Dana Stubblefield

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

    Dana Stubblefield

    Does everyone remember when Stubblefield was added from SF in 2004 and he didn't make the team and got hurt/retired?


    My question is, did Mt Hurl, Pezzy, Babe, TFB12 and that little group all mock BB for signing Stubblefield? If not, how come?  Because NE won the SB the year before and Brady was great in the postseason?


    Discuss:

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    ^^^^^ JackHole

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    Another prime example of why rusty is a huge waste of time around here - for a kick, check out the Bruin's forum - he is a laughing stalk...come to think of it he is here as well:)

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    Or lt james williams?  He also was a fa signing who did not make it.


    Were tools like cupcake and his group holding bb's feet to the fire back then or did brady play well in sb 38?


    Continue discussing how phony cupcake and his group are:

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from m. a. pat. Show m. a. pat's posts

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Does everyone remember when Stubblefield was added from SF in 2004 and he didn't make the team and got hurt/retired?

     

    My question is, did Mt Hurl, Pezzy, Babe, TFB12 and that little group all mock BB for signing Stubblefield? If not, how come?  Because NE won the SB the year before and Brady was great in the postseason?

     

    Discuss:

    [/QUOTE]

    Training camp can't come soon enough.

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    Yes, but will the phonies come forward and tell the board if they skewered bb as general manager back then and whined about "dead money" on loaded teams or if brady was just a better qb back then to help the team in the postseason?

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    Why even start a thread like this? There's not even a connection between what you are asking, and what you wrote. It's pretty dumb, dumbo.


    Refresh my memory...back in 04 didn't we have three young first round picks playing on our defensive line? And playing well I might add. So of course adding a retread Stubbyfed didn't mean much...it's much different than say adding a guy like Fanene or Haynesworth to a defensive line that desperately needed it (and then watching them do nothing but go bust). Totally different scenarios, but you're not intelligent enough to realize that type of stuff.

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Or lt james williams?  He also was a fa signing who did not make it.

     

    Were tools like cupcake and his group holding bb's feet to the fire back then or did brady play well in sb 38?

     

    Continue discussing how phony cupcake and his group are:

    [/QUOTE]

    That was before the decade drought, tens of failed draft picks, and terrible FA signings....

    discss..

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Or lt james williams?  He also was a fa signing who did not make it.

     

    Were tools like cupcake and his group holding bb's feet to the fire back then or did brady play well in sb 38?

     

    Continue discussing how phony cupcake and his group are:

    [/QUOTE]

    That was before the decade drought, tens of failed draft picks, and terrible FA signings....

    discss..

    [/QUOTE]

    BB's drafts were not that good in 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005 or 2006. Try again.

    99% of the time, he's either hit well on the draft or FA.  He's also combined each many times.   Every team has failed FA signings and draft picks, which is this thread should be comical in exposing morons.

    Hey!  Remember when Joe Panos retired in 2001?!! The horror!  BB failed! 

    LMAO

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to mthurl's comment:


    [QUOTE]


    10 years of bad signings wears on a person.  A team.


    bb shooting BB's while the big guns are firing mortars.


    No team is going to win a SB with 10 years of bad signings and some of the worst D's in History.  It's never been done.    Never will..  He didn't have 10 years to ruin the team back then.  It was just the beginning.


    Thank god he figured out he can't build a D on his own and decided to get some real talent (even if it is borrowed)


    Can't win a war, shooting blanks.


    Luckily, he's had his field general all this time to bail him out.


    If not for that, we'd be the Cleveland Indians.  DEFUNCT!


    And beebee would be coaching women's  Lacrosse.


    That is, if his daughter let him.


     


     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    This guy is seriously mental!  Put the bottle down, Rusty!

     

    *******************************

    Be a Fan!  But don't be a Homer Fan!

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    So, did the Cupcake Group whine and moan about Stubblefield's cap hit and his retirement along with James Big Cat Williams or did they not because NE won SB 38 and Brady wasn't crappy?

    Continue discussing, because it appears the discussion has attempted to be derailed by the Cupcake Guild.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from m. a. pat. Show m. a. pat's posts

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, did the Cupcake Group whine and moan about Stubblefield's cap hit and his retirement along with James Big Cat Williams or did they not because NE won SB 38 and Brady wasn't crappy?

    Continue discussing, because it appears the discussion has attempted to be derailed by the Cupcake Guild.

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL! You've got a name for everybody.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from m. a. pat. Show m. a. pat's posts

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to m. a. pat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, did the Cupcake Group whine and moan about Stubblefield's cap hit and his retirement along with James Big Cat Williams or did they not because NE won SB 38 and Brady wasn't crappy?

    Continue discussing, because it appears the discussion has attempted to be derailed by the Cupcake Guild.

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL! You've got a name for everybody.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's just so easy.   Mt Hurl is one of the leaders of their group. He's a Home Ec teacher in NH.  Notice how they won't answer such a simple question.

