Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

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

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    Bubba, Sorry for the correction but the "tuck" rule was instituted long before that game and it was called against the Pats earlier that season. Therefore the rule did not "subsequently" come from that game.
    Posted by rtuinila


    No worries. Correction noted - u are right. No need to apologize - I don't consider myself to be overly sensitive about being wrong - like some other posters.

    Basically, we are in agreement that Bruschi wasn't the first to use the term....and certainly didn't "popularize" the term. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins : You should here my Political conspiracy theories! LOL You know what's funny is the only time I hear what Bruschi says is when I read it on this forum. ESPN almost makes my skin crawl when I watch it now. The NFL Network is much more Palatable.....Except for Marshall faulk..Even Deion is better than ESPN Football guys.
    Posted by ewhite1065


    Let's start a new thread called "Patriot conspiracy theories" just for the helluvit....lol.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Payment84. Show Payment84's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    I understand where Bruschi is coming from and don't disagree about signing Mankins is a GREAT idea. 

    What I take offense to is comments like "If they don't have him, they will not be able to protect Tom Brady and that running game will not function."

    Really?!  I think any replacement would be hard pressed to fill his shoes completely, but I highly doubt our team will crumble apart like he predicts...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kebbe. Show kebbe's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

         Mankins is clearly the Pats best O.L. at this moment and every effort should be made to sugn him long term but when the nexr CBA is signed,you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be a hard salary at some percentage of revenue.Even the NFLPA knows this as they were saying they wouldn't accept a salary cap while negotiating with the owners about what the percentage should be(the owners were offering a onerous cut in the past CBA and the NFLPA was furious and with cause).with a cap,it would be reasonable to lock him in for 4-5 years at $ 5.5 to $6.5 par season,assuming the new salary caP IS CLOSE TO THE LAST ONE.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    I hope they sign him but if he wants top money it will be 7 or 8 million.

    2010 Saints guard    Jahri Evans          7yr 56.7M

    2008 Jets guard       Alan Faneca         5yr 40M       21M guaranteed

    2008 Giants guard     Chris Snee          6yr 43.5M

    2007 Browns guard   Eric Steinbach      7yr 49M       17M guaranteed

    2007 Cowboys guard Leonard Davis      7yr 49.6M 18.75M guaranteed

    2006 Vikings guard    Steve Hutchinson 7yr 49M       16M guaranteed

    I don't know if the Patriots will go that high.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    So who's the bigger issue - Mankins for the pats or Mathis for the colts?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggggg. Show underdoggggg's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    Ok - so the question I asked is: who is worse off:  The pats with mankins out or the colts with mathis out?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    Ok - so the question I asked is: who is worse off:  The pats with mankins out or the colts with mathis out?
    Posted by underdoggggg


    The Colts without Mathis..The Patriots are used to losing Lineman to free agency and Injuries and seem to work around it. I don't place as much Value on Mankins as Bruschi does. I think he is a very good lineman but if he is not there we'll find somebody to do the Job. When Damien Woody flew the coupe that was supposed to be an unreplaceable player but didn't affect us much.There were a lot of people complaining when Joe Andruzzi hit the road too. I would much rather lose Mankins than Wilfork or Ty warren right now. I would think the Same is true for Indy. Would you rather lose your best Offensive lineman or Mathis?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BTownExpress. Show BTownExpress's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    Mankins is a class act; a real football player.  I cannot imagine this situation not getting resolved.  This guy is a Patriot; the team needs him.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    Ok - so the question I asked is: who is worse off:  The pats with mankins out or the colts with mathis out?
    Posted by underdoggggg


    LOL...that's too easy. Colts w/o mathis.  Can we have him?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    Some of you apparently don't know any non_pats fans or never lived outside thhe Boston area long enough to get a gauge of the jealousy and hatred of this team. Newsflash:  90% of non-Pats fans HATE NE. Posted by russgriswold


    where is your reliable source on this stat? just curious.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins



    "Newsflash:  90% of non-Pats fans HATE NE.  Even fans in the NFC who have no real connection to the AFC HATE NE because they cannot stand who well run they are compared to their team. "Russgriswold
    ----------------------

    where is your reliable source on this stat? just curious." Bubba
    -----
    "I don't need a stat to have experience living out of the Boston area for over 10 years and seeing this unfold." RUSS
    -----
    I interpret this to mean that you're speaking out of your azz again.

