Haynesworth CUT

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : Oh, C'mon sweetie, we all know that Polian didn't go after AH because he's not related to him or married to someone who is.  He's rather get guys like AJ Foyt IV, as a scout, than spend money on someone that might help them win and jeopardize his LUCKY chances.
    Posted by pezz4pats


    Sweetie? 

    I'll take your remark as an agreement. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MoreRings. Show MoreRings's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    It cost Belichick time and money - two things that I am willing to bet he wishes he had back.  As for Sanders, you don't cut a DPOY after an ACL.  You don't cut a DPOY who has a freak biceps tear, but you do after he does it to his other biceps.  Bob Sanders is a completely different guy than Haynesworth.  He's got a positive character, and don't tell me that Belichick has kept a couple of valued guys around who've been injured the couple of years (Kevin Faulk, Leigh Bodden).  I am sure there are other, but none as high profile as Sanders, because none were as good.    
    Posted by UD6


    Your right, it cost BB 6 weeks while we had 2 players on the pup.

    Not developing a qb behind Gomer, probably cost the colts 6 years of
    futility.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : Sweetie?  I'll take your remark as an agreement. 
    Posted by UD6


    Agreement sweetie?  LOL
     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:

    But, in any case, enjoy your submarine season: "Dive!! Dive!! All Dive!!!! Level off at DFL!!!"

    Posted by AZPAT[/QUOTE]

    I don't care where you are from, that is funny!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from gmbill. Show gmbill's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    It cost Belichick time and money - two things that I am willing to bet he wishes he had back.     
    Posted by UD6


    UD6, man I know how Bill feels, your stuff is riviting.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : Not as it relates to this player, and its arguable as it relates to anything else.
    Posted by UD6


    Hmmmm....... using your "logic", Puppster, BB is MILES ahead of Polian by NOT signing a piece of deadwood QB OUT OF RETIREMENT, NO LESS, that got a boo-boo owie, and is $4mm richer ny NOT playing.
    Great investment!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : But, in any case, enjoy your submarine season: "Dive!! Dive!! All Dive!!!! Level off at DFL!!!" Posted by AZPAT
    I don't care where you are from, that is funny!
    Posted by gmbill


    Doggie's in real good illogical form today. Taking his "logic" to the next level, I can see how, after the next draft, BB and the Pats "Blew It Big Time" by not moving up to snag a top rated QB in the draft, while Luck "fell" to the Dolts in the #1 position.

    Hollyweird can't come up with this stuff!!!!
 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    66 - As I said, the rest is arguable, but as it relates to Haynesworth, Polian was smarter.  He didn't waste the team's time or money on the guy.  I guess you agree because you didn't argue the point, probably because you couldn't. 
    Posted by UD6


    Its true that BB took a low cost and low risk gamble on Haynesworth - it didn't pan out - he moved on

    But UD - BB is currently playing a 2nd string defense that just blew the Eagles off the field on the road  - the Pats are 8-3  with countless significant injuries

    The Colts, on the other hand, are a sterling 0-11 because of 1 big injury

    I would say the jury has returned the verdict on which teams GM is doing their job better
     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    It cost Belichick time and money - two things that I am willing to bet he wishes he had back.  As for Sanders, you don't cut a DPOY after an ACL.  You don't cut a DPOY who has a freak biceps tear, but you do after he does it to his other biceps.  Bob Sanders is a completely different guy than Haynesworth.  He's got a positive character, and don't tell me that Belichick has kept a couple of valued guys around who've been injured the couple of years (Kevin Faulk, Leigh Bodden).  I am sure there are other, but none as high profile as Sanders, because none were as good.    
    Posted by UD6


    UD - Bob Sanders stayed healthy one year and and help the Colts win their 1 SB - Kevin Faulk played an intergral role in 3 Superbowl wins - I think history will find that Kevin Faulks career has been far superior to Bob Sanders

    Only a delusional Colts fan would argue that Bob Sanders is a better NFL player than Kevin Faulk
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : Hmmmm....... using your "logic", Puppster, BB is MILES ahead of Polian by NOT signing a piece of deadwood QB OUT OF RETIREMENT, NO LESS, that got a boo-boo owie, and is $4mm richer ny NOT playing. Great investment!
    Posted by AZPAT


