Choose your Faction.

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    This is to be my last (maybe (-;) post to this discussion.

    I consider my faction to be a Patriots' fan...   simply put and always will be.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    This is to be my last (maybe (-;) post to this discussion.

    I consider my faction to be a Patriots' fan...   simply put and always will be.



    Obviously a homer...

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    This is to be my last (maybe (-;) post to this discussion.

    I consider my faction to be a Patriots' fan...   simply put and always will be.




    All the factions are Pats fans.

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    There seem to be several factions of thought around these parts.

     

    Pick which one you ascribe to. (Don't try to take a hybrid or you will be disqualified.)

     

    1. Homer Faction (HF): All our players and coaches are the best. Every draft pick and FA signing is brilliant. A bad defense is good. Mickey mouse receivers are excellent.

     

    2. The GM is mediocre Faction (MGMF): Poor decisions over and over and over have left us with a great coach, great QB and a mediocre team otherwise.

     

    3. Brady is the problem Faction (BPF): Brady' poor play and obsession with the shotgun/spread is the cause of our falling short. (Otherwise known as the, "I'm an imbecile like Rusty Faction").

     

    4. Running the ball wins Faction (RWF): Run and balance wins despite whether it is effective or not. BB is too dumb to realize this.

     

     

    I'm in #2, obviously.

     

    Okay, if you HAD to pick one of these, understanding that your actual view might be a combination or somehow not exactly one of the above, what would you choose?

     



         As you know, I tend to agree with you on this subject, and would classify myself as a category #2 guy. But, my concerns about the Pats center on their DL and OL play. Their prime need is for a DT that can stop the run, and collapse the pass pocket.

     

         Their OL is overrated. Though Solder and Mankins on the left side are good, Solder seemingly suffers a concussion every time he gets out of bed, and Mankins is getting old. Ryan Wendell at OC is a disaster, and must be replaced. RG Dan Connelly is an okay reserve, but barely passable as a starter at RG. At RT, Sebastien Vollmer can no longer be relied upon due to health issues. 

         The greatness of the Brady and BB combo can get the team through these DL/OL issues against the average teams. But, in the playoffs, these weaknesses are exposed, and expoited.

         I couldn't help but notice where another poster credited BB the GM for having a good off-season in 2013. Sorry...but that's laughable. BB added nothing in terms of veteran free agents.

         The signing of SS Adrian Wilson was a disaster...when better options such as Bernard Pollard were available. 

         The signings of DTs Tommy Kelly and Armstead didn't work out due to injury. Some call that "bad luck". I call it "foreseeable". When you sign on a 32 year old DT to take the majority of snaps as a starting DT, rather than serve as a rotational player, his chances of getting hurt skyrocket. As for Armstead, the Pats already knew that he had health issues when signed.

         Letting Danny Woodhead walk when he was easily affordable to resign was a huge mistake.

         Bringing aboard WR Danny Amendola didn't work out, as the brittle Amendola came as advertised. Allowing WR Wes Welker to go to Denver hurt the team early, while it strengthened their chief competitor in the AFC.      

         As for the 2013 draft, BB appears to have scored with OLB Jamie Collins. Over the final four games of the season, the kid showed that not only could he contribute, but flourish. Though it's too early to declare him a stud, it's certainly safe to say that the kid has shown great promise.

         The jury is still out on WRs Aaron Dobson and Josh Boyce. It's a major concern that both players had problems staying on the field in 2013. But, Dobson especially showed potential.

         The selection at #91 overall of SS Duron Harmon was a joke. Though advised by his scouting staff that Harmon could be had much later, or be acquired as an undrafted free agent, BB overruled them, and used a top 100 pick to select the guy. Though Harmon contributed, he appears to be Tavon Wilson II. Sorry folks, but you do not use a top 100 pick on a guy who you envision being a contributor on special teams. Top 100 picks should be viewed as immediate contributors, who ill blossom into starters in a couple of years or less. 

         Credit goes to BB for trading away a guy who wanted to be a track star and a 7th round pick, for RB LeGarrette Blount. This was a steal.

         When you compare and contrast what BB did in the off-season to what John Elway did in Denver, you'll see why the Broncos were better than the Patriots last year. Forget whether or not the Pats can beat SF or Seattle. To get to the SB, they must first get past Denver.

         BB should focus this entire off-season on beating the Broncos.        

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    Answer disqualified - rambling.

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    Texas, don't you forget two, rather significant, FA signings? Talib and Edelman were both free agents one year ago. Even if that doesen't change your position, it belongs in the picture. Brady aside, those were our MVPs.  

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    There seem to be several factions of thought around these parts.

     

    Pick which one you ascribe to. (Don't try to take a hybrid or you will be disqualified.)

