interesting read by M williamson at espn

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from leonardo0110. Show leonardo0110's posts

    Re: interesting read by M williamson at espn

    I don't know if Welker's departure really brings the pats grade down to a C...I think it should be higher...they adressed their needs...Granted, they're counting on the unknown..but who on this list is not? it's a joke....

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: interesting read by M williamson at espn

    In response to Dusty Bottoms' comment:

    Horrendous projections.  I could not disagree more.

    Baltimore lost an entire D and two Hall of Famers and they're better due to youth and speed? I don't think that kind of thing works like that. In fact, I know it doesn't.

    The Packers tried it, the Saints just tried it, it just doesn;t work changing out that much chemistry and coninuity in one year like that. It's never, ever worked before. It won't work this year with the Ravens or a team like the Dolphins. The Broncos will struggle at LB with a whole new crew.

    If it's 1 or 2 people, fine, but not almost the entire D and key people on offense like a Center like Birk or your best WR in Boldin. I stopped reading right there.

    He nailed the Brady analysis as far as how Brady has been bad in postseasons of late, but he clearly miscalculates on the offseason grade analysis. Pats have a really nice base of youth, continuity and exprience and plop in Adrian and Wilson and Tommy Kelly and it's a C?  LOL!

    Cannot wait to see this offense shock people, too. It will be like Wes Welker never played here.




    So, on the other thread, he's a scout and knows what he's talking about.

    And this one he completely missed the boat.  HMMMMM

    Did you read the part where he said TB is playing at a pro bowl level?  And how his QBR is the best since 2009?

    Guess he doesn't think much of BB's in the weeds, team building.  Did you hear?  Neither do the Pat's scouts.

    BWAHAHAHA  Phoney Baloney..  No wonder you like that bologna dude.  Are you him?

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: interesting read by M williamson at espn

    although I dont agree with the Pats grade of a C, (I think they filled their holes nicely) this is a good read. thanks for posting Rkarp.


    "Giggedy, Giggedy!"

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

    Re: interesting read by M williamson at espn

    Tough for me to take that article seriously, considering he listed the following at "key losses":

    DT Brandon Deaderick, DT Kyle Love, S Patrick Chung, WR Deion Branch, CB Will Allen, DE Trevor Scott, WR Donte' Stallworth, DT Ron Brace

    Anyone who thinks those players are "key losses" doesn't have half an idea what s/he is talking about. Everyone on that list, at best, was a situational player who had significant limitations. Hell, same could be said for Woodhead, Thomas, and even Lloyd to an extent.

    _________________

    Let's go Pats!

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

    Re: interesting read by M williamson at espn

    I love these writers.  Give everyone a B- or a C range, except for the Chiefs, who have nowhere to go but up.  Really put yourself out there with those opinions.  If you're wrong, meh...

    Brilliance! 

     
Sections
Shortcuts