Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You could pick any five names out of a hat and the odds are pretty good that more than half will miss time.

    Rob Gronkowski, Shane Vereen, Matthew Slater, Vince Wilfork, Steven Ridley, Tavon Wilson, Tommy Kelly, Jerod Mayo, Aqib Talib, Danny Amendola, Sebastian Vollmer, Steve Gregory, Alfonzo Dennard, Michael Hoomanawanui, Aaron Dobson, Marcus Cannon, Kenbrell Thompkins, Devin McCourty, Brandon Spikes all missed games last year.

    The list is shorter for players who played in all 16 games last year, Danny Aiken, Ryan Allen, Kyle Arrington, LeGarrette Blount, Tom Brady, Jamie Collins, Daniel Connolly, James Develin, Stephen Gostkowski, Dont'a Hightower, Chandler Jones, Logan Mankins, Rob Ninkovich, Logan Ryan, Brandon Spikes, Joe Vellano, Ryan Wendell, Chris White.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    And I'm sure those names I picked who are consistently hurt and miss significant time are just bad luck and it won't happen to them again right? Some players are just constant;y injured and you can't count on them, some you can but they will get dinged up and miss a game or two every so often. McCourty missed 3 games in his career. I have much more faith he'll play a full season and be in the playoffs than Amendola for example. Ridley missed 2 games but if you had to put money on who will play in more games next year Ridley or Vereen who would you put it on? Come on Digger, we all know which one's most likely won't be there or won't be able give it there all in the playoffs.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    Injuries have statistically been getting worse in the NFL. Saying that some list you draw up will have close to half the players miss time is not a comment about BB picking talent nor about the Pats staff. The fact is that over 30% of players miss a game or more.

     

    From 2010 article:

    NEW YORK -- The NFL players union says the average number of injuries has risen during the 2010 season.

    In a report released Friday called "Dangers of the Game of Football," the NFLPA says injuries increased from 3.2 to 3.7 per week per team and the share of players injured increased to 63 percent compared to a 2002-09 average of 59 percent.

    The report also shows that 13 percent of all injuries required players to be placed on injured reserve this season, compared to an average of 10 percent for 2002-09. The union says that indicates the injuries which are occurring are more serious than in past years.

    The analysis is based on data from NFL Weeks 1 through 16 from Football Outsiders, which compiles information from the publicly available weekly injury reports.

    The NFL also compiles such data. Its numbers also show more players on IR than in recent years: 464 for the entire season, up from 388 the previous year, 416 in 2008 and 413 in 2007.

    NFL spokesman Greg Aiello notes, however, that the injured reserve numbers don't always indicate the severity of injuries.

    "Every year almost 2,600 players go through the system (32 teams x 80 players going into training camp) and a few hundred are put on injured reserve for different reasons," Aiello said. "That number could include everything from rookies put on IR for the season with injuries of differing severity to players with relatively minor injuries who then reach injury settlements with their teams and are released."

    Union medical director Dr. Thom Mayer emphasized the dangers of the sport.

    "We know that injuries are part of the game, but the more data and information we can gather on player health and safety, the more likely we are to make the game safer," Mayer said. "Player contracts are not guaranteed, even as injury rates rise, which means careers face sudden ends each time the ball is snapped."

    The report shows that 37.7 percent of all injuries caused players to miss games, which was down .7 percent from the 2002-09 average. And 30 percent of players missed at least some game time, up 1 percent.

    Another article in 2012: average number of players that did not play after appearing on the injury report. Note Pats are 9th worst (so in higher end of injury chart but not at the top 5 and not alone in spectrum). THe range was roughly 4 to 12 players a week. Pats had roughly 8 per week - so while higher in list it was near the mid point between the two ends of the spectrum Furthermore, with a deeper roster than most teams BB does seem to be willing to let a player get more healthy rather than force him back too soon.

    So once again actual stats do not support the Pats or BB as being especially onerous in having injured players. It is a fact of the NFL. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Chandler signed for 2/$4.7M. He also seemed to want to stay in Buff.

    Outside of a top 15 first rd draft choice, I really do not see a drafted WR coming into this offense and setting the world on fire.  

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    2/$4.7mil is nothing, and why is it when a player signs somewhere it's oh I think he wanted to stay there anyway? 

    As for the top 15, we don't need one to set the world on fire we need one that can get open and catch the ball. Preferable one that creates some sort of mismatch in the RZ and there were plenty this year. We aren't looking for a Moss but they couldn't find a Marvin Jones or Marlon Brown type?

