Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    Tebow neither threw more TDs nor had a better passer rating than Mallet. 


    I believe he was referring to the 4th preseason game.  Of course the entire thing is contingent on the one gimme TD pass Tebow got at the end of the game which never would have happened in a real game as the Pats would have taken a knee.  Even with that TD you can make a strong case that Mallett was still far better than Tebow in that game.

    Obviously we are in agreement that the offensive efficiency and Tebow's stats in the entire preseason leave a lot to be desired.  I don't think he'll be convinced though.  He really likes to stick up for Tebow.  He isn't a UF fan so I can only assume he is partially motivated by Tebow's religious beliefs although he'll never admit it.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:

     

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Of course we won't know for fact until after the season is over, but seeing as this is a discussion board and all....

    It is time for us to state our opinion. Try and be direct as some of you are not very direct at all. Please no waffling as my good friend prolate is the king of( well they could be good, but I won't get my expectations up too far, I'm not too high, and I'm not too low, etc. etc. etc.)

    Here is the question: position by position, is our roster a better NFL roster then we have fielded since 2010? If you think one group or another is not as good please explain why, but also answer the question....do we look better this year then we have the past few years?

    I say we look better at every position across the board! And in some areas it is not even close. Our front seven is as good as its been since the super bowl years, and our running back duo is the best it's been since Dillion, and Faulk.

    The receiving combo is more talented then it's been the past few years, even though it is young, and our offensive line is as good as ever.

    I could understand an argument against the TE position but if suddfield can play near as well as he is hyped we are looking at a dominant group. Then again having Gronk alone gives you the best TE in the league so you are already great.

    cb's look better then they have since 07, and IMO the only thing we are missing is a hard hitting strong safety, but the coverage safeties look good.

    Oh yeah, one more question....if you conclude that our roster is in fact more talented then it has been, do you also conclude that the general manager is doing an amazing job at team building, considering we have been as close as you can get to winning a championship the last 2 years?

     

     

     



    I do not agree. I think this team, today is short on depth and experience. The top of the depth chart may look better, but the core is not, yet. 

     

     

     

    OL- imo Waters and Mankins were the best tandem in the league. 

    WR- assume Amendola and Wes are equal. Assume Edelman is equal. There is no one on the team today that is as good as Lloyd was last year or Branch was 2 years ago. 

    Ridley, Vareen, Bolden were all on the team last year. Woody was better than Blount.

     

     



    Mankins and Waters played 7(?) games together. I already like Thompkins more than Lloyd, who only ran comebacks/go routes. Thompkins is already a better route runner IMHO. 

     

     

     

    Branch sucked, he sucked ever since he blew his knee. Ridley's fumbles, Vareen had a bad hammy for most of the year and Bolden played a few games and then suspension. While Woody's contributions were welcomed and valuable, he wasn't much of a threat to run. Whatever Woody did, Vareen will do.

     



    Mankins and Wates that year were both pro bowlers. If I am not misaken the 6th and 7th on the depth hart were Solder and Wendell. I simply see too much of a drop off this year on the reserve OLmen

     

    You may like Thompkins more than Lloyd, but will THompkins put up 74/911/4? YOu can think Branch sucked 2 years ago, but he did put up 51/702/5...I think today, that Thompkins is hard pressed to match these numbers

    RB

    THis year vs last year

    Ridley=Ridley

    Vareen=Vareen

    Bolden=Bolden

    Woody is better than Blount as a runner, pass catcher and blocker

    I like Sudfeld, Said so at OTA's. But lets not get carried away here. He is not Hern, and nevr will be. Case closed



    - Mankins was a pro bowler than year purely due to reputation, he only played 6 games in the regular season after sitting out for an extension. Mankins is here to start the season this year and he seems like he's in good shape. 2013 Mankins already >2011 Mankins. As far as RG goes, I never denied Waters' was a good pick up, but I like what Cannon could bring if he stays healthy. Our OL would be a wall if the four main cogs(Solder, Mankins, Canon, Vollmer) stay healthy and start together. 

     

    - Will Thompkins put up Lloyd's numbers? Heck no, I'm hoping he doesn't too. I dont want Thompkins to be the number 2 WR in New England this year. I want a #2 WR by committee with Dobson and Boyce being included in the fold. I'm certain the 3 rooks will put up more numbers than Lloyd, Branch and Edelman were able to though.