    Were they on the internet in 2004 whining and moaning that BB's FA signings were going to destroy Brady from playing well in the postseason that year, with "dead money" and the like?

    Were they?

    Notice how they refuse to honestly answer such a simple question.  Maybe if Brady crapped himself in the 2004 postseason, they would have?

    [/QUOTE]

    The 2004 team was loaded with talent unlike the past few years. The D could impose their will on equally talented teams. It's never just been about Brady. It's always been a team game.

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    In response to m. a. pat's comment:


    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to m. a. pat's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    So, did the Cupcake Group whine and moan about Stubblefield's cap hit and his retirement along with James Big Cat Williams or did they not because NE won SB 38 and Brady wasn't crappy?


    Continue discussing, because it appears the discussion has attempted to be derailed by the Cupcake Guild.




    LOL! You've got a name for everybody.


    [/QUOTE]

    It's just so easy.   Mt Hurl is one of the leaders of their group. He's a Home Ec teacher in NH.  Notice how they won't answer such a simple question.


    Were they on the internet in 2004 whining and moaning that BB's FA signings were going to destroy Brady from playing well in the postseason that year, with "dead money" and the like?


    Were they?


    Notice how they refuse to honestly answer such a simple question.  Maybe if Brady crapped himself in the 2004 postseason, they would have?


    [/QUOTE]

    The 2004 team was loaded with talent unlike the past few years. The D could impose their will on equally talented teams. It's never just been about Brady. It's always been a team game.


    [/QUOTE]

    Well, the offense as barely above average in 2003 with a bottom ranked rushing attack and Brady thrived.


    So, which is it?  Of course it's a team game, but the point is, any player signed in FA who didn't make it due to retirement, not being good enough, being too old/injured or beaten out by say, a Ty Warren draft pick or Asante Samuel for example, didn't hamper the entire operation like these legendary morons claim recent acquisitions have for Brady.


    It's just not true.  


    So, I want to know if there were on these boards whining like wittle girls when veteran big name players didn't make the 2004 team, like Stubblefield.  


    THis whole concept that somehow BB's poor GM work in 2007, 2011, 2012, 2013, etc, basically when Brady sucked in the postseason, only happened recently, is totally bogus.


    He's always missed on certain signings or picks.  This team on paper is as loaded as the 2003 team, for example. 


    So, will Brady, our QB, finally wake up?

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to m. a. pat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to m. a. pat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, did the Cupcake Group whine and moan about Stubblefield's cap hit and his retirement along with James Big Cat Williams or did they not because NE won SB 38 and Brady wasn't crappy?

    Continue discussing, because it appears the discussion has attempted to be derailed by the Cupcake Guild.

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL! You've got a name for everybody.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's just so easy.   Mt Hurl is one of the leaders of their group. He's a Home Ec teacher in NH.  Notice how they won't answer such a simple question.

    Were they on the internet in 2004 whining and moaning that BB's FA signings were going to destroy Brady from playing well in the postseason that year, with "dead money" and the like?

    Were they?

    Notice how they refuse to honestly answer such a simple question.  Maybe if Brady crapped himself in the 2004 postseason, they would have?

    [/QUOTE]

    The 2004 team was loaded with talent unlike the past few years. The D could impose their will on equally talented teams. It's never just been about Brady. It's always been a team game.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, the offense as barely above average in 2003 with a bottom ranked rushing attack and Brady thrived.

    So, which is it?  Of course it's a team game, but the point is, any player signed in FA who didn't make it due to retirement, not being good enough, being too old/injured or beaten out by say, a Ty Warren draft pick or Asante Samuel for example, didn't hamper the entire operation like these legendary morons claim recent acquisitions have for Brady.

    It's just not true.  

    So, I want to know if there were on these boards whining like wittle girls when veteran big name players didn't make the 2004, like Stubblefield.  

    THis whole concept that somehow BB's poor GM work in 2007, 2011, 2012, 2013, etc, basically when Brady sucked in the postseason, only happened recently, is totally bogus.

    He's always missed on certain signings or picks.  This team on paper is as loaded as the 2003 team, for example. 

    So, will Brady, our QB, finally wake up?

    [/QUOTE]

    Poor Bean Queen still hasn't figure out that two teams play, both teams are allowed have game plans, great players, and make adjustments throughout the game.  

    This just in, Queenie.  There have been and will be GMs and coaches greater than BB.  He did not invent the game and gets outcoached and out GMed like everyone else.

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    Will our OL (Mankins) wake up in January?

    Why did we lose in all those postseasons? Because when the other team knew we were running the ball, we couldn't. The OL imo has failed in postseason. They have opened the flood gates on Brady too. 4th and 2 in the AFCCG this year and a possible chance to really make it tight, boom Mankins and Wendell let Knighton fly by them and kill Brady.

