et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

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

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Because Gronk (ditto Vollmer and Vereen) had a completely unrelated injury in the past, he was going to get his knee (leg, wrist) smashed this year, it was inevitable. That's your argument? That's not really logical, is it?

    Talib, yeah he gets hurt. That's why I let him walk. Wasn't crazy about bringing him in in the first place. Watched him in Tampa, same guy, different team. More mature, but can't stay on the field. Amendola, same thing but we own him for another year. Get used to it.

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said, who knows for what reason but for some reason they always get hurt. Maybe they don't have as much calcium in their bones. Maybe they put their bodies in weird positions during plays that others don't. Maybe it's just plain unlucky (we all know unlucky people where nothing seems to go right for them). Who knows but if you had $10k to put on a bet on any of them playing 16 games next season or getting hurt which would you put it on Muzz?

    [/QUOTE]

    Hey, you trying to set me up? There's no gambling at the BDC (and I never slice). But for entertainment purposes only, Gronk is out because he'll be PUP again, probably Vollmer. It was a broken leg, should heal fine. Vereen might also, but RBs get nicked more often than OL.

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

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    So you don't think we should have drafted Gronk, Vareen or Volmer? Or signed Talib or Amendola? Affter Welker turned us down I think Amendola was the best available fit no? 

    What exactly are you saying?

    [/QUOTE]

    Gronk was just too much of a talent to not take a chance on. I have no issue with them resigning him either, but I do think they should have gotten him a better backup once they knew Hern was gone for sure. There weren't a ton of TE's out there in camp but there were a couple and they could have worked out a trade for a more capable backup.

    Vereen had no injury history before being drafted. Just bad luck, but since he has been drafted he has had injury issues. So again get a better backup. Woodhead was perfect for that role as he was last year.

    Vollmer, love the guy but in the back of the 2nd given all the issues that one might have to be rethought out. It's not just missing games but a good chunk of time he's played through nagging injures that have at times affected his performance. Taking draft position into account this one would have to be re-examined if it was the right move.

    Yes I thought Ras was an issue when they drafted him because of his nagging injures

    Talib for what we traded was still a good trade and a 1 year deal this year was ok, but no I wouldn't sign him long term because of his injury history

    No I didn't think Amendola was the best fit simply because he couldn't stay healthy. What good is a player who can't stay on the field and gives you average performance over his career. I would have perferred a more durable vet who gave more than 600yrds of O in his career high

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonBruinss' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    At this point I don't care if BB stays or goes. Just get Brady some damn weopons and make his final years worth it. There is no reason he can't go out like John Elway with 2 SB's

    [/QUOTE]

    You don't care if BB stays or goes? Are you insane?

    [/QUOTE]


    actually Russ here I agree with u as this comment caught me off guard...Bellichick is coach for life with Pats most likely ie: leaves when he wants-i doubt Kraft replaces him

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

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Hey, you trying to set me up? There's no gambling at the BDC (and I never slice). But for entertainment purposes only, Gronk is out because he'll be PUP again, probably Vollmer. It was a broken leg, should heal fine. Vereen might also, but RBs get nicked more often than OL.

    [/QUOTE]

    lol not trying to set you up (well sort of), but your premise is that you don't believe in players being injury prone, so it's a hypothetical if you don't believe that would you make a large wager that they wouldn't. If your hesistant for any of them vs say Brady who's been pretty durable over his career then it's hard to argue that you truely believe you can't predict injures of certain players known to have injures if you are hesistant on this question.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Dear Bill,  

     

    That was an awfully long letter, so I'll just keep it s h o r t this time.  Please, let's just do something this offseason so I don't have to throw to Matthew Slater in the playoffs ever again.

    Best,

    Tom

    [/QUOTE]

    Deal.

    I (Muzwell, not Bill) was the guy who advocated dumping Slater in favor of a real football player, if anybody recalls that. I was universally mocked, of course. My point was that we might actually need a guy who can run a route at some point, and the difference between an average ST player and Slater isn't that great so as to justify a roster spot over a guy who can play football. Still feel that way.

    Mock away...

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh yes, I recall. Slater is an important contributor, but he shouldn't be a receiver anymore than Gostkowski should be. ( Well, maybe a little more, but still . . . )

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Dear Bill,  

     

    That was an awfully long letter, so I'll just keep it s h o r t this time.  Please, let's just do something this offseason so I don't have to throw to Matthew Slater in the playoffs ever again.

