no more SB for Pats

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    It should be clarified that a soft D does not only refer to a big hitter. In fact, when I think soft D, the physical aspect never enters my mind. The "softness" factor in my opinion is the mental part. Can a player put himself on the field week aft week? Can the D stop the opposition when it absolutely must? Does the D reach and grab, or tackle? 

    A soft D does not speak to a hard hit, points allowed nor yards allowed. It is a mind set that the Pats have not had in the playoffs the past 5 years or so. 

     



    then i guess they definitely have a soft offense

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    It should be clarified that a soft D does not only refer to a big hitter. In fact, when I think soft D, the physical aspect never enters my mind. The "softness" factor in my opinion is the mental part. Can a player put himself on the field week aft week? Can the D stop the opposition when it absolutely must? Does the D reach and grab, or tackle? 

    A soft D does not speak to a hard hit, points allowed nor yards allowed. It is a mind set that the Pats have not had in the playoffs the past 5 years or so. 

     

     



    then i guess they definitely have a soft offense

     



    In the playoffs the past few years, yes. In the playoffs, when the team needs a big first down on 3 rd and short, is the OL winning the one on one battle? Are the WR's short arming and dropping usually caught balls? Is the QB getting happy feet under pressure. I would concur in the playoffs the past few years his offense has been soft.

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:


    its more a factor of the price tag for the services of a 32 year old slot receiver...

     

    anyone with a brain knows welker has been great for the pats since he has been here, and id like to see him back, but to pay him $11 mil or more per season is just limiting your other options.




    If you are 32 and still performing like you did when you were 28 then age is just a number and shouldn't factor in.  Last I checked Welker is still killing it on the field, hasn't slowed down a bit even after his ACL injury, dude is still playing at the highest level.

    And where are you pulling $11 million from?  I haven't heard that number, ever from him.  Pats signing and paying him franchise tag money isn't because that's what he is asking for.  BTW, franchise tag money is based on what the top players at that position are getting, last I checked he is one of the top receivers, yet he isn't demanding that kind of money. 

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    I never liked the word soft when talking about NFL players. It just doesn't fit. You might as well call them Patsies. However you want to say it, the Patriots have fallen short in the playoffs lately.

    Playoff teams of the last 5 years.

                  2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 5yr
    Ravens     4-0   1-1   1-1   1-1   2-1   9-4
    Steelers    0-0   0-1   2-1   0-0   3-0   5-2
    Packers    1-1   0-1   4-0   0-1   0-0   5-2
    Giants       0-0   4-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   4-1
    Saints       0-0   1-1   0-1   3-0   0-0   4-2
    Jets           0-0   0-0   2-1   2-1   0-0   4-2
    49ers        2-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   3-2
    Bears        1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   2-1   3-2
    Patriots    1-1   2-1   0-1   0-1   0-0   3-4
    Texans       1-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   2-2
    Seahawks 1-1   0-0   1-1   0-0   0-0   2-2
    Eagles       0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1   2-1   2-3
    Colts          0-1   0-0   0-1   2-1   0-1   2-4
    Cowboys   0-0   0-0   0-0   1-1   0-0   1-1
    Broncos    0-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   1-2
    Vikings      0-1   0-0   0-0   1-1   0-1   1-3
    Falcons     1-1   0-1   0-1   0-0   0-1   1-4
    Redskins   0-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1
    Chiefs        0-0   0-0   0-1   0-0   0-0   0-1
    Panthers    0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1
    Titans         0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1
    Bengals     0-1   0-1   0-0   0-1   0-0   0-3

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

    lmao the defense is young and improving and was already a top 10 defense as of last year....and the offense is always capable of putting up points when running properly.to say they have no chance to go to another super bowl is ignorant.

     




    Spare us the idiocy Rustyclone. Nobody but a fool considers that D a top 10. Learn the game.

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    Hey, thanks for the info.  I'll stop watching now.  Why waste time?  If some reporters said they were afraid, then no point going forward.  

     

    You should be ashamed for posting stuff like this.  Really.  

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

     

    lmao the defense is young and improving and was already a top 10 defense as of last year....and the offense is always capable of putting up points when running properly.to say they have no chance to go to another super bowl is ignorant.

