LOL @ USA Today Sportswriter

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: LOL @ USA Today Sportswriter

     

    What is the logic of giving Ozzie Newsome a B for never having egg on his face (in the past) when you are grading this year?

    Green Bay gets an A- for not opening the checkbook yet..

    They gave pleny of teams I - incomplete and mentioned the PAts were incomplete but could not resist dolling out the D+ whne it is clear there are pleny of moves to come.

     

    Meanwhile: the Jets get a C for thrifty moves, a decimated defense, and what was left of the skill offense positons leaving and hope for keeping Revis.

    A lot of guys who helped QB Mark Sanchez be effective in the past — Keller, RB Shonn Greene and RG Brandon Moore are gone — and a once-proud defense has been decimated. But an overhaul is needed, hence new GM John Idzik's thrifty moves. He better hope keeping all-pro CB Darrelle Revis around and letting him get healthy works out to both parties' advantage.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: LOL @ USA Today Sportswriter

    The Pats are running out of money the realisticly can either sign Samders or Abraham an still have enough money for the draft.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: LOL @ USA Today Sportswriter

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

     

     

    What is the logic of giving Ozzie Newsome a B for never having egg on his face (in the past) when you are grading this year?

    Green Bay gets an A- for not opening the checkbook yet..

    They gave pleny of teams I - incomplete and mentioned the PAts were incomplete but could not resist dolling out the D+ whne it is clear there are pleny of moves to come.

     

    Meanwhile: the Jets get a C for thrifty moves, a decimated defense, and what was left of the skill offense positons leaving and hope for keeping Revis.

    A lot of guys who helped QB Mark Sanchez be effective in the past — Keller, RB Shonn Greene and RG Brandon Moore are gone — and a once-proud defense has been decimated. But an overhaul is needed, hence new GM John Idzik's thrifty moves. He better hope keeping all-pro CB Darrelle Revis around and letting him get healthy works out to both parties' advantage.

     




    It's the anti-BB media bias. There is no other explanation for it.  I'll keep posting stuff like this to prove it exists.

     

    This is why any time the general consensus by the media in analyzing the Pats is likely utter garbage, which is also why it's comical we have adult fans here buying into it. That means you RKarp and Mt Hurl and all the other Debbie Downer types who apparently don't get it yet.

    It's literally 90% anti-BB media and 10% accurate, fair and objective Pats media. 

    The average fan is reaading that on a flight from Providence to Pittsburgh will read it and believe it as being accurate.

    NFLN ran a piece with Casserly (hates BB from his Skins days) and Darren Sharper (trying t protect Packer legacy and deflect from current awful Packers D) making awkwad arguments as to why the D isn't improved or why NE's window is closed.  LOL

    Meanwhile, this writer gives Denver an A for losing their entire starting LB group, not improving the Safety spot (or CB) at all and btoching the Dumveril deal, allowing teams to bid to drive price, holding up other moves they SHOULD be making?

    Cannot be made up. People are morons in this world or have such an unhealthy agenda, it's so obvious that it supersedes basic logic.

    In the end, I look at this analysis as FEAR that BB is nailing the FA period.   Basically, it's Felger/Mazz analysis, so take the opposite angle to whatever they say and you're good.

    RIght now, I'd give BB a B+/A-. If he gets Abraham and does some of the other things I mention above, it shoots right up to an A+.

    Would dwarf his 2010 one by a mile. 

     




    Proof in the end is in the record. BB will laugh all the way to the bank and the HOF.

    A very interesting time will be if BB decides to coach a few more years after TB retires. How he handles that and hoe the team does will be extremely interesting.

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

    Re: LOL @ USA Today Sportswriter

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:


    Draft picks is about 3 mil.   We have no idea what the update is off of Vollmer's price tag either.  They can cut Gregory and Gostowski and save a bit more if they choose, too.

    Wilfork could quietly restructure as well.

    Sanders comes over for a 3rd rd tender and then they can extend him under their control, which would possibly a be a situation where they like how he would like in camp and then talk extension.

    I think his salary is only like 1.5 in 2013, which is why they're looking to give up a 3rd for him. That's not a tough price to beat especially with Pitt in cap hell. Pitt is basically in the rebuild on the fly mode even if they're not announcing or their dopey fanbase wants to admit it, so a 3rd rd pick is something they might want anyway.

    Abraham shouldn't cost more than 3 million, IMO, and they could easily just get him on a 1 year deal.

     



    Cutting Gostowski will have a cap hit of $1.6 million, only saving $1.395.  I would rather keep him for that.  It will cost money to replace him and there aren't many, if any kickers out there I would want them to sign that will cost much less then that.

    Greagory being cut only gives $486,668 cap savings.

    I don't want the Sanders deal to work out.  They need a bigger, taller WR.  He isn't going to be able to out jump defenders.

    I will take the Abraham deal though.