    Best,

    Tom

    [/QUOTE]

    Deal.

    I (Muzwell, not Bill) was the guy who advocated dumping Slater in favor of a real football player, if anybody recalls that. I was universally mocked, of course. My point was that we might actually need a guy who can run a route at some point, and the difference between an average ST player and Slater isn't that great so as to justify a roster spot over a guy who can play football. Still feel that way.

    Mock away...

    [/QUOTE]

    He was the 6th WR. The 6th WR should never see the field except for ST's. That's the point of the 6th WR to give you most on ST's. If the 6th WR is on the field it's because the other 5 are either injured or are greatly underperforming. So how about instead of replacing the 6th WR who gives you probowl quality ST play you, I don't know, get better 1-5 WRs first then look at the 6th WR STer

    [/QUOTE]

    OK, but sometimes the 6th WR does have to see the field as a WR. I realize I'm in the minority on this, but to me if there's any chance you might need that guy, you keep a guy that can play real football. Anybody with speed and athletic ability can play STs, maybe not quite at Slater's level, but at an acceptable level. The difference to me, does not justify a roster spot. I'd rather have a football player than a full time STer. 

    They've used Edelman and Troy Brown as DBs, why not carry one less DB and use Slater there in a pinch? He can tackle, he's athletic. Probably would be better suited there than at WR.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd cut Ebner first.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I gotta tell ya, Denver best win the SB because their weak salary allocation and poor budgeting may be why they can't sign Decker in the offseason.

    I would be ticked if my team drafted two good WRs and then could not give them a second deal due to that fatal budgeting flaw.

    This article is pathetic because no one was saying a word last week about BB, the GM. In fact, people who hate him were gushing on tv about his GM and coaching work this year.

    This is a hindsight 20/20 article all because Goodell's henchmen allow a dwarf like Welker in a Geat Gazoo helmet to pick top notch CBs across the field, illegally, a Brady shotgun spread preferred gameplan to show he could be like Gomie, and previous HUGE personnel  losses.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny how all your "salary cap hell" teams (Baltimore, Denver) are beating the Pats in the AFC Championship game.  Maybe a little overspending is what it takes to get over the hump in the playoffs? You may pay with some player losses the next year, but you win before you pay. 

     

    Something to think about . . . 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah its good to think about if you have two things. 

    1) A horseshoe up your rear end and are lucky enough to stay mostly healthy as a team for the season because you probably won't be able to afford great depth all over your roster and also catch a few breaks along the way.

    2) AND most importanlty, All you care is winning one and not mind sucking  or being mediocre on purpuse for at least a small number of years afterwards.

    To me #2 is a total LOSERS mentality. I've never subscribed to that as a coach.

    I'm not a fan of Tony Dungy but one thing he stated has always had my respect.

    He thought what the Buffalo Bills did was either the greatest or one of greatest NFL team acheivements made. Making it to the superbowl FOUR years IN A ROW. Even though they never won.

    What the Patriots are doing for the length of time they have been doing it is just amazingly impressive as well. 

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I gotta tell ya, Denver best win the SB because their weak salary allocation and poor budgeting may be why they can't sign Decker in the offseason.

    I would be ticked if my team drafted two good WRs and then could not give them a second deal due to that fatal budgeting flaw.

    This article is pathetic because no one was saying a word last week about BB, the GM. In fact, people who hate him were gushing on tv about his GM and coaching work this year.

    This is a hindsight 20/20 article all because Goodell's henchmen allow a dwarf like Welker in a Geat Gazoo helmet to pick top notch CBs across the field, illegally, a Brady shotgun spread preferred gameplan to show he could be like Gomie, and previous HUGE personnel  losses.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny how all your "salary cap hell" teams (Baltimore, Denver) are beating the Pats in the AFC Championship game.  Maybe a little overspending is what it takes to get over the hump in the playoffs? You may pay with some player losses the next year, but you win before you pay. 

     

    Something to think about . . . 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah its good to think about if you have two things. 

    1) A horseshoe up your rear end and are lucky enough to stay mostly healthy as a team for the season because you probably won't be able to afford great depth all over your roster and also catch a few breaks along the way.

    2) AND most importanlty, All you care is winning one and not mind sucking  or being mediocre on purpuse for at least a small number of years afterwards.