     

     




    Spare us the idiocy Rustyclone. Nobody but a fool considers that D a top 10. Learn the game.

     




    only the PPG stats say they were a top 10 defense since talib was acquired....you know, the stat that means the most!

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    I never liked the word soft when talking about NFL players. It just doesn't fit. You might as well call them Patsies. However you want to say it, the Patriots have fallen short in the playoffs lately.

    Playoff teams of the last 5 years.

                  2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 5yr
    Ravens     4-0   1-1   1-1   1-1   2-1   9-4
    Steelers    0-0   0-1   2-1   0-0   3-0   5-2
    Packers    1-1   0-1   4-0   0-1   0-0   5-2
    Giants       0-0   4-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   4-1
    Saints       0-0   1-1   0-1   3-0   0-0   4-2
    Jets           0-0   0-0   2-1   2-1   0-0   4-2
    49ers        2-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   3-2
    Bears        1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   2-1   3-2
    Patriots    1-1   2-1   0-1   0-1   0-0   3-4
    Texans       1-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   2-2
    Seahawks 1-1   0-0   1-1   0-0   0-0   2-2
    Eagles       0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1   2-1   2-3
    Colts          0-1   0-0   0-1   2-1   0-1   2-4
    Cowboys   0-0   0-0   0-0   1-1   0-0   1-1
    Broncos    0-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   1-2
    Vikings      0-1   0-0   0-0   1-1   0-1   1-3
    Falcons     1-1   0-1   0-1   0-0   0-1   1-4
    Redskins   0-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1
    Chiefs        0-0   0-0   0-1   0-0   0-0   0-1
    Panthers    0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1
    Titans         0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1
    Bengals     0-1   0-1   0-0   0-1   0-0   0-3



    Couple of ththing spats have had the top or second seed which results in fewer games playRavi.e ravens stats upped by run this year)

    omly pats a ravens and the pack have not missed more than one year in the pplayoffs. You need to be in them to have a chance.  Bore got hot at the right time as Did the gints

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to TFB12's comment:

     

    From the thread title I thought I was going to open this thread and read that Welker was gone.  Geez, had me scared for a moment.


    Welker hasn't left so no need to panic yet thread starter.

     




    we may go at it on other things tfb but on welker we agree

     

    as an opposing fan u cant begin to fathom how funny i find it when some here say "he's only a slot receiver" like a bunch of parrots

    that 120/1500 every year is so easily replacable is high comdey from the outside looking in

     

     




    Yes we do and it's all fun and good natured, lol!

     

     

    It is amazing, people I know who are not fans of the Patriots have nothing but good things to say about Welker, they wish he was on their favorite team and really respect the guy and thinks he's a dangerous weapon and a huge threat in the offense.  A lot of Pats fans.... well I just don't understand what they are thinking when they say it's time for him to go.



    Blows my mind toO!  we know pats are not tagging him this year, and I think we all agree that 11.2 mil for 1yr is high no matter who you are (besides Brady).  If the pats though don't make a serious pitch at WELKER for a 2-3 year deal around 7-8 mil per, with some if not most, guarenteed, I'd would be surprised and shame on pats.  One thing we know, he'll play in every game!  Not like all these so-call 'WELKER Replacements'.....and sorry I like ahern too, but he isn't no Wes WELKER!

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to provpats' comment:

    In response to digger0862's comment:

     

    I never liked the word soft when talking about NFL players. It just doesn't fit. You might as well call them Patsies. However you want to say it, the Patriots have fallen short in the playoffs lately.

    Playoff teams of the last 5 years.

