Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

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

    Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    I do not like Gasper's articles very much.  He's usually over the top and he's been a scribe in this town for much too short a time to have the negative schtick working for him. 

    In a recent article, he writes that the recent moves the Pats have made as "going for it" this year, and I actually agree with him.  The Pats have managed to accumulate some young talent and have used free agency to round out the roster nicely.  Many here have been saying for years that this team is rebuilding, and I believe they have been, even last year at 14-2 this team was not a finished product. 

    Gasper's article says that it's go for broke now, that this is the year since the Pats have invested in guys like Haynesworth, Ellis, Carter and CJ, and have brought Light back for another year and franchised Mankins.  He thinks that the core is going break apart next year and this could be the Pats' best chance to get back to a superbowl in the Brady era.

    I would argue that this team is set up nicely for the next 3-4 years and isn't a 1-trick pony loading up on vets like some of our division rivals.  This team will have some choices to make soon deciding which guys to re-sign, but there is enough young talent to keep this team competitive throughout the rest of Brady's time here.  I think the past few years of drafting have brought us another 3-4 year superbowl window.  Anyone else agree that this team is set up nicely for the next 3-4 years?     
     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    Reading that last article made me think the news media's sensationalism is creeping into the sports pages... Patriots have an excelling YOUNG team. Just because BB is filling a big need with proven vets, it mean's he's going all in? Don't think so...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from lippa. Show lippa's posts

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    Do you have a link to thi article?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from USMCM1A1. Show USMCM1A1's posts

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    He's interpreting roster change as an act of desperation--we have to win NOW. 

    I interpret it as adapting--BB is changing things that didn't work last year/taking advantage of what's available this year.  I don't think BB will ever move away from his core philosophy of building the franchise for long term success.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    The guy has to say something. Why, I don't know.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    I beleive that the Pats had one of the youngest teams last
    year with mnay really good players
    I will be interested to see the average age this year!

    That said - the only position we should really
    worry about is QB - thats it - and we do have potential
    there as well

    I see  "going for broke" is sort of an irrlevant
       inane comment
    I mean we have a Salary Cap and a minimum CASh Floor

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

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    I dissagree, sure the Pats brought in some talented vets to give themselves a championship caliber team, but to say they have sold out for one chance at a ring is rediculous.  This team is stacked with young talent on both sides of the ball, not to mention what seems like an endless pool of draft picks.  If anything I say these veteran players will help develope the younger players and help us to be a better team in the future after they have left.  The one timeline I will buy into is the Tom Brady timeline, once he is gone there will obviously be a fallout, but IMO we will get a minimum of at least 4 more quality years out of him.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?


    I guess we went for broke in 2001, 2003/04 as well by bringing in vets to compliment our youngsters and 3-5 year players. if that is the definition of going for broke, please count me in.

    I do agree however we have a window while Brady is still here and leading this team. We squandered a few years by thinking we could get by with the Reche Caldwell's of the world. I see the next 3-4 years as prime striking opportunity for us, and a chance to add another couple of Lombardi's to the collection. I woudl really like to see Brady surpass Montana in this category.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dessalines. Show Dessalines's posts

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    In Response to Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?:
    He's interpreting roster change as an act of desperation--we have to win NOW.  I interpret it as adapting--BB is changing things that didn't work last year/taking advantage of what's available this year.  I don't think BB will ever move away from his core philosophy of building the franchise for long term success.
    Posted by USMCM1A1


    And you would be right and Gasper would be wrong but then he is a sports writer in Boston.  Sports writers in Boston, along with most fans, live in a dark place, where there are curses and conspiracies and all that one writes must have a negative anger born of a desperation to win that seems to come from drinking the water of something.  They are all the same and what they write should be taking with a grain of salt.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from JayShizzle45. Show JayShizzle45's posts

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    Dont really care for Gasper, I think he tries to hard to be the anti -Reiss, and always have something edgy to say, when really he comes off as a uninformed ho mo...(no offense to anyone's sex. pref.)  but yeah, I never really cared for him, I think he has some decent opinions at times, but blahhhh