    To me #2 is a total LOSERS mentality. I've never subscribed to that as a coach.

    I'm not a fan of Tony Dungy but one thing he stated has always had my respect.

    He thought what the Buffalo Bills did was either the greatest or one of greatest NFL team acheivements made. Making it to the superbowl FOUR years IN A ROW. Even though they never won.

    What the Patriots are doing for the length of time they have been doing it is just amazingly impressive as well. 

    [/QUOTE]

    As I've said before, there may be no perfect strategy in a sport where there's a salary cap and a draft with picks allocated based on finishing position. There may be a trade off between being consistently good and being great for one year.  Look, as a season ticket holder, I'm darn satisfied with the Pats' approach.  I just think its an interesting possibility that there may be a trade off between long term, ongoing success and being good enough to dominate in any one year.  

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

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I just think its an interesting possibility that there may be a trade off between long term, ongoing success and being good enough to dominate in any one year.  



    I think the counterargument to this is that being dominant one year doesn't guarantee a SB win and the downside is much larger if you fail.  When people talk about these things they always mention the teams that actually won the SB, not the ones that tried, failed and then sucked in subsequent years.  Patriots fans more than any other fanbase should know a dominant team doesn't always win the SB...

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I gotta tell ya, Denver best win the SB because their weak salary allocation and poor budgeting may be why they can't sign Decker in the offseason.

    I would be ticked if my team drafted two good WRs and then could not give them a second deal due to that fatal budgeting flaw.

    This article is pathetic because no one was saying a word last week about BB, the GM. In fact, people who hate him were gushing on tv about his GM and coaching work this year.

    This is a hindsight 20/20 article all because Goodell's henchmen allow a dwarf like Welker in a Geat Gazoo helmet to pick top notch CBs across the field, illegally, a Brady shotgun spread preferred gameplan to show he could be like Gomie, and previous HUGE personnel  losses.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny how all your "salary cap hell" teams (Baltimore, Denver) are beating the Pats in the AFC Championship game.  Maybe a little overspending is what it takes to get over the hump in the playoffs? You may pay with some player losses the next year, but you win before you pay. 

     

    Something to think about . . . 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah its good to think about if you have two things. 

    1) A horseshoe up your rear end and are lucky enough to stay mostly healthy as a team for the season because you probably won't be able to afford great depth all over your roster and also catch a few breaks along the way.

    2) AND most importanlty, All you care is winning one and not mind sucking  or being mediocre on purpuse for at least a small number of years afterwards.

    To me #2 is a total LOSERS mentality. I've never subscribed to that as a coach.

    I'm not a fan of Tony Dungy but one thing he stated has always had my respect.

    He thought what the Buffalo Bills did was either the greatest or one of greatest NFL team acheivements made. Making it to the superbowl FOUR years IN A ROW. Even though they never won.

    What the Patriots are doing for the length of time they have been doing it is just amazingly impressive as well. 

    [/QUOTE]

    As I've said before, there may be no perfect strategy in a sport where there's a salary cap and a draft with picks allocated based on finishing position. There may be a trade off between being consistently good and being great for one year.  Look, as a season ticket holder, I'm darn satisfied with the Pats' approach.  I just think its an interesting possibility that there may be a trade off between long term, ongoing success and being good enough to dominate in any one year.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I am not saying its wrong if that is acceptable for someone. I know 42and46 has crowed on before talking about he would take the giants two superbowl wins over what the Pats have done. To each their own.

    I personally would not. That's all. I am not impressed with winning one then not even making the playoffs multiple years. To me that is weak. 

    Plus, the luck part of it would worry the heck out of me. You go all in and things don't break your way so you not only don't win the superbowl but then are not even in the playoffs for a few years or longer because of it to boot. No thanks. ...but thats just me.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I just think its an interesting possibility that there may be a trade off between long term, ongoing success and being good enough to dominate in any one year.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think the counterargument to this is that being dominant one year doesn't guarantee a SB win and the downside is much larger if you fail.  When people talk about these things they always mention the teams that actually won the SB, not the ones that tried, failed and then sucked in subsequent years.  Patriots fans more than any other fanbase should know a dominant team doesn't always win the SB...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    no the BETTER team does Kiss

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I gotta tell ya, Denver best win the SB because their weak salary allocation and poor budgeting may be why they can't sign Decker in the offseason.