    So, let's say the following is a "reliable source":http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-HATE-THE-PATRIOTS/183698620985

    they claim 100,000 people hate the patriots.  Hmmm, there are about 270 Million adults in the united states....that comes out to .05%.

    YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT - PEOPLE DO HATE THE PATRIOTS - YOU PROVED IT - I AM WRONG.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    I don't need to prove an opinion, Einstein. As you can see, there are MULTIPLE people on this thread who see the exact same thing I do and agree with me. Only people with large tires on large pick ups use all caps, too. lol Insecure much?
    Posted by russgriswold


    LMAO. No, i'm definitely not insecure - I don't ever have problems admitting that I'm wrong. And the use of caps was obviously a way of expressing sarcasm - because I wanted it to be fairly explicit as to what I was really conveying about you.


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

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    You should admit you're wrong when you roll about of bed in the morning and then look in the mirror. Might be easier for you. Name a time I was factually wrong here and didn't admit it.
    Posted by russgriswold


    I don't have to. You did it for me. Wouldn't it be easier if you found that post and did it for us?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    "No. Name one time I was factually incorrect, was corrected, and then didn't admit I was wrong.

    You seem to confuse opinion with fact because, quite frankly, you aren't playing with a full deck." Russ
    ------------------
    Naah....yer just finding a way to backtrack. Whether you are giving your opinion based on bs or expressing incorrect facts....you're looking pretty sad either way.

    --------------

    "Newsflash:  90% of non-Pats fans HATE NE.  Even fans in the NFC who have no real connection to the AFC HATE NE because they cannot stand who well run they are compared to their team. "Russgriswold
    ----------------------

    where is your reliable source on this stat? just curious." Bubba
    -----
    "I don't need a stat to have experience living out of the Boston area for over 10 years and seeing this unfold." RUSS
    -----
    I interpret this to mean that you're speaking out of your azz again.

    So, let's say the following is a "reliable source":http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-HATE-THE-PATRIOTS/183698620985

    they claim 100,000 people hate the patriots.  Hmmm, there are about 270 Million adults in the united states....that comes out to .05%.
    -------------

    This is so easy....lol.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    What did BB do to Bruschi?   Bruschi has spent his time at ESPN, just hammering every single move BB makes. Every non-move is the worst thing ever and every move they make is awful. I have lost a lot of respect for Bruschi. Love the guy as a player, find him ultra annoying as an ESPN yes man.  
    Posted by russgriswold


    Hmmm, the term every means that Bruschi has never complemented a move BB had involvement in.

    nev·er

    1.
    not ever; at no time: Such an idea never occurred to me.
    2.
    not at all; absolutely not: never mind; This will never do.

    and yet, here's a statement from bruschi:

    "“In the NFL today, you need three good corners,” Bruschi said in a meet-and-greet setting at Mullen, a Boston-based advertising agency. “You have Leigh Bodden, Darius Butler an up-and-comer, and now you have the third corner in Devin McCourty. I think he was a good pick.”  Bruschi

    http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4678036/tedy-bruschi-assesses-mccourty-pick

    So, again....either your "opinion" about Bruschi ALWAYS slamming BB is wrong...or your mistatement about "facts" is wrong.  Either way your wrong.

    Just admit it. I'm betting you can't.

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

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins : Sure. I honestly don't care.  You seem to have an issue with the concept of a figure of speech. Saying "never" here is just that. Let me rephrase: "Generally speaking, Bruschi is slow to compliment NE as an ESPN head and is quick to bash. "Generally speaking", the "majority" of non Pats fans hate NE. Hows' that, counselor? lol
    Posted by russgriswold




     Of course you don't care...that's why you keep responding. I knew you couldn't admit you were wrong. Even your "opinion" that opinions can't be wrong is....u guessed it - wrong.

    opinion =
    a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

    There was once a time when people's opinion was that the world was flat. Guess what? they were wrong because of a dude named
    Pythagoras.