     

    - Ridley this year > Ridley last year who got benched a lot due to his fumbles. He's work on it in the offseason and has added more power to his game. 

    Vareen > Last year's Vareen. Last year's Vareen had a bad hammy in camp, he didn't recover until later in the season. Even when he did, he played second fiddle to Woodhead. 

    Bolden blows, but this year's version should be better than the last. This year's version, hopefully, won't get busted for PEDs anto then get benched by BB for the rest of the year. 

    Blount =\= Woodhead. Two completely different backs. 

     

    - I never said Sudfeld will replace Hern, I said Hern was good, not great. it's not impossible for Sudsy to replace him. 

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    Mallet

    Att 76Comp 42Yds 447Pct 55.3YPA 5.9TD 3 INT 1Sk 1SkYd 10Rating 80.3

    Tebow 

    Att 30Comp 11Yds 145Pct 36.7YPA 4.8TD 2 INT 2Sk 7Skyd 48Rating 47.2


    And the offense, under Mallet, scored over 40 points in 6 quarters, while it scored just 21 in 6 quarters with Tebow at the helm.

    Those are the facts. 

    That is why BB cut Tebow. 

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    I don't know Pat's roster is better than 3 years ago.  I'm kind of concern but excited.  I'm glad the old players from the defensive backs such as Patrick Chung are out.

     

    I hope we run more so the offense is more balance.

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

     

     

    Tebow neither threw more TDs nor had a better passer rating than Mallet. 

     

     


    I believe he was referring to the 4th preseason game.  Of course the entire thing is contingent on the one gimme TD pass Tebow got at the end of the game which never would have happened in a real game as the Pats would have taken a knee.  Even with that TD you can make a strong case that Mallett was still far better than Tebow in that game.

    Obviously we are in agreement that the offensive efficiency and Tebow's stats in the entire preseason leave a lot to be desired.  I don't think he'll be convinced though.  He really likes to stick up for Tebow.  He isn't a UF fan so I can only assume he is partially motivated by Tebow's religious beliefs although he'll never admit it.



    Ahh. Well, PCM, that's called the tower of excuses. 

    When you "spin" facts (in this case removing a few quarters where TT wasn't good at all) and then taking the most favorable slice (the last bit of the pre-season where TT was facing the dregs of the Giants' team) you can make any argument.

    At the end of the day ... that's what babe does for Tebow ... he makes a giant pile of excuses for every stat, every ct, trade, etc. Then he magnifies things that often have little to do with TT (like team record) outside of a meaningful context. 

    The clear headed person everntually looks down at what they are standing on and realizes it's a mirage ... then something (like Tebow being cut/traded/and cut out of the NFL passing through league waivers at min salary) makes sense. 

    The person who is not clear headed continues in the fantasy world ... not really fully able to understand the reality they are looking at .... Like Tebow being out of the NFL.

    It's called cognitive dissonance at that point.

    If, after all this time, someone can't see why NFL teams don't want Tebow ...then that is their situation to deal with. 

    At this point ... my only point is to intervene for the sake of accuracy. This preseason ... Tim Tebow was outplayed in every facet of the game by Mallet. Mallet was better, and the Patriots' offense was better with Mallet at the helm. 

    Oh, and BTW ... in Denver ... Tebow was playing under McD ... the plays he ran this rpeseason were the same ones he was running in Denver. 

    Tebow doesn't get a free pass for that ... he actually has MORE experience in McD's offensive system than Mallet does. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    This could be our best team since 2010. That 2010 team was super talented and so underrated. Veteran offense, young defense. They were 6-1 against playoff teams, 2-0 against the super bowl teams. They laid an egg in the playoffs against the Jets.

    The 2011 team wasn't as good yet they made the super bowl and damn near won it. Go figure.

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    This could be our best team since 2010. That 2010 team was super talented and so underrated. Veteran offense, young defense. They were 6-1 against playoff teams, 2-0 against the super bowl teams. They laid an egg in the playoffs against the Jets.

    The 2011 team wasn't as good yet they made the super bowl and damn near won it. Go figure.




    I was surpised the 2011 team made to the superbowl and almost won it.  As long this roster can make it to the playoffs and SB, then its better than the last three years.