    [/QUOTE]

    If they sign Keller, he's pretty much what Chandler is - an average TE, nothing special. Both seemed to play their best football against the Pats for some reason...

    The skillset of those receivers you mention isn't much different from what they already have. They have more experience, not more ability. So, do you pay free agent rates for marginal (if any) improvement?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Injuries have statistically been getting worse in the NFL. Saying that some list you draw up will have close to half the players miss time is not a comment about BB picking talent nor about the Pats staff. The fact is that over 30% of players miss a game or more.

     

    From 2010 article:

    NEW YORK -- The NFL players union says the average number of injuries has risen during the 2010 season.

    ....

    So once again actual stats do not support the Pats or BB as being especially onerous in having injured players. It is a fact of the NFL. 

    [/QUOTE]

    How much of this is because guys sit out with injuries they used to play through? You know, back in the good old days when smelling salts cured a concussion.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Chandler signed for 2/$4.7M. He also seemed to want to stay in Buff.

    Outside of a top 15 first rd draft choice, I really do not see a drafted WR coming into this offense and setting the world on fire.  

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    2/$4.7mil is nothing, and why is it when a player signs somewhere it's oh I think he wanted to stay there anyway? 

    As for the top 15, we don't need one to set the world on fire we need one that can get open and catch the ball. Preferable one that creates some sort of mismatch in the RZ and there were plenty this year. We aren't looking for a Moss but they couldn't find a Marvin Jones or Marlon Brown type?

    [/QUOTE]

    If they sign Keller, he's pretty much what Chandler is - an average TE, nothing special. Both seemed to play their best football against the Pats for some reason...

    The skillset of those receivers you mention isn't much different from what they already have. They have more experience, not more ability. So, do you pay free agent rates for marginal (if any) improvement?

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Difference is Chandler can block too and isn't coming of a major knee injury where his explosiveness was his best asset. Big difference between the two Muz.

    As for the WR I list they have a much different skill set. They have more size and know how to use that size. Dobson is closest to him but he has no clue how to fight for the ball or gain separation. The other guys fight for balls and can generate separation in the RZ. Maybe LaFell can be that guy but as of right now we don't have a guy who can be a mismatch in the RZ who will fight for balls in the EZ

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to portfolio1's comment:


    So once again actual stats do not support the Pats or BB as being especially onerous in having injured players. It is a fact of the NFL. 





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Simple question Port, if you need to put money down on who would play more games Vereen or Ridley who would you put it on? If you had to do the same with say Amendola or Welker who would you put it on? Gronk or say Graham back in the day? Talib or Arrington? These guys get injured more often than the average NFL player at their positions. Turn a blind eye if you want but those player you just need to get better backups for because chances are at some point they will go down. If you know a player you count on consistently gets injured and you turn a blind eye without a proper backup behind them than you can't use them getting injured as an excuse when you know there was a much higher possibility they would get hurt over other players.


    Example: If say in May your car acts up and needs some type of service. You have no clue why it happens but it does every year. Are you going to save a bit extra just in case each year or are you going to say, oh it's just bad luck it won't happen this year no need to save extra just in case

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    2/$4.7mil is nothing, and why is it when a player signs somewhere it's oh I think he wanted to stay there anyway? 

    As for the top 15, we don't need one to set the world on fire we need one that can get open and catch the ball. Preferable one that creates some sort of mismatch in the RZ and there were plenty this year. We aren't looking for a Moss but they couldn't find a Marvin Jones or Marlon Brown type?

    [/QUOTE]

    If they sign Keller, he's pretty much what Chandler is - an average TE, nothing special. Both seemed to play their best football against the Pats for some reason...

    The skillset of those receivers you mention isn't much different from what they already have. They have more experience, not more ability. So, do you pay free agent rates for marginal (if any) improvement?

    [/QUOTE]

    Difference is Chandler can block too and isn't coming of a major knee injury where his explosiveness was his best asset. Big difference between the two Muz.

    As for the WR I list they have a much different skill set. They have more size and know how to use that size. Dobson is closest to him but he has no clue how to fight for the ball or gain separation. The other guys fight for balls and can generate separation in the RZ. Maybe LaFell can be that guy but as of right now we don't have a guy who can be a mismatch in the RZ who will fight for balls in the EZ

    [/QUOTE]

    Chandler is a JAG, which isn't all bad. But don't make him out to be a Pro Bowler. He wants to go to Hawaii, he's buying a ticket like the rest of us (he can afford it, though). Hooman can block, so could Mulligan. There's no magic to blocking. They can find a way to get guys blocked. Keller is a better receiver.