    I would be ticked if my team drafted two good WRs and then could not give them a second deal due to that fatal budgeting flaw.

    This article is pathetic because no one was saying a word last week about BB, the GM. In fact, people who hate him were gushing on tv about his GM and coaching work this year.

    This is a hindsight 20/20 article all because Goodell's henchmen allow a dwarf like Welker in a Geat Gazoo helmet to pick top notch CBs across the field, illegally, a Brady shotgun spread preferred gameplan to show he could be like Gomie, and previous HUGE personnel  losses.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny how all your "salary cap hell" teams (Baltimore, Denver) are beating the Pats in the AFC Championship game.  Maybe a little overspending is what it takes to get over the hump in the playoffs? You may pay with some player losses the next year, but you win before you pay. 

     

    Something to think about . . . 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah its good to think about if you have two things. 

    1) A horseshoe up your rear end and are lucky enough to stay mostly healthy as a team for the season because you probably won't be able to afford great depth all over your roster and also catch a few breaks along the way.

    2) AND most importanlty, All you care is winning one and not mind sucking  or being mediocre on purpuse for at least a small number of years afterwards.

    To me #2 is a total LOSERS mentality. I've never subscribed to that as a coach.

    I'm not a fan of Tony Dungy but one thing he stated has always had my respect.

    He thought what the Buffalo Bills did was either the greatest or one of greatest NFL team acheivements made. Making it to the superbowl FOUR years IN A ROW. Even though they never won.

    What the Patriots are doing for the length of time they have been doing it is just amazingly impressive as well. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly.

    NYGS beat us because Welker drops a ball or Brady makes poor decisions on 1st downs. COngrats, Giants! I mean, the objective observer would call that serving it up to the Giants.

    As for Baltimore, good for them for Moore falling dow on a Hail Mary on the heels of Ray Lewis announcing his retirement.

    But, clearly they weren't built all that well for years and years under Ozzie. Good  team, but didn't have enough to get past Pittsburgh until recently.

    You look at those teams, their cap hells, they either ended up sub .500 due to poor system depth, bad planning and money management, or bad drafts to backfill the key spots.

    Meanwhile, our entire starting lineup down the middle either missed most of the season or played hurt on a ligament tear during most of it.

    Go look at Pitt, NYGs, Baltimore, GB, etc, when they lose literally key player and how their teams just collapsed outright, going sub .500 or barely .500, hiding their flaws well.

    But, expect more of that from those organizations.  2 postseasons missed, with more to come.

    Then, compare it to NE's team moving forward. The team has system players all under contract at a 90% clip, continuity, some more experience and waiting on some nice talent to hopefully be infused by midseason.

    Bad luck with massive injuries is why they aren't in the SB.  But, 12-4 and an title game appearance proves the approach is vastly superior.

    I am surprised at MacMullan's premise. It's 100% wrong.  BB is clearly the Exec of the Year with Caserio with what they and the scouts did. It was incredible.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    oh Queenie stop blabbering the same broken record

    cap hell...cap hell...cap hell...

    the Giants didn't draft poorly or blow their cap so please try again if ur capable of anything else-stop throwing crap on the wall to see what sticks for once...and every organization u blab about has won a SB or two since your Patsies lifted the trophy but they all don't know how to draft or understand the cap like the great Bellichick-sure

    hey we can't all play in a semi-pro division for 12 years

     

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

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Dang, Bill Belichick is taking a beating in the media the past 2 days. 

    [/QUOTE]


    He needs to be taking a beating

    [/QUOTE]

    So, the Exec of the Year (w/Caserio) should be taking a beating due to rash of unforeseen injuries?

    FUnny how the media goes from gushing one week, to using the loss this past week, to fine tune their anti-BB media bias again.

    Comical.

    BB is clearly held to a totally different standard and with irrational media coverage, thi further proves it.

    Finalist for COTY and Exec of the  Year by a mile and somehow BB isn't being a good GM?

    For literally almost every contingency this year, he had an answer minus replacing HOF caliber players like Vince or Gronk with HOF caliber players right behind them.

    You're a moron.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your like Patricia and JMcd. Little minion yes men.

    BB needs coaches that will challenge him.

    BB has lost his edge from the days when he was a DC, and after the last SB win.