    I'm guessing that the odds would be in my favor that you can't go a month without attacking posters who have oposing views than you.

    Seriously, how hard is it to say that you're wrong? Like yer gonna lose your "street cred" if u do? Oh, my. That would be devastating.

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

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    Bruschi's fine........And Mankins is going to get paid. If the Pats thought for a minute they weren't going to sign him, they would have drafted OL high up.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Payment84. Show Payment84's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    they were wrong because of a dude named Pythagoras.
    Posted by BubbaInHawaii


    Really?!?  I thought you were giving Rusty a run for his money in this thread until this line...

    It clearly shows your lack of mental capacity when you use the word dude, followed by a lame attempt to simply add a "big" word for the sake of trying to impress someone.  You're openly trying to get the best of Rusty, but it might simply be you don't have what it takes...
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins : Really?!?  I thought you were giving Rusty a run for his money in this thread until this line... It clearly shows your lack of mental capacity when you use the word dude, followed by a lame attempt to simply add a "big" word for the sake of trying to impress someone.  You're openly trying to get the best of Rusty, but it might simply be you don't have what it takes...
    Posted by Payment84


    LOL....yes, you got me :)

    Actually, I was merely defending myself based on unnecessary comments from another thread...so, the drama continues.   I don't expect you to go back and see the actual timeline of this stuff - but I can see how you think that I'm just out to get him.

    In actuality, Rusty does know his stuff - and if one weeds out all the personal stuff - I can see his points of view. And, yeah, I was bustin' his ballz a little just to give him a taste of  his own medicine.

    In terms of the use of the word "dude" - I don't think it says anything about one's "intelligence" one way or the other.  If you feel that using that term denotes something otherwise....that's okay.    The term is used quite often in places like California, Hawaii, Florida...

    In addition, I'm the first person to say that I'm not that bright. There are tons of people on this board who know more about football than I do -  and I'm perfectly fine with that. I don't post on this board to prove my "intelligence" - I do so cuz I get bored and it keeps me out of trouble.

    nuf said, peace brah.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from waldorff. Show waldorff's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    Patstats: Just because I feel Flacco regressed when I saw him play live in 2009 as opposed to 2008, and he didn't play as well in the post season doesn't I am wrong. He almost led Baltimore to an upset in his ROOKIE YEAR in Pitt in the title game. He didn't look as good this past post season.  Not a hard concept. I used his play from one season to the next to judge him, you didn't. I am wrong because I used a different context?  I don't think so.    Others agreed with me on that too, by the way. A slight bump in stats doesn't mean he improved. That's like saying Jay Cutler improved in 2008 as he tossed a boatload of picks in the second half of the season while throwing more TDs.  No, he didn't improve. He got more reckless which means he didn't improve. As for Pete Carroll's defense and BB's defense, it's not worth addressing, but I will.  BB inherited a horrendous cap team in 2000 from Pete Carroll/Bobby Grier and started to slowly clean things up just like he was doing in Cleveland before scapegoated out of town. Belichick has taken defenses MULTIPLE TIMES, from being average to being great. Pete Carroll NEVER HAS. He adopted some very good players in 1997 and piggybacked off of that until his inept leadership started to show, leading to his well deserved firing.  FAIL. Anyone claiming Pete Carroll did more with the same D BB had the year prior, might have some issues.   Feverishly looking up stats in order to debunk someone's opinion only goes so far, especially in this case since one D, led by BB was a Super Bowl D and the other was not. You can pretend Pete Carroll had better production over BB's D all you want, but one version to a SB and one did not. Case closed.
    Posted by russgriswold