                  2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 5yr
    Ravens     4-0   1-1   1-1   1-1   2-1   9-4
    Steelers    0-0   0-1   2-1   0-0   3-0   5-2
    Packers    1-1   0-1   4-0   0-1   0-0   5-2
    Giants       0-0   4-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   4-1
    Saints       0-0   1-1   0-1   3-0   0-0   4-2
    Jets           0-0   0-0   2-1   2-1   0-0   4-2
    49ers        2-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   3-2
    Bears        1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   2-1   3-2
    Patriots    1-1   2-1   0-1   0-1   0-0   3-4
    Texans       1-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   2-2
    Seahawks 1-1   0-0   1-1   0-0   0-0   2-2
    Eagles       0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1   2-1   2-3
    Colts          0-1   0-0   0-1   2-1   0-1   2-4
    Cowboys   0-0   0-0   0-0   1-1   0-0   1-1
    Broncos    0-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   1-2
    Vikings      0-1   0-0   0-0   1-1   0-1   1-3
    Falcons     1-1   0-1   0-1   0-0   0-1   1-4
    Redskins   0-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1
    Chiefs        0-0   0-0   0-1   0-0   0-0   0-1
    Panthers    0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1
    Titans         0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1
    Bengals     0-1   0-1   0-0   0-1   0-0   0-3

     



    Couple of ththing spats have had the top or second seed which results in fewer games playRavi.e ravens stats upped by run this year)

     

    omly pats a ravens and the pack have not missed more than one year in the pplayoffs. You need to be in them to have a chance.  Bore got hot at the right time as Did the gints



    Tough to swallow knowing jets have more playoff wins than pats last 5 years....

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

     

    lmao the defense is young and improving and was already a top 10 defense as of last year....and the offense is always capable of putting up points when running properly.to say they have no chance to go to another super bowl is ignorant.

     

     




    Spare us the idiocy Rustyclone. Nobody but a fool considers that D a top 10. Learn the game.

     

     




    only the PPG stats say they were a top 10 defense since talib was acquired....you know, the stat that means the most!

     




    You really are crusty. You make the same ridiculous statements while giving fabricated info.  The Points pg were 23.62  (not top 10)which included one shut out and the offense scoring out of their minds for that to even happen. 

    It's very easy to play defense when your OFFENSE is making the other offenses one dimensional due to having to play catch up.

    Without the O scoring ridiculous amounts, that D can't do crap.  That's the problrem. 

    They can't win a close game.  ever!  The t/o's dissapear the sacks and pressure disapear and the balls go flying over their heads for TD's over and over and over  They can't stop anyone in the RZ, hel1 teams don't even need the rz to score on them. The penalties increase.  Pathetic.

    There is a reason they rate D's on TOTAL Defense and not just points scored.  Every extra yard they give up and failure to prevent 1st downs takes time away from your O.  Every 20+ yrd pass flying over their heads makes it that much easier for offenses to score.  They were the bottom of the barrel in every single one of those.

    Is this that hard for you to understand

    The O made them  appear waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than they actually were.

    It's not a coincidence that they lose low scoring games.  All teams have them, the good D's win them.  Ask the Ravens.

     

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to provpats's comment:

     

    In response to digger0862's comment:

     

    I never liked the word soft when talking about NFL players. It just doesn't fit. You might as well call them Patsies. However you want to say it, the Patriots have fallen short in the playoffs lately.

    Playoff teams of the last 5 years.

                  2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 5yr
    Ravens     4-0   1-1   1-1   1-1   2-1   9-4
    Steelers    0-0   0-1   2-1   0-0   3-0   5-2
    Packers    1-1   0-1   4-0   0-1   0-0   5-2
    Giants       0-0   4-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   4-1
    Saints       0-0   1-1   0-1   3-0   0-0   4-2
    Jets           0-0   0-0   2-1   2-1   0-0   4-2
    49ers        2-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   3-2
    Bears        1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   2-1   3-2
    Patriots    1-1   2-1   0-1   0-1   0-0   3-4
    Texans       1-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   2-2
    Seahawks 1-1   0-0   1-1   0-0   0-0   2-2
    Eagles       0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1   2-1   2-3
    Colts          0-1   0-0   0-1   2-1   0-1   2-4
    Cowboys   0-0   0-0   0-0   1-1   0-0   1-1
    Broncos    0-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   1-2
    Vikings      0-1   0-0   0-0   1-1   0-1   1-3
    Falcons     1-1   0-1   0-1   0-0   0-1   1-4
    Redskins   0-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1
    Chiefs        0-0   0-0   0-1   0-0   0-0   0-1
    Panthers    0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1
    Titans         0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1
    Bengals     0-1   0-1   0-0   0-1   0-0   0-3

     



    Couple of ththing spats have had the top or second seed which results in fewer games playRavi.e ravens stats upped by run this year)

     

    omly pats a ravens and the pack have not missed more than one year in the pplayoffs. You need to be in them to have a chance.  Bore got hot at the right time as Did the gints

     



    bore? is that baltimore?