    There is no way one of the best defensive ninds in footbal should have lost the 2006 AFCCG, and SBs 42 and 46-which was due to his defenses not being able to close the game, which is due to him since he runs the show.

     

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

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    You sure about that? Maybe you should give BB the kind of head you dream of giving Brady

    [/QUOTE]


    yes. LOL just LOL +100

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I gotta tell ya, Denver best win the SB because their weak salary allocation and poor budgeting may be why they can't sign Decker in the offseason.

    I would be ticked if my team drafted two good WRs and then could not give them a second deal due to that fatal budgeting flaw.

    This article is pathetic because no one was saying a word last week about BB, the GM. In fact, people who hate him were gushing on tv about his GM and coaching work this year.

    This is a hindsight 20/20 article all because Goodell's henchmen allow a dwarf like Welker in a Geat Gazoo helmet to pick top notch CBs across the field, illegally, a Brady shotgun spread preferred gameplan to show he could be like Gomie, and previous HUGE personnel  losses.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny how all your "salary cap hell" teams (Baltimore, Denver) are beating the Pats in the AFC Championship game.  Maybe a little overspending is what it takes to get over the hump in the playoffs? You may pay with some player losses the next year, but you win before you pay. 

     

    Something to think about . . . 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah its good to think about if you have two things. 

    1) A horseshoe up your rear end and are lucky enough to stay mostly healthy as a team for the season because you probably won't be able to afford great depth all over your roster and also catch a few breaks along the way.

    2) AND most importanlty, All you care is winning one and not mind sucking  or being mediocre on purpuse for at least a small number of years afterwards.

    To me #2 is a total LOSERS mentality. I've never subscribed to that as a coach.

    I'm not a fan of Tony Dungy but one thing he stated has always had my respect.

    He thought what the Buffalo Bills did was either the greatest or one of greatest NFL team acheivements made. Making it to the superbowl FOUR years IN A ROW. Even though they never won.

    What the Patriots are doing for the length of time they have been doing it is just amazingly impressive as well. 

    [/QUOTE]

    As I've said before, there may be no perfect strategy in a sport where there's a salary cap and a draft with picks allocated based on finishing position. There may be a trade off between being consistently good and being great for one year.  Look, as a season ticket holder, I'm darn satisfied with the Pats' approach.  I just think its an interesting possibility that there may be a trade off between long term, ongoing success and being good enough to dominate in any one year.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I am not saying its wrong if that is acceptable for someone. I know 42and46 has crowed on before talking about he would take the giants two superbowl wins over what the Pats have done. To each their own.

    I personally would not. That's all. I am not impressed with winning one then not even making the playoffs multiple years. To me that is weak. 

    Plus, the luck part of it would worry the heck out of me. You go all in and things don't break your way so you not only don't win the superbowl but then are not even in the playoffs for a few years or longer because of it to boot. No thanks. ...but thats just me.

    [/QUOTE]

    But remember, we're talking Broncos and Ravens here. These are teams that generally have been pretty good most years. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I gotta tell ya, Denver best win the SB because their weak salary allocation and poor budgeting may be why they can't sign Decker in the offseason.

    I would be ticked if my team drafted two good WRs and then could not give them a second deal due to that fatal budgeting flaw.

    This article is pathetic because no one was saying a word last week about BB, the GM. In fact, people who hate him were gushing on tv about his GM and coaching work this year.

    This is a hindsight 20/20 article all because Goodell's henchmen allow a dwarf like Welker in a Geat Gazoo helmet to pick top notch CBs across the field, illegally, a Brady shotgun spread preferred gameplan to show he could be like Gomie, and previous HUGE personnel  losses.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny how all your "salary cap hell" teams (Baltimore, Denver) are beating the Pats in the AFC Championship game.  Maybe a little overspending is what it takes to get over the hump in the playoffs? You may pay with some player losses the next year, but you win before you pay. 

     

    Something to think about . . . 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah its good to think about if you have two things. 

    1) A horseshoe up your rear end and are lucky enough to stay mostly healthy as a team for the season because you probably won't be able to afford great depth all over your roster and also catch a few breaks along the way.

    2) AND most importanlty, All you care is winning one and not mind sucking  or being mediocre on purpuse for at least a small number of years afterwards.

    To me #2 is a total LOSERS mentality. I've never subscribed to that as a coach.