    If Brady gets time, he kills defenses. Yes, no doubt he has made some very very very questionable decisions in the postseasons (4 INTs vs. SD in 2007, the deep pick vs. Baltimore into double coverage in 2011, the deep ball to an unhealthy Gronk who was blanketed, missing JE last year on the deep ball), but if the OL could help est. the run in January for once and protect TB consistently its a different story

    Check out my Pats/Sports Blog:

    http://joepatsfan.blogspot.com/

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Will our OL (Mankins) wake up in January?

    Why did we lose in all those postseasons? Because when the other team knew we were running the ball, we couldn't. The OL imo has failed in postseason. They have opened the flood gates on Brady too. 4th and 2 in the AFCCG this year and a possible chance to really make it tight, boom Mankins and Wendell let Knighton fly by them and kill Brady.

    If Brady gets time, he kills defenses. Yes, no doubt he has made some very very very questionable decisions in the postseasons (4 INTs vs. SD in 2007, the deep pick vs. Baltimore into double coverage in 2011, the deep ball to an unhealthy Gronk who was blanketed, missing JE last year on the deep ball), but if the OL could help est. the run in January for once and protect TB consistently its a different story

    Check out my Pats/Sports Blog:

    http://joepatsfan.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://joepatsfan.blogspot.com/

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady gets time with a run game and playaction. Plain and simple.  HE was terrible in the 2007 AFC Title game and SB.   The days of him bobbing up and down for 10 seconds in the pocket because of Moss and Welker are long, long gone.

    The more predictable Brady is in preferring plays with certain personnel, the more players can impose their will on Logan Mankins. I don't care if John Hannah was here.

    It has got to stop and I've warned about it for years.  Why do you and others keep ignoring the idea that Brady thinks he can throw with others who have more finesse personnel?  

    Most of the time it can work, but it's that one game, that one day, and that's all she wrote.   Take the pressure off the O Line, please.

     

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Umm, no coach has been better and no GM has been better.  No human is perfect, dungtongue.

    This just in: You're a moron.

    For every one mistake by BB, Rex RYan makes 10 of them.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, Queenie, a 10 to 1 ratio. And yet Rex's career to date has been far better than BIll's was. You been keeping those stats long?  Tell us, Queenie, what's the ratio for all the guys that have won superbowls in the last decade?

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    In response to MileHighMike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Umm, no coach has been better and no GM has been better.  No human is perfect, dungtongue.

    This just in: You're a moron.

    For every one mistake by BB, Rex RYan makes 10 of them.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, Queenie, a 10 to 1 ratio. And yet Rex's career to date has been far better than BIll's was. You been keeping those stats long?  Tell us, Queenie, what's the ratio for all the guys that have won superbowls in the last decade?

    [/QUOTE]

    REx RYan's career has been better than BB's?

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I am envisioning Bon Jovi asking BB what he thinks of Rex Ryan being hired by the Jets and that long pause BB had before answering.

    Pee your pants funny stuff, Bustchise.

    Hey!  Has Rexie gotten that tattoo removed yet?

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady gets time with a run game and playaction. Plain and simple.  HE was terrible in the 2007 AFC Title game and SB.   The days of him bobbing up and down for 10 seconds in the pocket because of Moss and Welker are long, long gone.

    The more predictable Brady is in preferring plays with certain personnel, the more players can impose their will on Logan Mankins. I don't care if John Hannah was here.

    It has got to stop and I've warned about it for years.  Why do you and others keep ignoring the idea that Brady thinks he can throw with others who have more finesse personnel?  

    Most of the time it can work, but it's that one game, that one day, and that's all she wrote.   Take the pressure off the O Line, please.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well they haven't imposed their will with the run game in the playoffs in years.

    Brady doesn't run block and Brady doesn't have a 100% say in the gameplan and play call, talk to the coaching staff

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

    Re: Dana Stubblefield

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady gets time with a run game and playaction. Plain and simple.  HE was terrible in the 2007 AFC Title game and SB.   The days of him bobbing up and down for 10 seconds in the pocket because of Moss and Welker are long, long gone.

    The more predictable Brady is in preferring plays with certain personnel, the more players can impose their will on Logan Mankins. I don't care if John Hannah was here.

    It has got to stop and I've warned about it for years.  Why do you and others keep ignoring the idea that Brady thinks he can throw with others who have more finesse personnel?  

    Most of the time it can work, but it's that one game, that one day, and that's all she wrote.   Take the pressure off the O Line, please.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well they haven't imposed their will with the run game in the playoffs in years.

    Brady doesn't run block and Brady doesn't have a 100% say in the gameplan and play call, talk to the coaching staff

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady has a lot to say about which personnel he likes, how he wants to run the offense and the gameplans. That's a well established fact at this point.

    Note how the run blocking got worse in 2007.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share