    Just like the others, I understand your need to divert this conversation away from original topic to something that fits your argument better. 
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : Its true that BB took a low cost and low risk gamble on Haynesworth - it didn't pan out - he moved on But UD - BB is currently playing a 2nd string defense that just blew the Eagles off the field on the road  - the Pats are 8-3  with countless significant injuries The Colts, on the other hand, are a sterling 0-11 because of 1 big injury I would say the jury has returned the verdict on which teams GM is doing their job better
    Posted by qball369


    q- it really doesn't matter what I have to say here.  It falls on deaf ears.  anyone who believes the pats are better off for taking and dumping haynesworth than for not having him at all are being intentionally blind.    

    further no one is interested in admitting that every other team that didn't take that bait made the better choice. 
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MoreRings. Show MoreRings's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : Just like the others, I understand your need to divert this conversation away from original topic to something that fits your argument better. 
    Posted by UD6


    We did answer, 2 players on pup, tried AH for six weeks, kept the
    other 2 DL over AH. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : UD - Bob Sanders stayed healthy one year and and help the Colts win their 1 SB - Kevin Faulk played an intergral role in 3 Superbowl wins - I think history will find that Kevin Faulks career has been far superior to Bob Sanders Only a delusional Colts fan would argue that Bob Sanders is a better NFL player than Kevin Faulk
    Posted by qball369


    Q - bob sanders was the dpoy.  They award that to one player.  Teams take a flyer on a difference maker like that. Kevin Faulk is done.  Why's he still on the roster?
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from jerh5. Show jerh5's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : q- it really doesn't matter what I have to say here.  It falls on deaf ears.  anyone who believes the pats are better off for taking and dumping haynesworth than for not having him at all are being intentionally blind.     further no one is interested in admitting that every other team that didn't take that bait made the better choice. 
    Posted by UD6

       So, with your logic, we should not have traded for Randy Moss.  It's the exact same situation.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : q- it really doesn't matter what I have to say here.  It falls on deaf ears.  anyone who believes the pats are better off for taking and dumping haynesworth than for not having him at all are being intentionally blind.     further no one is interested in admitting that every other team that didn't take that bait made the better choice. 
    Posted by UD6


    I think BB was as aware as anyone that he was taking a risk on Haynesworth - not a big one though when the draft pick rich Pats give up a 5th rounder - the Pats have successfully taken this type of risk before -

    Are the Pats better off right now for having taken a chance on Haynesworth? No - but, maybe a better question would be are the Pats any worse off? I don't think they are any worse off either - they still 7 picks in the draft next year - only they have 2 firsts and 2 nds - none in the 5, 6, or 7th - and they have some pretty good trade bait in the form or Brian Hoyer and Ryan Mallet  - the Pats have pretty good QB depth - how is Indy doing with that?
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MoreRings. Show MoreRings's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : Q - bob sanders was the dpoy.  They award that to one player.  Teams take a flyer on a difference maker like that. Kevin Faulk is done.  Why's he still on the roster?
    Posted by UD6


    Kevin Faulk on the roster, what about Gomer????
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    Another thread hijacked by a troll and it's enablers.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : Q - bob sanders was the dpoy.  They award that to one player.  Teams take a flyer on a difference maker like that. Kevin Faulk is done.  Why's he still on the roster?
    Posted by UD6


    I am not impressed that Bob Sanders was voted DPOY in 2007 - the guy has played a total of 60 games in his career  - with 6 Ints - not exactly stellar stats for a safety

    Kevin Faulk on the other hand has played 157 games filling all sorts big needs for the Pats over that time - a huge 3rd down back contributor in the championship years - I am quite sure that Kevin Faulk played a bigger role in many Patriot wins then Bob Sanders ever did for Indy - who depended absolutely on Peyton Manning to win - as evidenced by this seasons disgraceful showing by the Colts

    Also - UD - did you know that Haynesworth was DPOY in 2008 - teams takes flyers on players like that
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : I think BB was as aware as anyone that he was taking a risk on Haynesworth - not a big one though when the draft pick rich Pats give up a 5th rounder - the Pats have successfully taken this type of risk before - Are the Pats better off right now for having taken a chance on Haynesworth? No - but, maybe a better question would be are the Pats any worse off? I don't think they are any worse off either - they still 7 picks in the draft next year - only they have 2 firsts and 2 nds - none in the 5, 6, or 7th - and they have some pretty good trade bait in the form or Brian Hoyer and Ryan Mallet  - the Pats have pretty good QB depth - how is Indy doing with that?
    Posted by qball369

    Look, I don't fault belichick for taking the chance.  He's proven he can turn players.  I'll disagree, however, that it was the same situation as Moss as another poster stated.  Moss just wanted a good QB, right or wrong.  Haynesworth demonstrated the worst kind of behavior - get paid, get lazy.  But that is getting away from my point. 