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    Yes....  No Chung alone is an upgrade .
    Like the receiver changes.  The Welker offense was stale. Like the young legs all around. Hope talib and gronk and Edelman  stay healthy.

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

         No...I don't think that the roster is overall better than it's been over the past three years. Here's why:

    I. OFFENSE:

    1.) QB: The 33 year old Tom Brady is likely better than the 36 year old Tom; (-)

    2.) RB: The underrated Danny Woodhead is gone. Still, the 2013 RB corps may be the most talented that BB has had, over the past three years; (+)

    3.) OL: The overall depth on the OL was perhaps better in years past. But, Marcus Cannon has improved. OG Brian Waters was an excellent free agent acquisition in 2011. Sebastien Vollmer was healthier in previous seasons. But, center Ryan Wendel really stepped up last year, and is likely to continue his fine play. LT Nate Solder is certainly better now than he was three years ago...and may be ready to claim a spot in the pro-bowl. Both Logan Mankins and Dan Connelly were healthier in the past. (E) 

    4.) TEs: With Gronk still recovering from injury and AH in jail, no way that the Pats are currently better at TE than they were during the past three years; (-)

    5.) WR: No Wes Welker is quite a loss. Though we all believe that Danny Armendola will adequately replace him, Danny has yet to show us that he can stay healthy, and get the job done throughout the 16 game schedule. For example: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4748026/wednesdays-pats-bills-practice-report?ex_cid=espnapi_public .  The rookies have potential, but are complete unknowns. Aaron Dobson appears to be a disappointment. The Pats could have, and should have drafted WR Markus Wheaton, who ended up with Pittsburgh, instead. Could this be the second coming of Brandon Tate over Mike Wallace? Hope I'm wrong;  (-) 

    II. DEFENSE:

    1.) DE: The addition of Chandler Jones helps, as does the improvement of Rob Ninkovich. I like the potential of Mike Buchanan. (+) 

    2.) DT: Vince Wilfolk is now on the wrong side of 30. Tommy Kelly has talent. But, at age 32, can he last a full season? Lack of quality depth behind these two is a major concern. (-)

    3.) LBs: The strength of this team. The 2013 group appears to be the best LB corp that the Pats have had, since 2003-04. (+)

    4.) CB: Having Aqib Talib for a full season helps.Other than that, it's the same old scrubs as back-ups. Alfonzo Denard may be a step-up, if only he could stay out of Nebraska. (+)

    5.) Safety: FS Devin McCourty has improved at this position, after gaining some experience. He should be better in 2013. But, SS is a complete joke. The Pats were better off with the injury prone Patrick Chung, than they are with the stiffs they have manning the position this season. BB gets a big fat "F" for failing to shore up this position in the off-season. Adrian Wilson?? Pleeeaaasssseee!! (-).

         So...overall, the Pats are worse in 2013, than they were over the past three years.    

     

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     


    Nonsense. You're the one spinning and hiding behind your "Rusty context BS". I'm stating facts.

    Tebow had a better PR, more TDs and more yards. End of story. F'n Mallet has had years in this system and TT outplayed him after mere WEEKS in it. LMAO

    Truth stings like a beach when you have an unfair agenda.

     

     



    The fact is that the offense was inept when Tebow was on the field.  Anyone with a brain could see it and the efficiency stats bear it out.  If Tebow so clearly outplayed Mallett then why did BB cut him?  Aren't you the guy who says BB knows when to cut stiffs?  Well he cut Tebow.  What will your spin be when Tebow doesn't play a down in the NFL this year?  You are the one with an agenda and your agenda is propping up a guy who all 32 NFL teams don't think is worthy of a roster spot.  LMAO @ U.

     

     

     

     

     

     




    I'm not propping anybody up. I've stated facts. You're the one spinning.

     

    He wouldn't be the first guy the NFL has been anal about that could play. Flutie was sent off to Canada and came back to have a good career. That Hall of Famer Warren Moon is another. LMAO@U

     

     



    Tebow neither threw more TDs nor had a better passer rating than Mallet. Moreover ... the offense scored less than half as many points as it did when Mallet was on the field. 

     

    Check your facts Babe. 




    He did in the final pre-season game, which is what I was referring to.

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    At the end of the day ... that's what babe does for Tebow ... he makes a giant pile of excuses for every stat, every ct, trade, etc. Then he magnifies things that often have little to do with TT (like team record) outside of a meaningful context. 