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

    Re: LOL @ USA Today Sportswriter

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     


    Draft picks is about 3 mil.   We have no idea what the update is off of Vollmer's price tag either.  They can cut Gregory and Gostowski and save a bit more if they choose, too.

    Wilfork could quietly restructure as well.

    Sanders comes over for a 3rd rd tender and then they can extend him under their control, which would possibly a be a situation where they like how he would like in camp and then talk extension.

    I think his salary is only like 1.5 in 2013, which is why they're looking to give up a 3rd for him. That's not a tough price to beat especially with Pitt in cap hell. Pitt is basically in the rebuild on the fly mode even if they're not announcing or their dopey fanbase wants to admit it, so a 3rd rd pick is something they might want anyway.

    Abraham shouldn't cost more than 3 million, IMO, and they could easily just get him on a 1 year deal.

     

     



    Cutting Gostowski will have a cap hit of $1.6 million, only saving $1.395.  I would rather keep him for that.  It will cost money to replace him and there aren't many, if any kickers out there I would want them to sign that will cost much less then that.

     

    Greagory being cut only gives $486,668 cap savings.

    I don't want the Sanders deal to work out.  They need a bigger, taller WR.  He isn't going to be able to out jump defenders.

    I will take the Abraham deal though.




    Good info bro..


    I agree with everything you just mentioned..

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from KyleCleric2. Show KyleCleric2's posts

    Re: LOL @ USA Today Sportswriter

    The draft picks come to around $1M against the cap when they are added. Only top 51 players count against the cap during the offseason.

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

    Re: LOL @ USA Today Sportswriter

    Free agency grading is pointless.  Grade it AFTER the season.  

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from stan17. Show stan17's posts

    Re: LOL @ USA Today Sportswriter

    Pure anti-BB drivel.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: LOL @ USA Today Sportswriter

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

     

     

    What is the logic of giving Ozzie Newsome a B for never having egg on his face (in the past) when you are grading this year?

    Green Bay gets an A- for not opening the checkbook yet..

    They gave pleny of teams I - incomplete and mentioned the PAts were incomplete but could not resist dolling out the D+ whne it is clear there are pleny of moves to come.

     

    Meanwhile: the Jets get a C for thrifty moves, a decimated defense, and what was left of the skill offense positons leaving and hope for keeping Revis.

    A lot of guys who helped QB Mark Sanchez be effective in the past — Keller, RB Shonn Greene and RG Brandon Moore are gone — and a once-proud defense has been decimated. But an overhaul is needed, hence new GM John Idzik's thrifty moves. He better hope keeping all-pro CB Darrelle Revis around and letting him get healthy works out to both parties' advantage.

     




    It's the anti-BB media bias. There is no other explanation for it.  I'll keep posting stuff like this to prove it exists.

     

    This is why any time the general consensus by the media in analyzing the Pats is likely utter garbage, which is also why it's comical we have adult fans here buying into it. That means you RKarp and Mt Hurl and all the other Debbie Downer types who apparently don't get it yet.

    It's literally 90% anti-BB media and 10% accurate, fair and objective Pats media. 

    The average fan is reaading that on a flight from Providence to Pittsburgh will read it and believe it as being accurate.

    NFLN ran a piece with Casserly (hates BB from his Skins days) and Darren Sharper (trying t protect Packer legacy and deflect from current awful Packers D) making awkwad arguments as to why the D isn't improved or why NE's window is closed.  LOL

    Meanwhile, this writer gives Denver an A for losing their entire starting LB group, not improving the Safety spot (or CB) at all and btoching the Dumveril deal, allowing teams to bid to drive price, holding up other moves they SHOULD be making?

    Cannot be made up. People are morons in this world or have such an unhealthy agenda, it's so obvious that it supersedes basic logic.

    In the end, I look at this analysis as FEAR that BB is nailing the FA period.   Basically, it's Felger/Mazz analysis, so take the opposite angle to whatever they say and you're good.

    RIght now, I'd give BB a B+/A-. If he gets Abraham and does some of the other things I mention above, it shoots right up to an A+.

    Would dwarf his 2010 one by a mile. 

     




    the anti bb media oes exist...in your head

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: LOL @ USA Today Sportswriter

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

     

     

    What is the logic of giving Ozzie Newsome a B for never having egg on his face (in the past) when you are grading this year?

    Green Bay gets an A- for not opening the checkbook yet..

    They gave pleny of teams I - incomplete and mentioned the PAts were incomplete but could not resist dolling out the D+ whne it is clear there are pleny of moves to come.

     

    Meanwhile: the Jets get a C for thrifty moves, a decimated defense, and what was left of the skill offense positons leaving and hope for keeping Revis.