     

    1. Homer Faction (HF): All our players and coaches are the best. Every draft pick and FA signing is brilliant. A bad defense is good. Mickey mouse receivers are excellent.

     

    2. The GM is mediocre Faction (MGMF): Poor decisions over and over and over have left us with a great coach, great QB and a mediocre team otherwise.

     

    3. Brady is the problem Faction (BPF): Brady' poor play and obsession with the shotgun/spread is the cause of our falling short. (Otherwise known as the, "I'm an imbecile like Rusty Faction").

     

    4. Running the ball wins Faction (RWF): Run and balance wins despite whether it is effective or not. BB is too dumb to realize this.

     

     

    I'm in #2, obviously.

     

    Okay, if you HAD to pick one of these, understanding that your actual view might be a combination or somehow not exactly one of the above, what would you choose?




    #2

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    Talk about a biased question! Notice how all but #2 gets a negative comment by the OP. Or in other words, if one doesn't take #2, one is an idiot. It makes for a thread where any opinion not in line with the OP gets ridiculed.


    Are the questions biased, or the comments?



    Your descriptions of 3 out of 4 factions are negative, which makes the overall question of picking a faction, biased in favor of #2.

     




    So? It doesn't bias the question. Just because I characterize the Factions a certain way that has no bearing necessarily on the choice a person may make.

     



    No, not necessarily. But common man, that question was as biased as any I have ever seen. It wasn't you putting up four factions of equal value for us to choose from, it was you putting up four factions, with one being your own personal favorite, and it influenced the way you wrote it. And the way you wrote was trying to influence us to give a specific answer.

    That we may be able to overlook the bias in answering the question doesn't mean it isn't there.




    Like I said, the question is not biased, the comments were.

    Can you provide me with evidence that the question itself is biased?

     

    The factions listed are:

     

    Homer Faction (HF),

    The GM is mediocre Faction (MGMF),

    Brady is the problem Faction (BPF),

    Running the ball wins Faction (RWF):

     

    The question asked was:

    Okay, if you HAD to pick one of these, understanding that your actual view might be a combination or somehow not exactly one of the above, what would you choose?

     

    There is no bias in the question.

     



    Well, if only you had written the factions like that the first time, it would have been less biased. But you didn't. Bad is good, Mickey Mouse receivers, imbecile, BB is dumb, are all things YOU write on #1, 3 and 4 in your opening post.

    So if I happen to like the fact that the team has been build to compete year in and year out, I can be dismissed because you choose to perceive me as blind to the weaknesses of the team. Or similarly with options 3 and 4, you bring out negative associations that make them less desirable than number 2.

    Per Wikipedia bias means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind.

    Case closed.

     

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    There seem to be several factions of thought around these parts.

     

    Pick which one you ascribe to. (Don't try to take a hybrid or you will be disqualified.)

     

    1. Homer Faction (HF): All our players and coaches are the best. Every draft pick and FA signing is brilliant. A bad defense is good. Mickey mouse receivers are excellent.

     

    2. The GM is mediocre Faction (MGMF): Poor decisions over and over and over have left us with a great coach, great QB and a mediocre team otherwise.

     

    3. Brady is the problem Faction (BPF): Brady' poor play and obsession with the shotgun/spread is the cause of our falling short. (Otherwise known as the, "I'm an imbecile like Rusty Faction").

     

    4. Running the ball wins Faction (RWF): Run and balance wins despite whether it is effective or not. BB is too dumb to realize this.

     

     

    I'm in #2, obviously.

     

    Okay, if you HAD to pick one of these, understanding that your actual view might be a combination or somehow not exactly one of the above, what would you choose?

     



         As you know, I tend to agree with you on this subject, and would classify myself as a category #2 guy. But, my concerns about the Pats center on their DL and OL play. Their prime need is for a DT that can stop the run, and collapse the pass pocket.

     

         Their OL is overrated. Though Solder and Mankins on the left side are good, Solder seemingly suffers a concussion every time he gets out of bed, and Mankins is getting old. Ryan Wendell at OC is a disaster, and must be replaced. RG Dan Connelly is an okay reserve, but barely passable as a starter at RG. At RT, Sebastien Vollmer can no longer be relied upon due to health issues. 

         The greatness of the Brady and BB combo can get the team through these DL/OL issues against the average teams. But, in the playoffs, these weaknesses are exposed, and expoited.

         I couldn't help but notice where another poster credited BB the GM for having a good off-season in 2013. Sorry...but that's laughable. BB added nothing in terms of veteran free agents.

         The signing of SS Adrian Wilson was a disaster...when better options such as Bernard Pollard were available. 