     



    At the end of the day I state facts about Tebow.

    Fact: His stats and record are comparable to Luck's. He won a playoff game and Luck went one and out. You spin the context on that, not me.

    Example: You claim his record with Denver was largely because of the "team". Yet that "team" was a miserable 1-4 with Orton, a decent NFL starter. Yet Tebow had 6 game winning drives in his 11 starts in 2011. Yet you ignore the abysmal support he was given by management in both Denver and NY. You cherry pick context to suit your spin. That's why I simply go with facts.

     

    Fact: He outplayed Mallet after getting the camp under his belt learning the new system. You spin the context on that. not me.

     

    Example: You claim he was playing the dregs of the Giants team, yet leave out that he had the dregs of the Pats team helping him while Mallet played with the better support. More cherry picked context to support spin.

     

    The facts speak for themselves.

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Oh, and BTW ... in Denver ... Tebow was playing under McD ... the plays he ran this rpeseason were the same ones he was running in Denver. 

    Tebow doesn't get a free pass for that ... he actually has MORE experience in McD's offensive system than Mallet does. 


    Really? I thought you said Denver had to alter their system to accomodate Tebow. Which is it?

     

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    Ok, if Tebow was worth a gamble at QB then why don't some of the worst teams in the league (Jacksonville?) take a flier on him?  He will cost them very little, gives them some name recognition and maybe, just maybe, he can play in their system. 

    In life, the market is as the market does.  The value of a home is what the buyer is willing to pay.  The cost of an NFL QB is what a team thinks he is worth relative to what he can produce.  In the case of Tebow, he languished on the FA market for a long time after the Jets released him.  Now that the Pats have cut bait, where are the suitors?  The market has spoken. 

    I am not convinced that Mallet is a star in the waiting.  If Brady goes down, the offense will be dealt a serious setback, and I think it's questionable how Mallet would lead this team. But I think Tebow's production stats and the eyeball test are all we need to know about his viability in NE. 



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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Fact: His stats and record are comparable to Luck's.

    No they aren't.  You ignore the most important stat of all. The Tebow offense was one of the most unproductive offenses in the NFL in terms of points and yards which put tons of pressure on the Denver defense.  With a competent QB in Gomer the Broncos had a top defense and offense with virtually the same roster.

     

    Example: You claim his record with Denver was largely because of the "team". Yet that "team" was a miserable 1-4 with Orton, a decent NFL starter. Yet Tebow had 6 game winning drives in his 11 starts in 2011. Yet you ignore the abysmal support he was given by management in both Denver and NY. You cherry pick context to suit your spin. That's why I simply go with facts.

    You think the Tebow offense which averaged 18.5 pts per game (and that is including defensive TDs and ST TDs) was the reason the Broncos won a bunch of games?  I mean for crying out loud they won 5 freaking games where they scored under 20 points.  In the games the Broncos won with Tebow at the helm their defense gave up on average 14.625 pts per game.  Those are facts.  You might consider acquainting yourself with some.

     

    Fact: He outplayed Mallet after getting the camp under his belt learning the new system. You spin the context on that. not me.



    Another nonfact.  Why don't you spin why BB the best coach in the game cut Tebow after he supposedly outplayed Mallett.  Just like in Denver the offense was ridiculously unproductive with Tebow at the helm.  21 points in 19 possessions is pathetic.  Completing a third of your passes and getting sacked repeatedly for holding the ball too long is pathetic.  You've already acknowledged that BB is an excellent talent evaluator of players once they are on the team.  And it is pretty clear that BB doesn't play favorites.  The best coach in the game doesn't think Tebow deserves a roster spot and you actually believe he outplayed Mallett?  LMAO @ U.

     

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:

     

    I am not convinced that Mallet is a star in the waiting.  If Brady goes down, the offense will be dealt a serious setback, and I think it's questionable how Mallet would lead this team. But I think Tebow's production stats and the eyeball test are all we need to know about his viability in NE. 



         Who can replace Brady? Even if Ryan Mallett is a star in the waiting, he's not going to be as good as Tom, who some consider to be the greatest QB of all time.

         Why are we still discussing Tim Tebow? Unlike in NY, he was given a fair shake to compete with the Patriots. Unfortunately, he's shown that he doesn't have the instincts and the physical capabilities needed to be an NFL QB. 