    I'm not a fan of Tony Dungy but one thing he stated has always had my respect.

    He thought what the Buffalo Bills did was either the greatest or one of greatest NFL team acheivements made. Making it to the superbowl FOUR years IN A ROW. Even though they never won.

    What the Patriots are doing for the length of time they have been doing it is just amazingly impressive as well. 

    [/QUOTE]

    As I've said before, there may be no perfect strategy in a sport where there's a salary cap and a draft with picks allocated based on finishing position. There may be a trade off between being consistently good and being great for one year.  Look, as a season ticket holder, I'm darn satisfied with the Pats' approach.  I just think its an interesting possibility that there may be a trade off between long term, ongoing success and being good enough to dominate in any one year.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I am not saying its wrong if that is acceptable for someone. I know 42and46 has crowed on before talking about he would take the giants two superbowl wins over what the Pats have done. To each their own.

    I personally would not. That's all. I am not impressed with winning one then not even making the playoffs multiple years. To me that is weak. 

    Plus, the luck part of it would worry the heck out of me. You go all in and things don't break your way so you not only don't win the superbowl but then are not even in the playoffs for a few years or longer because of it to boot. No thanks. ...but thats just me.

    [/QUOTE]

    But remember, we're talking Broncos and Ravens here. These are teams that generally have been pretty good most years. 

    [/QUOTE]

    How good do you really believe the Broncos have been most years? Have you looked that up? They had only 1 season winning one game over .500 in the 6 seasons prior to Manning getting there.

    I am glad you brought up the Ravens actually. How did they do this year filling out that roster "after" finally having to pay a new big contract to their QB? Didn't even make the playoffs. Not so easy is it for the GM it seems.

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

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    OK, but sometimes the 6th WR does have to see the field as a WR. I realize I'm in the minority on this, but to me if there's any chance you might need that guy, you keep a guy that can play real football. Anybody with speed and athletic ability can play STs, maybe not quite at Slater's level, but at an acceptable level. The difference to me, does not justify a roster spot. I'd rather have a football player than a full time STer. 

    They've used Edelman and Troy Brown as DBs, why not carry one less DB and use Slater there in a pinch? He can tackle, he's athletic. Probably would be better suited there than at WR.  

    [/QUOTE]

    They have used Slater as a DB in a pinch. Actually the year Edelman was a CB they first used Slater as a S.....

    As for sometimes you have to use the 6th receiver I agree but what is that 10 times a year maybe? How many times does he see the field on STs vs as a WR and how many plays as a 6th WR is he the actual target? Does it make sense to get worse on STs for a slight better 6th WR just because you throw to him 5 times a year?

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree. we had Edelman, amendola, collie, Dobson all active last week. Surely any of them would be better options than slater. Of them all, Dobson should have been running slaters route. Slater should never see the field in an afccg unless players 1-3 are out. I do agree, I would rather improve 1-5, then find a good 6 and then lose a very good st player. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I gotta tell ya, Denver best win the SB because their weak salary allocation and poor budgeting may be why they can't sign Decker in the offseason.

    I would be ticked if my team drafted two good WRs and then could not give them a second deal due to that fatal budgeting flaw.

    This article is pathetic because no one was saying a word last week about BB, the GM. In fact, people who hate him were gushing on tv about his GM and coaching work this year.

    This is a hindsight 20/20 article all because Goodell's henchmen allow a dwarf like Welker in a Geat Gazoo helmet to pick top notch CBs across the field, illegally, a Brady shotgun spread preferred gameplan to show he could be like Gomie, and previous HUGE personnel  losses.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny how all your "salary cap hell" teams (Baltimore, Denver) are beating the Pats in the AFC Championship game.  Maybe a little overspending is what it takes to get over the hump in the playoffs? You may pay with some player losses the next year, but you win before you pay. 

     

    Something to think about . . . 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah its good to think about if you have two things. 

    1) A horseshoe up your rear end and are lucky enough to stay mostly healthy as a team for the season because you probably won't be able to afford great depth all over your roster and also catch a few breaks along the way.

    2) AND most importanlty, All you care is winning one and not mind sucking  or being mediocre on purpuse for at least a small number of years afterwards.

    To me #2 is a total LOSERS mentality. I've never subscribed to that as a coach.

    I'm not a fan of Tony Dungy but one thing he stated has always had my respect.