    Yeah, I would say both you are right. He is loading up this year, but he is always trying to load up, its just a matter of who is available. A lot of moves never happen, but it doesnt mean Bill doesnt do this every year. He tried to get Mason a few years back, that would have been big. This year he jsut happened to be able to land a couple big names and thats it, but we are set for years to come, but Also, Yes we are trying to win now, and he is one of a few  coaches that can say that..
     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    Ridiculous article. He compares this season to '07 and says that BB is all in because the future of a few players is uncertain. In '07, the entire defense was either aging or facing the end of their contract. Everybody knew Seau, Harrison, Seymore, Vrabel, Samuel, and Bruschi were near the end of the line. It was also pretty evident T. Brown was about done too. Gasper correlates that to this season because Light, Koppen, and Welker might not be back? Give me a break. First of all, Welker will be back IMO. He's still relatively young and a vital part of our offense. Every team has uncertainties about the future of a handful of players every year. This year is no different than any other. 

    Brady has at least good three years left. By then, Mallet should be ready to step in. I live in the south and keep up with the SEC. I saw Mallet outright SHRED defenses last year. It was crazy. I knew he was under the radar going into the draft, and couldn't believe we managed to get him. Trust me, the future is bright in New England... for years to come.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    He has a little bit of a point, in that there are some expiring contracts. But it isn't so dire, so perhaps he overstates that. This team isn't like the 2004 Redsox, where a lot of the great players were leaving the next season and they went over a barrel to acquire Curt Schilling.

    His strongest point is with the Light deal, not so much the Haynesworth addition. Brining Light back for one more shows that BB thinks this team could go pretty far and he doesn't want to leave Brady in the hands of a rookie. The one year for Ellis is convincing too, but again, I imagine that a draft selection down the road fills that roster spot out or perhaps one other young en.

    I think this is more like BB wants to compete now and in the future. He saw obvious holes in the pass rush, on the line, in the WR corps, and most newly developed at RB, and decided to plug them agressively understanding that even with those holes the team was 14-2 last season, and a couple minor mistakes away from progressing in the playoffs. That is distinct from last season where he let some rookies and young guys play out, without expectations.

    So while there are expiring deals, NE has a load of selections in 2012, and a handful of young guys ready to step in and take room up.
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?


    It's also hard to compare this year to years past. The lockout in some way required teams (not only the Pats) to look at young player development/readiness in a different way. The difference with the Pats, Eagles, etc. is that they invested in proven vets (including Light, Mankins, etc.) because they understood the young players wouldn't have the proper time to develop without an extended pre-season/camp.
    I'm not sure how the Light thing would have played out if Solder was working with Dante since April or May. Would they have signed Light?
    So, again, comparing the moves this year is difficult at best to years past because of this compressed pre-season and camp.

    I also still think it is nothing different in some ways to what BB has always been doing, and doing since 2000..which is having a nice compliment of vets to younger guys. Every team does to a degree, but it's the way in which he uses the draft and FA that makes it special.
     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    At the end of the day guys he's the press and he's paid to turn heads. Whether or not he's actually tuned into Patriot football is another thing but he's paid to write shocking headlines etc. Obviously some of the things he comes out with are complete BS but it's job to say the sky's falling when are bad and that things have never been better when they're good. He's paid to get reactions just like the current reaction on this thread. I don't think very many people would buy a paper daily to hear about how great the team is everyday as true as that may. I doubt what he writes on here are his true opinions well unless he is a true idiot
     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    I guess i am not understanding.  Your goal is to win a Super Bowl.  You also have money you have to spend.  i thought you can spend your money how you choose to.  if the guys we spent the money on were no name guys, nothing would have been said.  i take that back, they would have said why did NE pick up that guy when this guy was available.  We spent our money on the best available free agents.  What is the big deal?  These guys were going to sign with a team even if we did not pick them up.  Bill made the best move for the team.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from danemcmenamin. Show danemcmenamin's posts