         Too bad. He worked hard, and seems to be a nice guy. But...time to move on.     
     

     

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:

    Ok, if Tebow was worth a gamble at QB then why don't some of the worst teams in the league (Jacksonville?) take a flier on him?



    Probably for similar reasons teams let Flutie walk to Canada for 8 prime years. If you don't realize much of the NFL is anal, you haven't been paying attention.

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:

     

     

     

     

    I am not convinced that Mallet is a star in the waiting.  If Brady goes down, the offense will be dealt a serious setback, and I think it's questionable how Mallet would lead this team. But I think Tebow's production stats and the eyeball test are all we need to know about his viability in NE. 

     

     



         Who can replace Brady? Even if Ryan Mallett is a star in the waiting, he's not going to be as good as Tom, who some consider to be the greatest QB of all time.

     

     

         Why are we still discussing Tim Tebow? Unlike in NY, he was given a fair shake to compete with the Patriots. Unfortunately, he's shown that he doesn't have the instincts and the physical capabilities needed to be an NFL QB. 

         Too bad. He worked hard, and seems to be a nice guy. But...time to move on.     
     

     

     



    I don't know, you'll have to ask the other posters who've chosen to discuss it over the past 3 pages of posts.  My point was, in the grand scheme of what's best for the team, it's obvious that Mallett is the better choice as evidenced by the preseason.  He is a question mark for sure, but he's shown more than Tebow both statistically and in the eye of the beholder.   In the context of "is the team better this offseason" I saw enough from Mallett to make me think he could MAYBE keep this team together if Brady went down.  That's a big part of the discussion about whether they're better overall as a team.  

     

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

     

    You ignore the most important stat of all. The Tebow offense was one of the most unproductive offenses in the NFL in terms of points and yards which put tons of pressure on the Denver defense.  With a competent QB in Gomer the Broncos had a top defense and offense with virtually the same roster.

     



    Nonsense and spin. Luck had more scoring because he threw the ball 627 f'n times. At Tebow's rate of production he would have had 27 TD passes if he threw that many times (Luck had 23 in that many attempts) (And Tebow would have had 4 less INTs in that many attempts).

    Funny how you compare Tebow to Manning in Denver but fail to compare Luck to Manning in Indy. Manning's production FAR exceeded Luck's. Pure spin artist.

     

    Keep the spin coming if you want to be schooled some more. I loves me some spin smashing! LMAO@U

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:

     

     

         Why are we still discussing Tim Tebow

    I don't know, you'll have to ask the other posters who've chosen to discuss it over the past 3 pages of posts.  My point was, in the grand scheme of what's best for the team, it's obvious that Mallett is the better choice as evidenced by the preseason.  He is a question mark for sure, but he's shown more than Tebow both statistically and in the eye of the beholder.   In the context of "is the team better this offseason" I saw enough from Mallett to make me think he could MAYBE keep this team together if Brady went down.  That's a big part of the discussion about whether they're better overall as a team.  

    RESPONSE: Mallett is the better fit to replace Tom. Like Tom, he's a pocket passer. Tebow has shown that he holds on to the ball too long, has trouble locating his secondary receiver, is inaccurate, and lacks the ability to put "touch" on his passes. The Pats would have to change their entire offensive scheme to accent and accomodate what Tim does best...a read option offense, in which he can run the ball, and throw the occasional deep rope.   

         If Mallett were released tomorrow, he'd be a Jet or a Jaguar the next day.

     




     

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

     Why don't you spin why BB the best coach in the game cut Tebow after he supposedly outplayed Mallett.

     



    No spin required. BB says he makes moves because they are in the best interest of the team. There could be a half dozen reasons why he thinks that. Unlike you, I don't try to spin and answer why. But the FACT remains, TT outplayed Mallet in the last pre-season game. LMAO@U

    Keep bringing it. I'm feeling frisky. I got some free board time on my hands now that dumbkoff is on ignore.

     

     

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to TexasPat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     I always look at your posts with intererst

    I . OFFENSE:

    1.) QB: The 33 year old Tom Brady is likely better than the 36 year old Tom; (-) How long did it take for TB to get really get over his injury? I think he looks more fluid now than3-2 yrs ago. Mentally - all these new weapons may really get him elevated even more.