    Not sure why we're talking about Marvin Jones and Marlon Brown, neither were free agents?  Anyway, Brown had a nice year for a rookie, a bit better than Dobson, he managed to stay healthier. But Jones caught 18 passes for 201 and a TD as a rookie, he's 6'2. Dobson is 6'3, caught 37 for 519 and 4 TDs as a rookie. I'd rather have Dobson, thanks. Heck, Kenbrell's rookie production dwarfed Jones. 

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Chandler is a JAG, which isn't all bad. But don't make him out to be a Pro Bowler. He wants to go to Hawaii, he's buying a ticket like the rest of us (he can afford it, though). Hooman can block, so could Mulligan. There's no magic to blocking. They can find a way to get guys blocked. Keller is a better receiver.

    Not sure why we're talking about Marvin Jones and Marlon Brown, neither were free agents?  Anyway, Brown had a nice year for a rookie, a bit better than Dobson, he managed to stay healthier. But Jones caught 18 passes for 201 and a TD as a rookie, he's 6'2. Dobson is 6'3, caught 37 for 519 and 4 TDs as a rookie. I'd rather have Dobson, thanks. Heck, Kenbrell's rookie production dwarfed Jones. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Who's making him out to be a Pro-bowler? He's a 'Y' type who can catch the ball and block. He's more than a JAG but he's not an elite TE by any means. I'd say he's a top 40 TE which is perfectly alright with me and he was paid as such. I would say he's better than Mulligan, Williams, and Hooman and would have been a much better backup for Gronk. It's not just blocking it's not being 1 dimensional. Keller's on the field they don't need to worry about him blocking or heck, depending on the knee, maybe not even covering him. When you have a 'Y' type he can stay in and block or release and catch. That's what makes them unique and much harder to plan against. One reason Gronk is super effective. Come one Muz, you have better football knowledge than this to understand the benefits oh having a TE block or catch vs a 1 dimensional one. If Gronk could stay healthy having a more receiving TE would be ideal but since Gronk can't having a more versatile TE who can ctach or block is a benefit. Btw, look at each of the last 3 years, yes Keller is a better receiver but not by leaps and bounds. I'll take one that can block and catch over one that can only catch and is a year removed from a potentially career ending knee injury everyday 

    I know they aren't FA's, I was using them as the model of type of WR we need. We don't need a #1 but we do need one with some size, can fight for the ball, and can generate separation in the RZ. I never once said we should sign them because they aren't FA's they can't be signed. However, there were plenty of WR's in the draft in the same mold that could have been had in the mid 3-5 range, which was the point of the orignal conversation. Did you not bother to read the beginning of the convo? Jones was behind much better WR's, Dobson was infront of the guy sitting in section 3 row 23. There was no one else to throw too! That's how stats lie, yes they are better but only becausethere was no one else to throw to.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:


    Who's making him out to be a Pro-bowler? He's a 'Y' type who can catch the ball and block. He's more than a JAG but he's not an elite TE by any means. I'd say he's a top 40 TE which is perfectly alright with me and he was paid as such. I would say he's better than Mulligan, Williams, and Hooman and would have been a much better backup for Gronk. It's not just blocking it's not being 1 dimensional. Keller's on the field they don't need to worry about him blocking or heck, depending on the knee, maybe not even covering him. When you have a 'Y' type he can stay in and block or release and catch. That's what makes them unique and much harder to plan against. One reason Gronk is super effective. Come one Muz, you have better football knowledge than this to understand the benefits oh having a TE block or catch vs a 1 dimensional one. If Gronk could stay healthy having a more receiving TE would be ideal but since Gronk can't having a more versatile TE who can ctach or block is a benefit. Btw, look at each of the last 3 years, yes Keller is a better receiver but not by leaps and bounds. I'll take one that can block and catch over one that can only catch and is a year removed from a potentially career ending knee injury everyday 


    ....



     


    Chandler and Keller are different players. You say Chandler is better, that's fine. I don't think there's much difference talent-wise. Their roles are different. Chandler is adequate, that's it. He's not a great blocker, he's not a great receiver, he's average. He's a very good red zone target, tall, slow and lumbering, OK hands. Top 40? I guess that's fine. 


    He also blew out his ACL at one time as I recall. He came back from it just fine, as will Keller in all likelihood. It's not that big of a deal these days, it's all the rage.