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    I agree, i spose he writes for the Globe somethin mainly Boston fans will only read so I suppose there's little need to write nonsense when we know the truth ourselves from A) living in the area and having other sources and B) being intelligent enough to realise that it's a team built for the net 4 years. If Gasper's a puppet i think Shaughnessy is much worse I think he's clearly told to be the bad cop of the group he's rarely ever positive. I mean things have to be awesome for him to truely admit it.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    In Response to Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?:
    Why is someone so out of touch allowed to be employed?  The guy is right there following the team day to day, for crying out loud, and it's his job to at least be somewhere in the ballpark of having a clue. CHB and Mazz are the same way, except Gasper is more of an on the scene beatwriter/columist for the Pats.   CHB and Mazz are more just columnists who think they know everything. NE has two 1st rd picks next year (AGAIN), had a good 2009 draft, a GREAT 2010 draft and what appears to be a good 2011 draft. This means BB will have strung together 4 good drafts in a row when 2012 rolls around.  Go look at any unnamed NFL executive's quotes the last year or two and their opinions on NE.  They all say the same thing. Even national media haters can't ignore the genius of Belichick's incredibly thorough rebuilding process here. Meanwhile, Gapser feels these new FA moves are some sign of selling out for oen season?  What planet am I on here? This doesn't count players being developed in the pipeline who haven't even really hit the scene yet as mid, late or UDFA picks, either.  These always seem to be strong players for BB teams. Gasper is the type that thinks it's a good idea to look stupid by putting an agenda above his craft, and the fact is, no one will respect you as a professional when you do that. Even an educated Pats hater wouldn't claim NE is gambling to win in 2011 exclusively. When Ellis, Carter and Haynesworth or even Ocho Cinco, move on in the next 2-3 years, Belichick will have developed players or fresh, high draft picks AND veteran FAs, coming in here. Again, and again, and again. Gasper is either dumb, lazy or letting the agenda do the talking.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing


         While I agree that the Pats are "going for it" this year...they have gone for it every year for the past decade. The Pats grabbed Haynesworth, Ellis, and Ocho not out of desperation, but because the opportunity to get such players presented itself. 

         The free agents signed are basically all on one year deals. There's no long term effect on the salary cap. So...to imply that the Patriots are somehow going for broke this year, to the detriment of the future, is wholly inaccurate.  

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

    Re: Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?

    In Response to Anyone agree with Gasper's take on the Pats?:
    I do not like Gasper's articles very much.  He's usually over the top and he's been a scribe in this town for much too short a time to have the negative schtick working for him.  In a recent article, he writes that the recent moves the Pats have made as "going for it" this year, and I actually agree with him.  The Pats have managed to accumulate some young talent and have used free agency to round out the roster nicely.  Many here have been saying for years that this team is rebuilding, and I believe they have been, even last year at 14-2 this team was not a finished product.  Gasper's article says that it's go for broke now, that this is the year since the Pats have invested in guys like Haynesworth, Ellis, Carter and CJ, and have brought Light back for another year and franchised Mankins.  He thinks that the core is going break apart next year and this could be the Pats' best chance to get back to a superbowl in the Brady era. I would argue that this team is set up nicely for the next 3-4 years and isn't a 1-trick pony loading up on vets like some of our division rivals.  This team will have some choices to make soon deciding which guys to re-sign, but there is enough young talent to keep this team competitive throughout the rest of Brady's time here.  I think the past few years of drafting have brought us another 3-4 year superbowl window.  Anyone else agree that this team is set up nicely for the next 3-4 years?     
    Posted by CablesWyndBairn

    I did not agree with his article at all. This isn't the '04 Red Sox. I believe we had the youngest defense in the league last year, plus two rookie TEs and young guys like Tate on offense. He stated that because of guys like Faulk and Light nearing the end of their careers this is a make or break year. We did fine without Faulk last year thanks to Woodhead, and we've already drafted Light's replacement. We also took two RBs high in the draft. Brady is still in his prime. We are set for at least a few years.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share