    2.) RB: The underrated Danny Woodhead is gone. Still, the 2013 RB corps may be the most talented that BB has had, over the past three years; (+) Yes And can Blount at #250lbs play full back?

    3.) OL: The overall depth on the OL was perhaps better in years past. But, Marcus Cannon has improved. OG Brian Waters was an excellent free agent acquisition in 2011. Sebastien Vollmer was healthier in previous seasons. But, center Ryan Wendel really stepped up last year, and is likely to continue his fine play. LT Nate Solder is certainly better now than he was three years ago...and may be ready to claim a spot in the pro-bowl. Both Logan Mankins and Dan Connelly were healthier in the past. (E) I heard that Mankins is healthier this year than last? But agree with you

    4.) TEs: With Gronk still recovering from injury and AH in jail, no way that the Pats are currently better at TE than they were during the past three years; (-) When they were on the field at the same time Yes. But how often?. We will have to wait until after the season now on Sudfeld. But because of the versatility in the offensive weapons' We may not have 1 80 yrd reception person - see below

    5.) WR: No Wes Welker is quite a loss. Though we all believe that Danny Armendola will adequately replace him, Danny has yet to show us that he can stay healthy, and get the job done throughout the 16 game schedule. For example: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4748026/wednesdays-pats-bills-practice-report?ex_cid=espnapi_public .  The rookies have potential, but are complete unknowns. Aaron Dobson appears to be a disappointment. The Pats could have, and should have drafted WR Markus Wheaton, who ended up with Pittsburgh, instead. Could this be the second coming of Brandon Tate over Mike Wallace? Hope I'm wrong;  (-) 

    Gee, I dont think we have had a weapon at WR since Moss, and we possibly  have 3 of them now. All we heard were raves in the first half of camp for Dobson. This grouping has speed - it has to be more vertical than what we have had. But to be fair we have to wait.                        At slot - DA, Endleman, Boyce

     

    II. DEFENSE:

    1.) DE: The addition of Chandler Jones helps, as does the improvement of Rob Ninkovich. I like the potential of Mike Buchanan. (+) Yes

    2.) DT: Vince Wilfolk is now on the wrong side of 30. Tommy Kelly has talent. But, at age 32, can he last a full season? Lack of quality depth behind these two is a major concern. (- ) You have this thing about age - only if the injury bug gets them -When did we ever have depth in the last 3 yrs?

    3.) LBs: The strength of this team. The 2013 group appears to be the best LB corp that the Pats have had, since 2003-04. (+) YES

    4.) CB: Having Aqib Talib for a full season helps.Other than that, it's the same old scrubs as back-ups. Alfonzo Denard may be a step-up, if only he could stay out of Nebraska. (+)YES

    5.) Safety: FS Devin McCourty has improved at this position, after gaining some experience. He should be better in 2013. But, SS is a complete joke. The Pats were better off with the injury prone Patrick Chung, than they are with the stiffs they have manning the position this season. BB gets a big fat "F" for failing to shore up this position in the off-season. Adrian Wilson?? Pleeeaaasssseee!! (-).  So...overall, the Pats are worse in 2013, than they were over the past three years.    This seems to be the concensus Opinion.  But it was Chung who screwed up the fake punt and Chung who lined up wrong for the ElI pass in SB 46. I still do not know who BB was supposd to bring in - I really don't so i cannot give BB an F- I will wait for the end of the season on this one. 

     I don't think any team in the NFL is more versatile than the Pats. We will have to measure them this year on the Sum of the Whole.

    On Offense:Too many weapons and the ball will be spread like we haven't seen it in some time - except Gronk in the Red Zone.  But I do see hand on every reciever.

    The Defense Front 7 may just finally be fully loaded.  I am worried about injuries on the Dline and in DB    We should measure each on  "Points per possession"

    So i say, hopefully, better over all

     


     

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    in the grand scheme of what's best for the team, it's obvious that Mallett is the better choice as evidenced by the preseason.

     



    Not necessarily.

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:


    Nonsense and spin. Luck had more scoring because he threw the ball 627 f'n times. At Tebow's rate of production he would have had 27 TD passes if he threw that many times (Luck had 23 in that many attempts) (And Tebow would have had 4 less INTs in that many attempts).