    He thought what the Buffalo Bills did was either the greatest or one of greatest NFL team acheivements made. Making it to the superbowl FOUR years IN A ROW. Even though they never won.

    What the Patriots are doing for the length of time they have been doing it is just amazingly impressive as well. 

    [/QUOTE]

    As I've said before, there may be no perfect strategy in a sport where there's a salary cap and a draft with picks allocated based on finishing position. There may be a trade off between being consistently good and being great for one year.  Look, as a season ticket holder, I'm darn satisfied with the Pats' approach.  I just think its an interesting possibility that there may be a trade off between long term, ongoing success and being good enough to dominate in any one year.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I am not saying its wrong if that is acceptable for someone. I know 42and46 has crowed on before talking about he would take the giants two superbowl wins over what the Pats have done. To each their own.

    I personally would not. That's all. I am not impressed with winning one then not even making the playoffs multiple years. To me that is weak. 

    Plus, the luck part of it would worry the heck out of me. You go all in and things don't break your way so you not only don't win the superbowl but then are not even in the playoffs for a few years or longer because of it to boot. No thanks. ...but thats just me.

    [/QUOTE]

    But remember, we're talking Broncos and Ravens here. These are teams that generally have been pretty good most years. 

    [/QUOTE]

    How good do you really believe the Broncos have been most years? Have you looked that up? They had only 1 season winning one game over .500 in the 6 seasons prior to Manning getting there.

    I am glad you brought up the Ravens actually. How did they do this year filling out that roster "after" finally having to pay a new big contract to their QB? Didn't even make the playoffs. Not so easy is it for the GM it seems.

    [/QUOTE]

    Broncos have made the playoffs 7 times since Belichick came to the Pats (Pats have made it 11). We'll see how the new management team does, but they're a better team than the Pats right now. The Ravens cap issue forced a rebuild this year, but they won the Super Bowl last year and have been very close to the Pats in playoff success over the last decade. In fact, I'd argue they were the better playoff team from 2009 through last year, despite our lucky 2011 win. 

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

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    I enjoy the entertainment, excitement and general fandom of each win. It is fun to bounce over to this forum a couple of times a day after checking out the breaking news and market. I actually enjoy bickering about the games, out maneuvering the Jets and Phins, and debating BB's GM merits. But I get zero satisfaction from winning the AFC East. And zero satisfaction from going to the AFCCCG. I will be satisfied with winning the SB, period.

    S h ort of a SB win, all decisions made by the Pats including players roles, the draft, free agency and contracts are open to debate. This forum would be very boring wth out it. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from laurienyc13. Show laurienyc13's posts

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I gotta tell ya, Denver best win the SB because their weak salary allocation and poor budgeting may be why they can't sign Decker in the offseason.

    I would be ticked if my team drafted two good WRs and then could not give them a second deal due to that fatal budgeting flaw.

    This article is pathetic because no one was saying a word last week about BB, the GM. In fact, people who hate him were gushing on tv about his GM and coaching work this year.

    This is a hindsight 20/20 article all because Goodell's henchmen allow a dwarf like Welker in a Geat Gazoo helmet to pick top notch CBs across the field, illegally, a Brady shotgun spread preferred gameplan to show he could be like Gomie, and previous HUGE personnel  losses.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny how all your "salary cap hell" teams (Baltimore, Denver) are beating the Pats in the AFC Championship game.  Maybe a little overspending is what it takes to get over the hump in the playoffs? You may pay with some player losses the next year, but you win before you pay. 

     

    Something to think about . . . 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah its good to think about if you have two things. 

    1) A horseshoe up your rear end and are lucky enough to stay mostly healthy as a team for the season because you probably won't be able to afford great depth all over your roster and also catch a few breaks along the way.

    2) AND most importanlty, All you care is winning one and not mind sucking  or being mediocre on purpuse for at least a small number of years afterwards.

    To me #2 is a total LOSERS mentality. I've never subscribed to that as a coach.

    I'm not a fan of Tony Dungy but one thing he stated has always had my respect.

    He thought what the Buffalo Bills did was either the greatest or one of greatest NFL team acheivements made. Making it to the superbowl FOUR years IN A ROW. Even though they never won.

    What the Patriots are doing for the length of time they have been doing it is just amazingly impressive as well. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly.