         The signings of DTs Tommy Kelly and Armstead didn't work out due to injury. Some call that "bad luck". I call it "foreseeable". When you sign on a 32 year old DT to take the majority of snaps as a starting DT, rather than serve as a rotational player, his chances of getting hurt skyrocket. As for Armstead, the Pats already knew that he had health issues when signed.

         Letting Danny Woodhead walk when he was easily affordable to resign was a huge mistake.

         Bringing aboard WR Danny Amendola didn't work out, as the brittle Amendola came as advertised. Allowing WR Wes Welker to go to Denver hurt the team early, while it strengthened their chief competitor in the AFC.      

         As for the 2013 draft, BB appears to have scored with OLB Jamie Collins. Over the final four games of the season, the kid showed that not only could he contribute, but flourish. Though it's too early to declare him a stud, it's certainly safe to say that the kid has shown great promise.

         The jury is still out on WRs Aaron Dobson and Josh Boyce. It's a major concern that both players had problems staying on the field in 2013. But, Dobson especially showed potential.

         The selection at #91 overall of SS Duron Harmon was a joke. Though advised by his scouting staff that Harmon could be had much later, or be acquired as an undrafted free agent, BB overruled them, and used a top 100 pick to select the guy. Though Harmon contributed, he appears to be Tavon Wilson II. Sorry folks, but you do not use a top 100 pick on a guy who you envision being a contributor on special teams. Top 100 picks should be viewed as immediate contributors, who ill blossom into starters in a couple of years or less. 

         Credit goes to BB for trading away a guy who wanted to be a track star and a 7th round pick, for RB LeGarrette Blount. This was a steal.

         When you compare and contrast what BB did in the off-season to what John Elway did in Denver, you'll see why the Broncos were better than the Patriots last year. Forget whether or not the Pats can beat SF or Seattle. To get to the SB, they must first get past Denver.

         BB should focus this entire off-season on beating the Broncos.        

     




    The lines have become a greater concern as of lat. But BB's poor decision making has slowly created many holes and I'm afraid filling that many is impossible for a guy who has been so lacking as to create that many.

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    Talk about a biased question! Notice how all but #2 gets a negative comment by the OP. Or in other words, if one doesn't take #2, one is an idiot. It makes for a thread where any opinion not in line with the OP gets ridiculed.


    Are the questions biased, or the comments?



    Your descriptions of 3 out of 4 factions are negative, which makes the overall question of picking a faction, biased in favor of #2.

     




    So? It doesn't bias the question. Just because I characterize the Factions a certain way that has no bearing necessarily on the choice a person may make.

     



    No, not necessarily. But common man, that question was as biased as any I have ever seen. It wasn't you putting up four factions of equal value for us to choose from, it was you putting up four factions, with one being your own personal favorite, and it influenced the way you wrote it. And the way you wrote was trying to influence us to give a specific answer.

    That we may be able to overlook the bias in answering the question doesn't mean it isn't there.




    Like I said, the question is not biased, the comments were.

    Can you provide me with evidence that the question itself is biased?

     

    The factions listed are:

     

    Homer Faction (HF),

    The GM is mediocre Faction (MGMF),

    Brady is the problem Faction (BPF),

    Running the ball wins Faction (RWF):

     

    The question asked was:

    Okay, if you HAD to pick one of these, understanding that your actual view might be a combination or somehow not exactly one of the above, what would you choose?

     

    There is no bias in the question.

     



    Well, if only you had written the factions like that the first time, it would have been less biased. But you didn't. Bad is good, Mickey Mouse receivers, imbecile, BB is dumb, are all things YOU write on #1, 3 and 4 in your opening post.

    So if I happen to like the fact that the team has been build to compete year in and year out, I can be dismissed because you choose to perceive me as blind to the weaknesses of the team. Or similarly with options 3 and 4, you bring out negative associations that make them less desirable than number 2.

    Per Wikipedia bias means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind.

    Case closed.

     




    I'm afraid you're confused about what a question is, and what a comment is.

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    Talk about a biased question! Notice how all but #2 gets a negative comment by the OP. Or in other words, if one doesn't take #2, one is an idiot. It makes for a thread where any opinion not in line with the OP gets ridiculed.


    Are the questions biased, or the comments?



    Your descriptions of 3 out of 4 factions are negative, which makes the overall question of picking a faction, biased in favor of #2.

     




    So? It doesn't bias the question. Just because I characterize the Factions a certain way that has no bearing necessarily on the choice a person may make.

     



    No, not necessarily. But common man, that question was as biased as any I have ever seen. It wasn't you putting up four factions of equal value for us to choose from, it was you putting up four factions, with one being your own personal favorite, and it influenced the way you wrote it. And the way you wrote was trying to influence us to give a specific answer.

    That we may be able to overlook the bias in answering the question doesn't mean it isn't there.




    Like I said, the question is not biased, the comments were.