     

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.   Surely you can't be serious with such a stupid argument.  There is a reason Tebow didn't throw the ball 627 times.  The Broncos realized he can't throw so they remade their offense to accommodate this fact and ran the ball all the time.  Plus the Broncos' offense was so inept it would have been impossible for Tebow to accumulate enough possessions to throw it that many times anyways.  Does it make sense to argue that a situational pass rusher who only comes in on 3rd down would accumulate 3 times as many sacks if he played all 3 downs?  Of course not.  In fact you shot down this exact kind of argument in a thread comparing Spikes and Mayo a few months ago.  Amusingly this entire point is moot because my argument was about how the offense's performed which has nothing to do with how many times Tebow or Luck threw the ball.  The Colt's offense with Luck was far more productive in terms of yards and points than the Tebow led offense in Denver in 2011.  That is a FACT.

     

    Funny how you compare Tebow to Manning in Denver but fail to compare Luck to Manning in Indy. Manning's production FAR exceeded Luck's. Pure spin artist.



    You are the one spinning.  I did not compare Tebow to Manning.  You keep talking about how Tebow supposedly won all of these games in Denver.  I pointed out that Gomer took the exact same roster and the result was the 2nd highest scoring offense in the NFL.  That team was loaded on offense, but Tebow was too inept to take advantage of it.

    The best part of all of this is you ignored the additional stats which prove that the Tebow offense was pathetic both here and in Denver and how the Denver defense had to play lights out in order for Tebow to win.  Instead you keep babbling on about all the games Tebow "won" or how if you assumed Tebow threw twice as many passes he would be better than Luck.  Well he didn't throw that many passes precisely because he sucks at throwing which makes the entire offense garbage.  More Tebow passes would have come at the expense of runs which would have made the Denver offense more putrid than it already was.  That is a fact.  Why don't you explain why BB cut the great Tebow and why he won't have a job in the NFL this year.  Maybe there's a reason he's been cut by 3 teams now.  You have been body slammed by facts repeatedly on this issue and keep coming back for more.  LMAO @ U.

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:


    No spin required. BB says he makes moves because they are in the best interest of the team. There could be a half dozen reasons why he thinks that. Unlike you, I don't try to spin and answer why. But the FACT remains, TT outplayed Mallet in the last pre-season game. LMAO@U

    Keep bringing it. I'm feeling frisky. I got some free board time on my hands now that dumbkoff is on ignore.

     



    Yes keeping an inferior backup is definitely in the best interests of the team.  If Tebow was so good why not keep him AND Mallett on the roster?  It's not like we haven't kept 3 QBs before.  Plus aren't you the guy that maintains the 53rd guy is a street scrub?  Well that means Tebow is worse than that in the eyes of BB.  Tebow has now been cut by 3 teams including the best coach in the game and you keep spinning away.  LMAO @ U.

     

     

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

    Re: Do YOU think our roster is better then it's been for the last 3 years. Yes or no.

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to trouts' comment:

     

    If you keep Brady on the field and upright you're always in the mix, especially this year with the AFC East looking pretty pathetic. The lousy secondary has been my concern since Samuels left and I'm still concerned about that. Maybe we'll get more pressure up front than in the past, but if I see that rush3 on passing downs I'll continue to go nuts. Don't see that the safety positions have been upgraded at all. Would rather have picked up Ghoulson, Huff, Reed or even Pollard than Wilson. Hate to think of McCourty getting injured but if that happened we look awfully thin there.

     



    Goldon and Reed were far too expensive. Reed hasn't played all summer due to a serious hip injury. Good luck with that at 6 mil per.

     

    Pollard?  Pollard had a better career than Adrian Wilson? Ummm, no.

    MIke Huff is a Raiders cast off and average. He wasn't signed until late into FA, for good reason.

    Plus, we needed a SS more so than a FS in a lot of ways, especially if McCourty is the defacto FS here, which he is.

    Just make sure when Mike Huff gets shredded tomorrow night by Gomer, you're bouncing around the board. Rookie Safety and Mike Huff with rookie MLB Arthur Brown hurt and already out.

    Some of you are clueless in terms od understanding the value of continuity.

    Baltimore = 9-7

     


                 If year after year the secondary continues to be lousy, maybe the value of continuing to trot out a mediocre secondary needs to be questionned. Isn't there an old saw that says continuing to do something that has failed in the past and expecting different results is the essence of stupidity.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share