    Hern couldn't block, but he was damn effective as a TE. A far more valuable football player than Chandler.  His primary role wasn't to block. If Keller can be a poor man's Hern, I'll take that. On this team, if he can fill that move TE role adequately it will be something they didn't have last year. He can be what Charles Clay was for Miami, that might be a fairer comparison. I don't expect him to lead the team in receptions or make the Pro Bowl, just help them win a game or two and it's all good.


     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    And I'm sure those names I picked who are consistently hurt and miss significant time are just bad luck and it won't happen to them again right? Some players are just constant;y injured and you can't count on them, some you can but they will get dinged up and miss a game or two every so often. McCourty missed 3 games in his career. I have much more faith he'll play a full season and be in the playoffs than Amendola for example. Ridley missed 2 games but if you had to put money on who will play in more games next year Ridley or Vereen who would you put it on? Come on Digger, we all know which one's most likely won't be there or won't be able give it there all in the playoffs.

    The Seahawks took a chance on Percy Harvin and it paid off in the super bowl so luck does play a part. It's true those 5 players haven't been there when we needed them but that was the past and hopefully they make up for it this year. But I wouldn't put any money on it.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    So once again actual stats do not support the Pats or BB as being especially onerous in having injured players. It is a fact of the NFL. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    Simple question Port, if you need to put money down on who would play more games Vereen or Ridley who would you put it on? If you had to do the same with say Amendola or Welker who would you put it on? Gronk or say Graham back in the day? Talib or Arrington? These guys get injured more often than the average NFL player at their positions. Turn a blind eye if you want but those player you just need to get better backups for because chances are at some point they will go down. If you know a player you count on consistently gets injured and you turn a blind eye without a proper backup behind them than you can't use them getting injured as an excuse when you know there was a much higher possibility they would get hurt over other players.

     

    Example: If say in May your car acts up and needs some type of service. You have no clue why it happens but it does every year. Are you going to save a bit extra just in case each year or are you going to say, oh it's just bad luck it won't happen this year no need to save extra just in case

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, I agree with your point. But my point is that our perceptions are at least a little skewed from the truth. The statistics show that. But the statistics do show we are in the top 40% in terms of players missing games.

    We know that Gronk is not the only TE to miss games - though more than almost everyone. GB's TE Finley, SF's TE Vernon Davis, Wash TE Fred Davis, Jets/Miami TE Keller,  are examples.

    We know that other LBs were injured besides Mayo. Other WRs besides Amendola. We know we did suffer a lot of injuries last year. But we here mostly complain about multiple year issues like SB and playoff losses. And so having guys that were hurt two years in a row (not Mayo) is an issue. But overall the team is not setting records that way. We have not done "well" that way but statistically in the larger middle grouping in the league (not in the high end nor the low end).

    So yes I agree and understand your point but we look at the Pats like they are the only ones who have these problems. The draft remarks are another great example. Even though BB puts together good teams every year for 14 years and has his share of hits in FA and draft and UDFAs many here think no one else in the league misses. But they do!!!! EVERY team misses and if we were to look at some of them in detail we would see that. But instead some here cherry pick or, as with Babe, they cherry pick the statistical criteria. Attempts at objective quantitative analysis has in multiple cases indicated the Pats actually are in the top 30% in building talent year in and year out.

    And so it is with the injury issues too. But when it is a Gronk who gets hurt, or a Brady or Manning, then it dramatically affects the team. These guys are not replaceable.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    You should write BB a letter explaining which guys will get hurt. It would save him a lot of aggravation. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I keep on offering you the bet True out of Amendola, Vereen, Vollmer, Gronk, and Edelman I predict more than half will miss time this year. I'm willing to bet and entire years salary on it. If you think you can't predict who might get injury then the odds are in your favor. Why won't you take it if you don't believe in injury prone? Tell you wat lets forget the money if you aren't confident. How about if it happens you actually except reality that some players are just more injury prone than others? For some reason I doubt you'd even accept that since deep down you know I'm right and there are just some players who for whatever reason just can't stay healthy.

    But then again I predicted Amendola, Gronk, Vollmer, and Vereen to get injured last offseason so I must be a wizard or something.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    A foolish bet at best. Anybody willing to bet an entire years salary on something as unpredictable as injuries in sports cannot be relied on to pay said debt.

    This is football. Guys get hurt. The trade off for having a player like Gronk catch 39 td's his 1st 3 seasons is well worth the injuries that have come with his style of play. And he hasn't missed any time for his back injury which was the concern in college. 