    Sounds like you are claiming something with your heart instead of your head.  You can 'feel like' a guy regressed all you want,but you'd still be wrong.  The NFL has a very specific criteria for rating QBs.  The fact that you saw a guy play has nothing to do with anything.  THe NFL also has very specific criteria for rating defenses.  It sure didn't sound like he was claiming that Carroll was a better coach than Bill, just that you were incorrect in stating that the defense got better in the first year he arrived and worse in the first year after he left.  The NFL judges defenses on points allowed.  Again, your love for BB seems to get in the way of not only your ability to think clearly, but your ability to just admit when you are wrong.  If a defense gives up 300 points one year and 350, the next, guess what?  It got worse regardless of how far each team got in the playoffs that year or following years.  In order to look a like a complete fool, you need to stop this silly argument right now and admit you were wrong, so wrong.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from waldorff. Show waldorff's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    Statistically, I am wrong.  Results-wise, I am correct. It's the same argument people make about Manning being better than Brady. Stats-wise he is, but results wise, he ain't. You ask me to stop, I'd ask you to stop.   There is no argument here. A few of you want to try to nail my balls to the wall on a difference of opinion. If the Pats give up one more point on defense this year and win the SB, how is the defense worse than last years? Doesn't quite make sense, does it, Mr. Context fail.
    Posted by russgriswold


    Are you saying that any performance is contingent upon the results of the team in that season?  So, becasue Flacco had a about a 10% increase in his QB rating, a pretty substantial increase, he actually regressed because the team had two less wins and didn't make it as far in the playoffs?  Is this tru for all players or only the ones you are trying to back up a failed argument about? IS it relevant that their defense gave up less point in his rookie year or that the turnover ratio was better in his first year? 
    If it's all about record, why would you consider a team that went from 8-8 to 5-11 while giving up more points than the 8-8 team a better defense? You are going to need a little bit o consistancy here.  When you use an argument for one thing you look really dumb when you try to use the opposite argument somewhere else. 
    Lasty, to finish beating your empty little head into the ground, do you think that Brady was a better QB in 2001, 2003, 2004 than in 2007?  After all, the Patriots didn't do as well. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from waldorff. Show waldorff's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    Kid, when you graduate high school, let us know.   Until then, you can give up trying to pretend you somehow have better reasoning skills than I do because it ain't working.  Your pea brain doesn't have the capacity to understand multiple contexts at once. It's never ALL ABOUT one particular thing when talking about a team sport, Einstein. My premise about Flacco would be that he improved STATISTICALLY because his running game got better, just as Matt Ryan regressed a little because his running game got worse in support his passing stats. Michael Turner ran for half the yards, hence why Matt Ryan struggled to improve statistically. Overall, Flacco regressed a little by not leading his team back to the Title game, arguably with a better overall offense in place.  Gee, Ray Rice rushing for 440 yards or 1300 yards?   Hmm. That's pretty simple.   DUMMY
    Posted by russgriswold


    Wrong again.  The Ravens regressed, Flacco got better.  I know that you'd like to think that you are the one that gets to decide the rating of teams, players and coaches, but there is already a system in place.  Just keep on with you unnatural love for Bill B.  He really appreciates your feelings for him. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from waldorff. Show waldorff's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    Now the Ravens regressed?  hahah Just admit your daft and move on already.
    Posted by russgriswold


    Ugggg, yeah. I suppose you have some other way of turing it around. However, what you will find is in 99.999999999999% of the football world when a team goes from 11-5 and a league championship game to 9-6 and a divisional playoff loss that is generally considered regressing.  To simplify it for you, they did not do as well as a team, even though there QB performed better in his second year.  I understand that you consider it impossible any team that crushes a BB coached team 33-14 could have actually regressed from the year before and in your bizzaro world where a higher QB rating means you actually have gotten worse, this all seams really weird to you.  Regardless of your lack of understanding of some pretty common football truths, you are once again, wrong and you refuse to admit it.  Please apologize to the forum and personally to Bubba.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins

    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:
    In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins : Ugggg, yeah. I suppose you have some other way of turing it around. However, what you will find is in 99.999999999999% of the football world when a team goes from 11-5 and a league championship game to 9-6 and a divisional playoff loss that is generally considered regressing.  To simplify it for you, they did not do as well as a team, even though there QB performed better in his second year.  I understand that you consider it impossible any team that crushes a BB coached team 33-14 could have actually regressed from the year before and in your bizzaro world where a higher QB rating means you actually have gotten worse, this all seams really weird to you.  Regardless of your lack of understanding of some pretty common football truths, you are once again, wrong and you refuse to admit it.  Please apologize to the forum and personally to Bubba.
    Posted by waldorff


    Thanks for the support, but I don't feel anybody owes an apology to anyone.  I suspect the drama has been layed to rest.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share