    Can you provide me with evidence that the question itself is biased?

     

    The factions listed are:

     

    Homer Faction (HF),

    The GM is mediocre Faction (MGMF),

    Brady is the problem Faction (BPF),

    Running the ball wins Faction (RWF):

     

    The question asked was:

    Okay, if you HAD to pick one of these, understanding that your actual view might be a combination or somehow not exactly one of the above, what would you choose?

     

    There is no bias in the question.

     



    Well, if only you had written the factions like that the first time, it would have been less biased. But you didn't. Bad is good, Mickey Mouse receivers, imbecile, BB is dumb, are all things YOU write on #1, 3 and 4 in your opening post.

    So if I happen to like the fact that the team has been build to compete year in and year out, I can be dismissed because you choose to perceive me as blind to the weaknesses of the team. Or similarly with options 3 and 4, you bring out negative associations that make them less desirable than number 2.

    Per Wikipedia bias means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind.

    Case closed.

     




    I'm afraid you're confused about what a question is, and what a comment is.



    I admit I'm confused about you saying the comments are biased but the "question" is not, seeing as you don't actually ask a question in your opening post. But let me clarify for you, your entire opening post is biased, as it is one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint and decidedly not showing an open mind.

     

     

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    There seem to be several factions of thought around these parts.

     

    Pick which one you ascribe to. (Don't try to take a hybrid or you will be disqualified.)

     

    1. Homer Faction (HF): All our players and coaches are the best. Every draft pick and FA signing is brilliant. A bad defense is good. Mickey mouse receivers are excellent.

     

    2. The GM is mediocre Faction (MGMF): Poor decisions over and over and over have left us with a great coach, great QB and a mediocre team otherwise.

     

    3. Brady is the problem Faction (BPF): Brady' poor play and obsession with the shotgun/spread is the cause of our falling short. (Otherwise known as the, "I'm an imbecile like Rusty Faction").

     

    4. Running the ball wins Faction (RWF): Run and balance wins despite whether it is effective or not. BB is too dumb to realize this.

     

     

    I'm in #2, obviously.

     

    Okay, if you HAD to pick one of these, understanding that your actual view might be a combination or somehow not exactly one of the above, what would you choose?




    #2




    Always nice to see someone having enough on the ball to answer a simple question instead of succumbing to a denial syndrome.

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    De-Nile Syndrome?  Isn't that what Julius Caesar had when Cleopatra was boinking him?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    De-Nile Syndrome?  Isn't that what Julius Caesar had when Cleopatra was boinking him?



    I think that's what he had after she shut him off...

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    Texas, don't you forget two, rather significant, FA signings? Talib and Edelman were both free agents one year ago. Even if that doesen't change your position, it belongs in the picture. Brady aside, those were our MVPs.  



         I don't credit BB for this. Those guys were already on the team, and BB nearly allowed Talib to walk. Unless a team is coming off a SB season, the goal in the off-season is to make the team better than it was the previous year...not to maintain the status quo.

         I criticize BB for signing AH to a long term, big money contract, with lots of guaranteed money. Though no one could foresee AH being involved in murder(s), BB was nontheless aware that AH was having off-field issues.

         As a result of this move, the Pats have a bunch of dead money taking up valuable cap space. This dead money could have been used to resign Talib and/or Edelman to longer term deals.

         Make no mistake about it, the actions of BB the GM has made the job of BB the coach much more difficult.  

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

         Make no mistake about it, the actions of BB the GM has made the job of BB the coach much more difficult.  



    According to the Village Imbecile's own words.............

     

     

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

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    Texas, don't you forget two, rather significant, FA signings? Talib and Edelman were both free agents one year ago. Even if that doesen't change your position, it belongs in the picture. Brady aside, those were our MVPs.  



         I don't credit BB for this. Those guys were already on the team, and BB nearly allowed Talib to walk. Unless a team is coming off a SB season, the goal in the off-season is to make the team better than it was the previous year...not to maintain the status quo.

         I criticize BB for signing AH to a long term, big money contract, with lots of guaranteed money. Though no one could foresee AH being involved in murder(s), BB was nontheless aware that AH was having off-field issues.

         As a result of this move, the Pats have a bunch of dead money taking up valuable cap space. This dead money could have been used to resign Talib and/or Edelman to longer term deals.

         Make no mistake about it, the actions of BB the GM has made the job of BB the coach much more difficult.  



    Even so, maintaning status quo can be hard enough. Edelman was an afterthought, but Talib was an important signing - as he will be again this year. Credit should be given for that.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Choose your Faction.

    Only one team got the maximum amount possible for the GM. I wonder which one that was?

    http://nfl.si.com/2014/02/12/nfl-power-rankings-offseason-outlook/?eref=sihp

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share