    A lot of guys who helped QB Mark Sanchez be effective in the past — Keller, RB Shonn Greene and RG Brandon Moore are gone — and a once-proud defense has been decimated. But an overhaul is needed, hence new GM John Idzik's thrifty moves. He better hope keeping all-pro CB Darrelle Revis around and letting him get healthy works out to both parties' advantage.

     




    It's the anti-BB media bias. There is no other explanation for it.  I'll keep posting stuff like this to prove it exists.

     

    This is why any time the general consensus by the media in analyzing the Pats is likely utter garbage, which is also why it's comical we have adult fans here buying into it. That means you RKarp and Mt Hurl and all the other Debbie Downer types who apparently don't get it yet.

    It's literally 90% anti-BB media and 10% accurate, fair and objective Pats media. 

    The average fan is reaading that on a flight from Providence to Pittsburgh will read it and believe it as being accurate.

    NFLN ran a piece with Casserly (hates BB from his Skins days) and Darren Sharper (trying t protect Packer legacy and deflect from current awful Packers D) making awkwad arguments as to why the D isn't improved or why NE's window is closed.  LOL

    Meanwhile, this writer gives Denver an A for losing their entire starting LB group, not improving the Safety spot (or CB) at all and btoching the Dumveril deal, allowing teams to bid to drive price, holding up other moves they SHOULD be making?

    Cannot be made up. People are morons in this world or have such an unhealthy agenda, it's so obvious that it supersedes basic logic.

    In the end, I look at this analysis as FEAR that BB is nailing the FA period.   Basically, it's Felger/Mazz analysis, so take the opposite angle to whatever they say and you're good.

    RIght now, I'd give BB a B+/A-. If he gets Abraham and does some of the other things I mention above, it shoots right up to an A+.

    Would dwarf his 2010 one by a mile. 

     

     




     

    the anti bb media oes exist...in your head




    Their are tons of people who dislike Belichek. Some guy came on Dennis and Callahan and said Belichek would be a 500 coach without Brady. (Which is silly because he went 11-5 without him). Man I wish I could remember that guys name. I don't believe that there is some over arching anti-BB conspiracy, I just think some people don't like him.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: LOL @ USA Today Sportswriter

    Face it, the main focus of many in the press is to stir up controversy or look for some hidden secret in why certain decisions were made. BB gives these reporters nothing to work with, infact he show outward contempt for this type of questioning. Unfortunately a lot of these people can't keep it all business, they keep some sort of mini personal vendentta and get in their little digs when they can. Human Nature.

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

    Re: LOL @ USA Today Sportswriter

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

     

     

    What is the logic of giving Ozzie Newsome a B for never having egg on his face (in the past) when you are grading this year?

    Green Bay gets an A- for not opening the checkbook yet..

    They gave pleny of teams I - incomplete and mentioned the PAts were incomplete but could not resist dolling out the D+ whne it is clear there are pleny of moves to come.

     

    Meanwhile: the Jets get a C for thrifty moves, a decimated defense, and what was left of the skill offense positons leaving and hope for keeping Revis.

    A lot of guys who helped QB Mark Sanchez be effective in the past — Keller, RB Shonn Greene and RG Brandon Moore are gone — and a once-proud defense has been decimated. But an overhaul is needed, hence new GM John Idzik's thrifty moves. He better hope keeping all-pro CB Darrelle Revis around and letting him get healthy works out to both parties' advantage.

     




    It's the anti-BB media bias. There is no other explanation for it.  I'll keep posting stuff like this to prove it exists.

     

    This is why any time the general consensus by the media in analyzing the Pats is likely utter garbage, which is also why it's comical we have adult fans here buying into it. That means you RKarp and Mt Hurl and all the other Debbie Downer types who apparently don't get it yet.

    It's literally 90% anti-BB media and 10% accurate, fair and objective Pats media. 

    The average fan is reaading that on a flight from Providence to Pittsburgh will read it and believe it as being accurate.

    NFLN ran a piece with Casserly (hates BB from his Skins days) and Darren Sharper (trying t protect Packer legacy and deflect from current awful Packers D) making awkwad arguments as to why the D isn't improved or why NE's window is closed.  LOL

    Meanwhile, this writer gives Denver an A for losing their entire starting LB group, not improving the Safety spot (or CB) at all and btoching the Dumveril deal, allowing teams to bid to drive price, holding up other moves they SHOULD be making?

    Cannot be made up. People are morons in this world or have such an unhealthy agenda, it's so obvious that it supersedes basic logic.

    In the end, I look at this analysis as FEAR that BB is nailing the FA period.   Basically, it's Felger/Mazz analysis, so take the opposite angle to whatever they say and you're good.

    RIght now, I'd give BB a B+/A-. If he gets Abraham and does some of the other things I mention above, it shoots right up to an A+.

    Would dwarf his 2010 one by a mile. 

     

     




     

    the anti bb media oes exist...in your head



    Well, there and on tv and in papers/magazines and websites.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share