    So, unless you knew he would shatter his forearm, and get his knee caved in, then you are actually just like the rest of us and didn't know anything....and if you knew that then I'm taking you to Vegas Rain Man.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A foolish bet at best. Anybody willing to bet an entire years salary on something as unpredictable as injuries in sports cannot be relied on to pay said debt.

    This is football. Guys get hurt. The trade off for having a player like Gronk catch 39 td's his 1st 3 seasons is well worth the injuries that have come with his style of play. And he hasn't missed any time for his back injury which was the concern in college. 

    So, unless you knew he would shatter his forearm, and get his knee caved in, then you are actually just like the rest of us and didn't know anything....and if you knew that then I'm taking you to Vegas Rain Man.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    You must have flunked history. Well fools who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. No sense trying to talk to someone who thinks trends are just random throw of the dice when they aren't in some cases. It's like I gave you loaded dice and said odds are they will land on 5 or 6 and you put your money on 2 saying, you can't predict it....... Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on injury prone players since you don't believe they exist. Lets hope BB locks up Vereen right now to a long term deal right? 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A foolish bet at best. Anybody willing to bet an entire years salary on something as unpredictable as injuries in sports cannot be relied on to pay said debt.

    This is football. Guys get hurt. The trade off for having a player like Gronk catch 39 td's his 1st 3 seasons is well worth the injuries that have come with his style of play. And he hasn't missed any time for his back injury which was the concern in college. 

    So, unless you knew he would shatter his forearm, and get his knee caved in, then you are actually just like the rest of us and didn't know anything....and if you knew that then I'm taking you to Vegas Rain Man.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    You must have flunked history. Well fools who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. No sense trying to talk to someone who thinks trends are just random throw of the dice when they aren't in some cases. It's like I gave you loaded dice and said odds are they will land on 5 or 6 and you put your money on 2 saying, you can't predict it....... Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on injury prone players since you don't believe they exist. Lets hope BB locks up Vereen right now to a long term deal right? 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    So BB is a "fool"by your estimation as he keeps repeating history and signing all these injury prone players that you knew he shouldn't have signed.

    Good job Eng.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So BB is a "fool"by your estimation as he keeps repeating history and signing all these injury prone players that you knew he shouldn't have signed.

    Good job Eng.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Well let me ask you Pro:

    Would Gronk help in the postseason?

    Has Gronk stayed healthy enough in his career to help in the postseason?

    Has Amendola shown he can stay healthy during a season long enough to be healthy in the postseason?

    Would a healthy Vereen have helped last year in the postseason?

    Has Vereen shown he can stay healthy to play well in the postseason?

    If you are counting on these guys to be healthy during the postseason and have no plan for them not to stay healthy would I say you are a fool, yep everyday. If every spring you basement floods because you pump breaks would I call you a fool for not getting a spare or replacing it, I most certainly would. You can't predict every injury but with players that have years of track records for injury issues you can't plan for them to stay healthy. It's not magic to understand certain players are injured more often than others. The Sox went through it with Ellsbury and are currently going through it with Bucholz. J.D. Drew was known for it too and teams plan around those players getting hurt. To not have a proper plan is foolish, yes.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    So......yes BB is a "fool"? 

    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So......yes BB is a "fool"? 

    [object HTMLDivElement]

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    In total, no, BB is one of the greatest coaches ever to coach the game, but in this case of not planning for injury prone players effectively I would most definitely say yes. Btw, I don't hear BB use injures as an excuse so why do you?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:


    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    So......yes BB is a "fool"? 

    [object HTMLDivElement]





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    In total, no, BB is one of the greatest coaches ever to coach the game, but in this case of not planning for injury prone players effectively I would most definitely say yes. Btw, I don't hear BB use injures as an excuse so why do you?


    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Lol, wow you actually just said "yes", BB is a fool. 


    I'll leave you alone now. I can't debate with someone who thinks the guy in charge of the Patriots for the last 13 years is a fool

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Lol, wow you actually just said "yes", BB is a fool. 

    I'll leave you alone now. I can't debate with someone who thinks the guy im charge of the Patriots for the last 13 years is a fool

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I guess you forgot the part I said he was one of the greatest coaches ever. You and your selective reading and everything being black and white I can understand how it's difficult to understand that no one is perfect, even BB. But then again you must be getting T. Wilson HoF plaque ready right? And, Ras-I's too right?