     

     

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to NOISE's comment:


    Blows my mind toO!  we know pats are not tagging him this year, and I think we all agree that 11.2 mil for 1yr is high no matter who you are (besides Brady).  If the pats though don't make a serious pitch at WELKER for a 2-3 year deal around 7-8 mil per, with some if not most, guarenteed, I'd would be surprised and shame on pats.  One thing we know, he'll play in every game!  Not like all these so-call 'WELKER Replacements'.....and sorry I like ahern too, but he isn't no Wes WELKER!

     



    Spot on, dude! 

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    The OP's original post really tells the tale: if a reporter says it, then it's verifiable objective fact.  As fans, we all have to analyze and explain what happened when the team doesn't win.  This thread, however, elevates ignorance to an entirely new level.

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    Other than a reporter saying it, what does losing to the Cards, Seahawks, San Fran, Ravens twice tell you what happened when the Pats faced a physical team that imposed their will on the Pats? 

    My eyes said that the Pats had better talent, but that day those teams wanted it more, imposed their will, or whatever the definition of toughness is. 

    Any way you slice it, the loses incurred by the Pats this season were due to the fact that those teams were more physical than the Pats

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    Maybe wilfork and mayo arnt doing a ood job as leaders. Jones getting hurt hanged the D. They were going the right way up unil then.  They had improved every game. Its no pass rush that hurts.  If there's a blueprint for beating the pats it's keep he game close, it all happens at the end. 

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    I think toughness comes with experience. The Pats are very young in most positions, and need some addition vet leadership. Wild love to see a Reed or Woodson and DevIto signed to reasonable contracts. 

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    I never liked the word soft when talking about NFL players. It just doesn't fit. You might as well call them Patsies. However you want to say it, the Patriots have fallen short in the playoffs lately.

    Playoff teams of the last 5 years.

                  2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 5yr
    Ravens     4-0   1-1   1-1   1-1   2-1   9-4
    Steelers    0-0   0-1   2-1   0-0   3-0   5-2
    Packers    1-1   0-1   4-0   0-1   0-0   5-2
    Giants       0-0   4-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   4-1
    Saints       0-0   1-1   0-1   3-0   0-0   4-2
    Jets           0-0   0-0   2-1   2-1   0-0   4-2
    49ers        2-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   3-2
    Bears        1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   2-1   3-2
    Patriots    1-1   2-1   0-1   0-1   0-0   3-4
    Texans       1-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   2-2
    Seahawks 1-1   0-0   1-1   0-0   0-0   2-2
    Eagles       0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1   2-1   2-3
    Colts          0-1   0-0   0-1   2-1   0-1   2-4
    Cowboys   0-0   0-0   0-0   1-1   0-0   1-1
    Broncos    0-1   1-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   1-2
    Vikings      0-1   0-0   0-0   1-1   0-1   1-3
    Falcons     1-1   0-1   0-1   0-0   0-1   1-4
    Redskins   0-1   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1
    Chiefs        0-0   0-0   0-1   0-0   0-0   0-1
    Panthers    0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1
    Titans         0-0   0-0   0-0   0-0   0-1   0-1
    Bengals     0-1   0-1   0-0   0-1   0-0   0-3



    Interesting list, I've got to admit I looked at it and thought...how's this right? How have the Ravens played in more playoff games than us? And why are the Jets ranked higher?

    Then I remembered we generally get first round byes do to our supperior regular season ranking - that lends a hand to less post season games and potential wins. I'll take that bye anyday over a first round matchup against an easy opponent where you run the risk of injury. Then again it hasn't meant a Super Bowl victory to us in our last three tries. 2010 (jets kicked our heads in with the bye), 2011 (Giant's offense controlled the ball at will on our defense), 2012 (Ravens kicked  our heads in for two quarters...at home). Not good.

