Belichick sites "Suck for Luck"

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

    Re: Belichick sites

    How many fans here want a losing season just to get a high draft pick?  Imagine what this board would be like if the Pats had a losing season??!!


    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Belichick sites

    I still think he's saying we won't tank when Brady's done to get a good QB. Pro active not reactive. That's how we roll here. 


     


     


    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.


    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Belichick sites

    http://www.patriots.com/news/article-1/Belichick-focused-on-success-more-than-succession/c4d2e23c-5ec3-46e6-a72b-df5fd0e7cdaf" rel="nofollow">http://www.patriots.com/news/article-1/Belichick-focused-on-success-more-than-succession/c4d2e23c-5ec3-46e6-a72b-df5fd0e7cdaf    Andy hart seems to agree. 


     


     


    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.


    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Belichick sites

    always easy to critique from the couch. Colts certainly thought they had a viable back up in Painter. They may have been wrong - or the rest of the personnel was either aging or untalented as a result of Polian letting his son pull the strings - but teams that have had the pats number in recent years (Baltimore and NYG) must have seen something in Painter because they rostered him after the colts debacle.


    What the comment is saying is less about your back up QB and more about the talent of the rest of the team and never allowing it (the rest of the team) to be substandard. What Belichick is basically admitting is how great Manning is. Because he was surrounded by an overall team with less talent in most areas, Belichick is saying that Manning as a single player had to carry his team and take on more singular responsibility for the team's success than Belichick would want any single player on his team to have to have.


    Ultimately the comment is a supreme compliment to manning and somewhat of a backhanded dig at Polian, although probably more for Polian letting his son take the reigns than Polian's personnel style itself.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Belichick sites

    Belichick is saying that he would never let the team tank for a QB, or any player for that matter. I think this was a direct shot across Polians bow. 


    So if belichick feels that manning was the savior and the rest of the team stinks then it must also mean that dumping all the cash in manning s basket must be the reason there was no depth.  So is luck that good or did the team magically pull it out of their "magic hat" the following year?  Something doesn't add up. 


     


     


    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.


    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Belichick sites

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Belichick is saying that he would never let the team tank for a QB, or any player for that matter. I think this was a direct shot across Polians bow. 


     


    So if belichick feels that manning was the savior and the rest of the team stinks then it must also mean that dumping all the cash in manning s basket must be the reason there was no depth.  So is luck that good or did the team magically pull it out of their "magic hat" the following year?  Something doesn't add up. 


     


     


     


     


     


    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.


     


    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?


    [/QUOTE]

    I think you might want to go back and read everything I just wrote.  It's chock full of answers to your questions.  


    The new regime turned over 70% of the roster before the following season started.  The returning starters were few.  

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Belichick sites

    In response to agcsbill's comment:


     


    How many fans here want a losing season just to get a high draft pick?  Imagine what this board would be like if the Pats had a losing season??!!


     


     


     


    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!


     



     


    Some fans of the team where I live call this the "long-term" approach.


     


    The thinking seems to be that it's better to "tank" and end up with Christian Ponder than to be mediocre and end up with . . .   ummmm  . . .   Teddy Bridgewater.


     


    I dunno.


     


    You tell me.


     


    Oh . . .   and Hi underdog(gggg)!


     


     

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

    Re: Belichick sites

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:


    [QUOTE]


    In response to mthurl's comment:


    [QUOTE]


    What he is saying is that Mallett sucks...he was a mistake and he's not good enough to help us win if he lose Brady to an injury. Which is what most of is think when we watch him play in the preseason.


    [/QUOTE]


    Since he also mentioned Mallet is in his last year of a contract(ie going to get paid by someone else), he is not really saying that.


    [/QUOTE]


    Ok so why is he going to get paid by someone else? If he was that good we'd pay him or get a reasonably high draft choice for him in return. I wonder what we were offered for him from Houston? Whatever it was it wasn't enough to let him go for picks in this year's draft.


    I honestly think if this guy was all that good we wouldn't of brought in another guy in the second round to replace him.


    [/QUOTE]

    Doesn't the player get a voice in this?  If I think I'm good enough to start I'm going to a place to where I get that chance.  Not backup Brady for another 2, 3 or 4 years.

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

    Re: Belichick sites

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    What he is saying is that Mallett sucks...he was a mistake and he's not good enough to help us win if he lose Brady to an injury. Which is what most of is think when we watch him play in the preseason.


    [/QUOTE]

    For all we know, Mallett was the second best quarterback in the AFC East last year.  The problem is, he's not good enough to franchise and other teams will pay him triple what he's worth in 2015, simply because he was on a team that went a combined 37-11 between 2011 and 2013 so he must be worth something.  In response to this problem, BB went out and found a kid at the tail end of the second round (cheap!) who might be just as good.  The kid will train in 2014 and will be ready to go in 2015.  Mallet was picked at #74 while the new kid, Garblegarble, was picked at #62.  Not much change there.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Belichick sites

    In response to p-mike's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     


    In response to agcsbill's comment:


     


    [QUOTE]


     


    Hey Pmike.  Good to see you post.  I don't come by as often as I used to.  The board has devolved into the Rusty and Babe show (I swear these guys could make money if they were put on air together), and so it is not as active with good posters like yourself.  Further the Colts/Pats thing has become a thing of the past.  


     


    Things change.  Life marches on.  

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

    Re: Belichick sites

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     


    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     


     


     


    What he is saying is that Mallett sucks...he was a mistake and he's not good enough to help us win if he lose Brady to an injury. Which is what most of is think when we watch him play in the preseason.


     


     


     


    [/QUOTE]

    Since he also mentioned Mallet is in his last year of a contract(ie going to get paid by someone else), he is not really saying that.


     


    [/QUOTE]


    Ok so why is he going to get paid by someone else? If he was that good we'd pay him or get a reasonably high draft choice for him in return. I wonder what we were offered for him from Houston? Whatever it was it wasn't enough to let him go for picks in this year's draft.


     


    I honestly think if this guy was all that good we wouldn't of brought in another guy in the second round to replace him.


    [/QUOTE]

    It's not just about what the Patriots want, it's also what Mallet is looking to do.  I doubt very much that he would be interested in hanging on here with the understanding that he might get the chance to lead this team, sometime in the next 1 to 5 years.  Now, if you guaranteed him the starting position after this season...that might peek his interest.  But, we know that isn't happening

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Belichick sites

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     


    What he is saying is that Mallett sucks...he was a mistake and he's not good enough to help us win if he lose Brady to an injury. Which is what most of is think when we watch him play in the preseason.


     


    [/QUOTE]


    Mallet filled the back-up role adequately enough--in fact, well enough that BB was comfortable keeping just two QBs on the roster.  I think people make the mistake of assuming Mallet was ever supposed to be something more than the back-up.  That was his role, and he did that well enough to keep a roster slot open for someone other than a third QB.


    [/QUOTE]

    Mallet also left a preseason game last year after a hit that was not-so-big.  He has durability issues.  Carrying a 3rd QB this year makes a lot of sense.


    Spending a 2nd round pick on a 3rd stringer is the problem.  Just how good the pick is ...  will be the issue that Patriots and their fans will "garapple"  with.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Belichick sites

    2nd round pick vs. 3rd string QB....   its like garapples and oranges.

     

Share