    NYGS beat us because Welker drops a ball or Brady makes poor decisions on 1st downs. COngrats, Giants! I mean, the objective observer would call that serving it up to the Giants.

    As for Baltimore, good for them for Moore falling dow on a Hail Mary on the heels of Ray Lewis announcing his retirement.

    But, clearly they weren't built all that well for years and years under Ozzie. Good  team, but didn't have enough to get past Pittsburgh until recently.

    You look at those teams, their cap hells, they either ended up sub .500 due to poor system depth, bad planning and money management, or bad drafts to backfill the key spots.

    Meanwhile, our entire starting lineup down the middle either missed most of the season or played hurt on a ligament tear during most of it.

    Go look at Pitt, NYGs, Baltimore, GB, etc, when they lose literally key player and how their teams just collapsed outright, going sub .500 or barely .500, hiding their flaws well.

    But, expect more of that from those organizations.  2 postseasons missed, with more to come.

    Then, compare it to NE's team moving forward. The team has system players all under contract at a 90% clip, continuity, some more experience and waiting on some nice talent to hopefully be infused by midseason.

    Bad luck with massive injuries is why they aren't in the SB.  But, 12-4 and an title game appearance proves the approach is vastly superior.

    I am surprised at MacMullan's premise. It's 100% wrong.  BB is clearly the Exec of the Year with Caserio with what they and the scouts did. It was incredible.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Great POST, agree 100%. I was pleasantly surprised they made it as far as they did, All of the injuries esp. after Gronk & they continued to move forward. BB never blamed any loss on injurues  and as far as I can remember he has never called out another player. Every lost before loss were for Bill to be coach of the year, now he's a sore loser and a micro manager, how quickly they turn.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: et tu Jackie? piling on to BB

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I gotta tell ya, Denver best win the SB because their weak salary allocation and poor budgeting may be why they can't sign Decker in the offseason.

    I would be ticked if my team drafted two good WRs and then could not give them a second deal due to that fatal budgeting flaw.

    This article is pathetic because no one was saying a word last week about BB, the GM. In fact, people who hate him were gushing on tv about his GM and coaching work this year.

    This is a hindsight 20/20 article all because Goodell's henchmen allow a dwarf like Welker in a Geat Gazoo helmet to pick top notch CBs across the field, illegally, a Brady shotgun spread preferred gameplan to show he could be like Gomie, and previous HUGE personnel  losses.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny how all your "salary cap hell" teams (Baltimore, Denver) are beating the Pats in the AFC Championship game.  Maybe a little overspending is what it takes to get over the hump in the playoffs? You may pay with some player losses the next year, but you win before you pay. 

     

    Something to think about . . . 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah its good to think about if you have two things. 

    1) A horseshoe up your rear end and are lucky enough to stay mostly healthy as a team for the season because you probably won't be able to afford great depth all over your roster and also catch a few breaks along the way.

    2) AND most importanlty, All you care is winning one and not mind sucking  or being mediocre on purpuse for at least a small number of years afterwards.

    To me #2 is a total LOSERS mentality. I've never subscribed to that as a coach.

    I'm not a fan of Tony Dungy but one thing he stated has always had my respect.

    He thought what the Buffalo Bills did was either the greatest or one of greatest NFL team acheivements made. Making it to the superbowl FOUR years IN A ROW. Even though they never won.

    What the Patriots are doing for the length of time they have been doing it is just amazingly impressive as well. 

    [/QUOTE]

    As I've said before, there may be no perfect strategy in a sport where there's a salary cap and a draft with picks allocated based on finishing position. There may be a trade off between being consistently good and being great for one year.  Look, as a season ticket holder, I'm darn satisfied with the Pats' approach.  I just think its an interesting possibility that there may be a trade off between long term, ongoing success and being good enough to dominate in any one year.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I am not saying its wrong if that is acceptable for someone. I know 42and46 has crowed on before talking about he would take the giants two superbowl wins over what the Pats have done. To each their own.

    I personally would not. That's all. I am not impressed with winning one then not even making the playoffs multiple years. To me that is weak. 

    Plus, the luck part of it would worry the heck out of me. You go all in and things don't break your way so you not only don't win the superbowl but then are not even in the playoffs for a few years or longer because of it to boot. No thanks. ...but thats just me.

    [/QUOTE]


    this might be the silliest thug I have read here in a long while...

     

Share