    True, in this one instance yes I feel he was foolish not to proper backup up injury prone players who happen to be main starters and it came to a head when in the playoffs without Gronk, a capable WR, and a 3rd down pass catching back we couldn't move the ball for the life of us. Having a healthy Gronk, a capable WR, and a healthy Vereen would have made a difference. But, guess what as in every other year those guys got hurt. Go figure right. If this was the Jets and they had guys they counted on who continually got injured and every year it was one of the reasons they were knocked out what would you be saying about them? I guarantee you remove BB's name and put in any other coach and you would make fun of them because they didn't get effective backups for known injury issues but since it's BB you have to defend him to the last breath

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    I know this thread got off track, but to go back to the original question if we need more offense...who had the most drops in football last year? It was the Lions. Who had the second most drops in football? It was us, the Patriots! So that proves we don't need more on offense, because we weren't the absolute worst in the NFL at maybe the most crucial part of an offense today (the passing game).

    I can't believe how spoiled people are around here - I just proved that there was one other team that performed worse than our receivers...and yet people probably still think we need more. It amazes me how some people just can't be happy.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I know this thread got off track, but to go back to the original question if we need more offense...who had the most drops in football last year? It was the Lions. Who had the second most drops in football? It was us, the Patriots! So that proves we don't need more on offense, because we weren't the absolute worst in the NFL at maybe the most crucial part of an offense today (the passing game).

    I can't believe how spoiled people are around here - I just proved that there was one other team that performed worse than our receivers...and yet people probably still think we need more. It amazes me how some people just can't be happy.

    [/QUOTE]

    +1 people are still calling for offense even though BB went out this off season and got Revis, Browner, and added a guy I think will make a good impact in LaFell.

    Fact is, everyone b!tches about how bad the defense has been as of late, but since that is now loaded and in line to be a top 5 D they need to look to the offense which was top 10 in all major catagories last season even with the bumps in the road. It will only be better this year. Teams are allowed to have weaknesses and to me, we don't have a lot.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Uncle Rico. Show Uncle Rico's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I know this thread got off track, but to go back to the original question if we need more offense...who had the most drops in football last year? It was the Lions. Who had the second most drops in football? It was us, the Patriots! So that proves we don't need more on offense, because we weren't the absolute worst in the NFL at maybe the most crucial part of an offense today (the passing game).

    I can't believe how spoiled people are around here - I just proved that there was one other team that performed worse than our receivers...and yet people probably still think we need more. It amazes me how some people just can't be happy.

    [/QUOTE]

    +1 people are still calling for offense even though BB went out this off season and got Revis, Browner, and added a guy I think will make a good impact in LaFell.

    Fact is, everyone b!tches about how bad the defense has been as of late, but since that is now loaded and in line to be a top 5 D they need to look to the offense which was top 10 in all major catagories last season even with the bumps in the road. It will only be better this year. Teams are allowed to have weaknesses and to me, we don't have a lot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lafell has no hands.  He dropped balls from Newton, imagine him trying to catch the high velocity passes from Tommy Brady.  Carolina fans thinks his hands are bad to.\

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to Uncle Rico's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Lafell has no hands.  He dropped balls from Newton, imagine him trying to catch the high velocity passes from Tommy Brady.  Carolina fans thinks his hands are bad to.\

    [/QUOTE]

    I know Lafell's lack of hands in well documented... but, he did have a 3- 600 yard seasons in a Carolina offense. That's impressive imo because Smith was the number 1, Olsen is the #2 and they run a very conservative offense.

    I don't think LaFell is going to give us 1,200 yards or something but I think he can come in and give us 800-900 yards 4-5 TDs. Yes he as bad hands but its not like he drops 50% of his passes, I'll live with it.. I think he'll be good with Brady

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from DougIrwin. Show DougIrwin's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Uncle Rico's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Lafell has no hands.  He dropped balls from Newton, imagine him trying to catch the high velocity passes from Tommy Brady.  Carolina fans thinks his hands are bad to.\

    [/QUOTE]

    I know Lafell's lack of hands in well documented... but, he did have a 3- 600 yard seasons in a Carolina offense. That's impressive imo because Smith was the number 1, Olsen is the #2 and they run a very conservative offense.

    I don't think LaFell is going to give us 1,200 yards or something but I think he can come in and give us 800-900 yards 4-5 TDs. Yes he as bad hands but its not like he drops 50% of his passes, I'll live with it.. I think he'll be good with Brady

    [/QUOTE]

    You are talking to Bustchise.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You are talking to Bustchise.

    [/QUOTE]

    And? You talk to him all the time too

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share