the run or you don't"; its an argument on how to allocate talent and the salary cap in an efficient manner to put the team on the field that has the best chance of winning the Super Bowl.

Apparently, the current thought process of spending valuable talent and salary cap on players that can stop the run is irrelevant to how the NFL is beginning to shift in terms of strategy. Stopping the run isn't useless, but its certainly not worth spending significant amounts of value to achieve that goal. Did anyone even watch the Patriots last year? I simply took their model of winning SUPER BOWLS, and broke it down into parts that can be digested and used for another team. Unfortunately there isn't a QB worth a damn in this draft so it may be another year before we get what we need but we can at the very least be smart about the future value/efficiency of the team by doing what we can to get there when that QB comes into play.

http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2015/01/vince_wilfork.html?camp=miscatriots&SREF=Optin&dlvrit=834384#comments

But nah, Wilfork wasn't a necessary cog in the Patriots run

BR1986FB;1725579 wrote:I'd be pretty pissed with this....

http://cle.247sports.com/Bolt/Draft-winds-blowing-towards-Gurley-for-Cleveland-37045607

Gurley would be the worst 1st round pick in NFL history. Terrible.

lhslep134;1725581 wrote:http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2015/01/vince_wilfork.html?camp=miscatriots&SREF=Optin&dlvrit=834384#comments

But nah, Wilfork wasn't a necessary cog in the Patriots run

Cute. They win without Wilfork, sorry about reality.

sleeper;1725582 wrote:Gurley would be the worst 1st round pick in NFL history. Terrible.

Worst first pick for us or at any place in the first?

Rotinaj;1725584 wrote:Worst first pick for us or at any place in the first?

Worst pick for any team in the entire history of the NFL.

sleeper;1725574 wrote: you are mad that stopping the run is increasingly becomingly less and less relevant to the current NFL strategic meta.

You're making this a macro argument now that you were exposed as being so clearly wrong in the micro argument about Bill Belichick. I don't know what indiviudals you keep referring to when making "stop the run or die" retorts, but I joined this argument when you said Bill Belichick didn't care about stopping the run, when all empirical evidence shows otherwise.

So you can change the discussion all you want, but I got what I came for, to show you were completely wrong about Belichick's level of caring about stopping the run.

sleeper;1725580 wrote:Again, irrelevant. Do you guys even understand the discussion at hand? It's not a black and white argument of either "you stop the run or you don't"; its an argument on how to allocate talent and the salary cap in an efficient manner to put the team on the field that has the best chance of winning the Super Bowl.

Apparently, the current thought process of spending valuable talent and salary cap on players that can stop the run is irrelevant to how the NFL is beginning to shift in terms of strategy. Stopping the run isn't useless, but its certainly not worth spending significant amounts of value to achieve that goal. Did anyone even watch the Patriots last year? I simply took their model of winning SUPER BOWLS, and broke it down into parts that can be digested and used for another team. Unfortunately there isn't a QB worth a damn in this draft so it may be another year before we get what we need but we can at the very least be smart about the future value/efficiency of the team by doing what we can to get there when that QB comes into play.

If not for Pete Carroll fucking the donkey on that pass call, the "model" for winning the Super Bowl, two years running, would be "running the ball, playing shutdown defense (especially stopping the run), and letting your QB manage the game, minimizing turnovers."

BR1986FB;1725588 wrote:If not for Pete Carroll fucking the donkey on that pass call, the "model" for winning the Super Bowl, two years running, would be "running the ball, playing shutdown defense (especially stopping the run), and letting your QB manage the game, minimizing turnovers."

Yeah and if your uncle had a vagina she would be your aunt.

sleeper;1725553 wrote:Patriots only have 1 first round draft pick on their D-line, and that's a pass rushing specialist in Jones.

But yeah "stop the run".

Starting DTs? 6th Round and 1 undrafted. Stop the run!

Yeah, just ignore the fact they had Vince willfork for 10 years lol fail.

"Time to give Wilform the same credit we give Belichick and Brady"

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-third-man-its-time-to-give-vince-wilfork-the-same-credit-we-give-belichick-and-brady/

But nah, stopping the run doesn't matter to Belichick, that's why he got rid of Wilfork after 7 years like he did Seymour.

sleeper;1725589 wrote:Yeah and if your uncle had a vagina she would be your aunt.

Nice response but it still doesn't change the fact that the Sea Chickens are one of the elite teams in the league and that's their model.