    I was simply responding to the poster that said belichick was smarter than polian, and I responded, not in this situation.  And he wasn't.  I'll leave it at that.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : I am not impressed that Bob Sanders was voted DPOY in 2007 - the guy has played a total of 60 games in his career  - with 6 Ints - not exactly stellar stats for a safety Kevin Faulk on the other hand has played 157 games filling all sorts big needs for the Pats over that time - a huge 3rd down back contributor in the championship years - I am quite sure that Kevin Faulk played a bigger role in many Patriot wins then Bob Sanders ever did for Indy - who depended absolutely on Peyton Manning to win - as evidenced by this seasons disgraceful showing by the Colts Also - UD - did you know that Haynesworth was DPOY in 2008 - teams takes flyers on players like that
    Posted by qball369

    to your last point, I agree.  The difference is that Haynesworth demonstrated to the world in 09 and 10 that all he wanted was a fat contract.  Would you take a flyer on a guy who cared, played his guts out but got injured, or a guy who played for a contract and then quit on his team? 

    All teams will take flyers (including the pats) on their guys who care and who matter to the team's success, and that was my point about Faulk.  If Haynesworth proved that he mattered, he'd still be a Patriot. 
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : Look, I don't fault belichick for taking the chance.  He's proven he can turn players.  I'll disagree, however, that it was the same situation as Moss as another poster stated.  Moss just wanted a good QB, right or wrong.  Haynesworth demonstrated the worst kind of behavior - get paid, get lazy.  But that is getting away from my point.  I was simply responding to the poster that said belichick was smarter than polian, and I responded, not in this situation.  And he wasn't.  I'll leave it at that.
    Posted by UD6


    UD - could you possibly split the hair any fine than that? - Bill Polian not looking too bright these days - I have read some interesting articles by Bob Kravitz recently - I imagine you have too - I would say that the bloom is very much off Polians rose at this point

    Even Peter King is struggling to write anything nice about the Colts right now - but he has lost his single best source in Bill Polian - of course King isn't writing anything bad about the Colts either - I wonder if any other team so obviously in the tank would escape notice like that
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : Just like the others, I understand your need to divert this conversation away from original topic to something that fits your argument better. 
    Posted by UD6


    I just LOVE putting the doggie down (again).
    Your commentary was that BB was a bonehead for trading for Haynesworth, something that the GREAT 0-11 Polian (it's his hand crafted roster, you know) NEVER would do. The Haynesworth transaction was based on NEED. It didn't work out, so BB's the bonehead. Funny, but I recall the 0-11 Polian making a DUMBER transaction, for more money, no less, by signing a RETIRED QB NOT NAMED FAVRE to lead his team, as a "need", something BB would NEVER do.
    With and without Haynesworth, the Patriots are sitting 8-3, 1st in their division, and on track for a first round bye. With and without Collins, your Dolts are 0-11.
    So, what's the common thread to these records?

    BOTHTEAMS WILL HAVE FIRST ROUND BYES IN THE PLAYOFFS. (Of course, the Dolts "bye" will be a little longer........

    DIVE! DIVE!! ALL DIVE!!!!! RIG TO HIT ROCK BOTTOM!!
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Haynesworth CUT

    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT:
    In Response to Re: Haynesworth CUT : Good for belichick.  As I apparently correctly noted, this guy was not playing well and likely was a bad locker room presence.  Guess Belichick's not smarter than Shanahan.
    Posted by UD6



    There are plenty of decisions by BB that are worthy of criticism. Haynesworth wasn't one of them. The money was insignificant compared to the possible gain. Now if you want to criticise him about throwing money away on his buddy 85, that's different.
     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share