riverhawkey91
Registered User
I don't know about that. It wasn't necessarily an either/or situation, but the two decisions are definitely related because the players' value to the team is relative. Jones was the obvious odd-man-out over Hightower, Collins and Butler, but moving Collins now changes the whole dynamic of why that Jones trade was necessary in the first place. In hindsight, between having that extra space without Collins and knowing Chris Long hasn't filled in quite as well as hoped, they might have deemed Jones worth the cost.
I have no idea if they'd want a mulligan on the Jones trade given the Collins move and pass-rush struggles, but I don't think this was at all the plan going into the season. I personally was skeptical of the value they got for Jones anyways, so to me, this just makes that trade look worse.
I definitely agree there's no reason to second guess Bill in his decision making. He has the occasional bad call, but he's overwhelmingly right for the most part.
On the other hand, I think it's perfectly fair to criticize the value on some of his choices. Collins should absolutely have gone for much more than a late 3rd/early 4th. A full year of Jones should have gone for more than a late second and a risky prospect, especially from a prospective SB contender (at the time).
Belichick has a tendency of turning what he does get into gold, which is part of what makes him so great (like with the Jones trade), so the original return sometimes gets overlooked. But that doesn't mean he should escape criticism for getting bad value in the first place.