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to PATSchampsSB's comment:

    yeah 2 consecutive Afc championship games, imagine if the Pats weren`t soft, you`re kidding dude, this team can win 2 super bowl until Brady retires




    yep, they're the best....in the softest division.

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    Interesting list, I've got to admit I looked at it and thought...how's this right? How have the Ravens played in more playoff games than us? And why are the Jets ranked higher?

    Then I remembered we generally get first round byes do to our supperior regular season ranking - that lends a hand to less post season games and potential wins. I'll take that bye anyday over a first round matchup against an easy opponent where you run the risk of injury. Then again it hasn't meant a Super Bowl victory to us in our last three tries. 2010 (jets kicked our heads in with the bye), 2011 (Giant's offense controlled the ball at will on our defense), 2012 (Ravens kicked  our heads in for two quarters...at home). Not good.


    To be honest, when I made the list I thought that the Patriots would have been higher. They have played the second most playoff games even with the first round byes due to their consistency. It stands to reason that the last five Super Bowl winners are top five on the list but lagging behind the Jets, 49ers and Bears is embarrassing, especially when factoring in home losses.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from gr82bme. Show gr82bme's posts

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    Some of you guys are funny.  Complain we haven't won a SB in a few years, yet every year we seem to be in the playoffs.  Claiming that our D is poor and lacking leadership, but never consider that those young-inexperienced defenders may (not a guarantee) improve vastly as they get, er - you know, more experience.  I'd love to hear some of you if you were fans of another team, say the Dallas Cowboys, Arizona, St. Louis - teams, that had potential, but didn't (and don't consistently) even make the playoffs.  That worried over BB's vision for the team, TB getting older, D too young?  Here's a thought:  go root for Tampa Bay.  Hey, I get as frustrated as anyone, but some of you post as if we've been irrelavent for years.  Fact is, at the beginning of next season, the Pats will once again be one of the teams other teams have to beat to prove their meddle.  And once again, we'll be in the playoffs, and perhaps we'll make it to the SB.  If you can't enjoy the past 10 or so years, you're in sorry shape - because no football fan base in America has had the prolonged pleasure of rooting for a near yearly SB contender for a decade.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: no more SB for Pats

    In response to gr82bme's comment:

    Some of you guys are funny.  Complain we haven't won a SB in a few years, yet every year we seem to be in the playoffs.  Claiming that our D is poor and lacking leadership, but never consider that those young-inexperienced defenders may (not a guarantee) improve vastly as they get, er - you know, more experience.  I'd love to hear some of you if you were fans of another team, say the Dallas Cowboys, Arizona, St. Louis - teams, that had potential, but didn't (and don't consistently) even make the playoffs.  That worried over BB's vision for the team, TB getting older, D too young?  Here's a thought:  go root for Tampa Bay.  Hey, I get as frustrated as anyone, but some of you post as if we've been irrelavent for years.  Fact is, at the beginning of next season, the Pats will once again be one of the teams other teams have to beat to prove their meddle.  And once again, we'll be in the playoffs, and perhaps we'll make it to the SB.  If you can't enjoy the past 10 or so years, you're in sorry shape - because no football fan base in America has had the prolonged pleasure of rooting for a near yearly SB contender for a decade.




    You are correct.  The fanbase has been spoiled since 2001 (not 2007) as some contend.

    The succss of the team is extremely rare and most don't appreciate that, and should.

    No one hear should be expecting 6 SB wins in 10 years!  That's nutso!

    The frustration is being sooooo close, yet no cigar. 

    People are going to look at that and try to determine why and that's understandable.

    You mentioned the young D and that it would get better with experience, also correct.

    The problem with that is how many on the young D have been here and productive for more than 2 years?  Not many.

    Guys are being replaced, whether it's lack of talent or confidence or smarts or coachability or injuries or whatever, every other year, for the past 6 years.

      You can't gain experience or continuity or confidence that way.

    Until that changes, IMO, the team is going to be close but never light that cigar.

    It does take a complete team.....or a miracle.......or a lot of luck.  Unfortunately, I don't think the miracles and luck happen (or are less likely to happen)  without the complete team.

    While it is nutso to expect that many wins in a decade, it's not unreasonable to expect more of a complete team for half that time, considering the amount of draft picks and FA's.  Is it?

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share