OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    Where have all the people gone who at the start of the season said the Pats were using Edelman over Welker because Edelman was a better blocker for the running game.  Hmmmmm Edelman out the last two weeks and the running game over 200 Yards both times.  Not only that but Welker has found time to catch 30 balls as well. 

    I sure hope Edelman gets back soon, the offense needs him sooooo bad.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    Edelman still is a better run blocker then Welker. Not sure how you correlate Edelman being out and the running game still functioning to Welker being a better run blocker then Edelman. BTW Branch was used as an edge blocker in most of the running formations while Edelman is injured. Doesn't make Branch a better WR then Welker but does make him a better run blocker. Also since when is saying one player is better then another at a particular task bashing? Last time I check not all players are the same so who cares if Edelman is a better run blocker then Welker?


    Seriously you two are a bit sensitive. Calm down, Welkers not going to give you a pat on the back because you defended his run blocking ability on a forum.

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

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    I think the great mystery was...why was Edelman starting over Welker? We will never really know.  I think IF - and that's a big IF - Edelman ever developed into something close to Welker's level of receiving ability, he couldn't be counted on to stay healthy..the guy has never been able to do that.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Edelman still is a better run blocker then Welker. Not sure how you correlate Edelman being out and the running game still functioning to Welker being a better run blocker then Edelman. BTW Branch was used as an edge blocker in most of the running formations while Edelman is injured. Doesn't make Branch a better WR then Welker but does make him a better run blocker. Also since when is saying one player is better then another at a particular task bashing? Last time I check not all players are the same so who cares if Edelman is a better run blocker then Welker?


    Seriously you two are a bit sensitive. Calm down, Welkers not going to give you a pat on the back because you defended his run blocking ability on a forum.

    [/QUOTE]

    Umm wow.  "when is saying one player is better then another at a particular task bashing".  The whole issue is Edelman is NOT a better blocker.  You have zero to back that up.  The fact that the team is running for 200 yards the last two weeks and people like Riess and Bedhard have mentioned Welker as how well he has blocked goes against your premise.

    Yet you still come out here with the Edelman is better blocker.  Based on what??  It can't be his play in NE because he has HARDLY EVER been on the field.  His time in college???  Umm no he was the QB.  So sorry not sensitive just love it when you make a statement like its a fact yet have nothing to back it up with. 

     

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

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    Edelman earned his playing time by being at all of the summer workouts, mandatory or not, and Welker wasn't. Edelman is absolutely a better blocker than Welker and there are games to prove it. Welker was always going to get his catches.

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

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    ahh based on game film. Edelman does a better job pushing CB's away from the runners. Based on playing time in running formations BB thinks Edelman is a better blocker then Welker (when healthy). Based on Branch is now blocking in running situations while Edelman is hurt meaning BB thinks Branch is also a better blocker then Welker.

    Welker is by far away the better WR but he's not the better block. Please explain how saying that is in anyway bashing Welker?

    And yes you are sensitive

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

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    We sure could use him returning kicks.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    i have no idea why i even open this thread being that it sounded like a 16 year old girl made it. 

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

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    The way the O line and TEs has been blocking Welker hasn't had to do much blocking. Just out of curiosity who was saying this? I don't recall reading it.

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

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    Edelman is a stiff. He's lucky BB likes him or his career would be over.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The way the O line and TEs has been blocking Welker hasn't had to do much blocking. Just out of curiosity who was saying this? I don't recall reading it.

    [/QUOTE]


    That's how dumb he is.  He's comparing Week 2 to Week 3 or 4 where they deciding to leave Gornk back to block, for example.

    It was pretty obvious the gameplan was heavily centered around Hernandez in Week 2, which meant obviously mostly passing, but also some blocking.   Next, Patsman3 will tell us that Welker is a better blocker than Hernandez. lmao

    Many, including me, were saying that since Edelman is closer to Hernandez in skill set, including blocking, this meant he would be the first choice off the bench so to speak with Lloyd, Branch and Gronk already on the field. The logic would be not to deviate from the Hernandez based gameplan plays in the gameplan.

    Apparently, less intelligent critters on this board don't get this concept as they scour for reasons why more intelligent people somehow might be wrong in their guesses as to why Edelman was the choice over Welker.

    As great as Welker is, his skill set is not well rounded.

    The bottom line is, as you know, we have a contingent of pink hat dorks on here who can only root for perceived superstar players, since that what they're used to doing as newer fans from 2007 with a pink hat on.

    Not a superstar or blessed by Tony Mazz?  He stinks!

    [/QUOTE]


    Babe says he's a stiff so BB should get rid of him immediately. Of course Babe has the typical pink helmet view that every player on the team needs to be pro bowl quality. He never gets around to explaining how to pay them all. Edleman has a widely varied skill set and can be plugged in a number of positions in case of a rash of injuries. Typical of any jack of all trades he doesn't excel at any of them but his value is as an emergency backup not a starter. He gets his game touches now and then to keep his head in the game just like Woodhead does.

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

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    I don't really remember anyone saying Edelman was a vital cog in the running game.  I think people were  trying to have a discussion about why Edleman was getting a lot of snaps at Welker's expense.  Some thought that since there was more attention being paid to the running game that Edelman was a better option.  Not saying I agree or disagree with the run blocking, but I still have zero problem with McDaniels giving Edelman some snaps to see if he is a legit player or not. 


    I think if Edelman and Hernandez were healthy, the offense would resemble the one we saw early on, which means Wes would be getting less snaps.  I don't agree that Edelman isn't talented.  He could be a good WR and is their best punt returner.  His issue is that he is constantly hurt so he hasn't had the chance to emerge. 

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

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The way the O line and TEs has been blocking Welker hasn't had to do much blocking. Just out of curiosity who was saying this? I don't recall reading it.

    [/QUOTE]


    That's how dumb he is.  He's comparing Week 2 to Week 3 or 4 where they deciding to leave Gornk back to block, for example.

    It was pretty obvious the gameplan was heavily centered around Hernandez in Week 2, which meant obviously mostly passing, but also some blocking.   Next, Patsman3 will tell us that Welker is a better blocker than Hernandez. lmao

    Many, including me, were saying that since Edelman is closer to Hernandez in skill set, including blocking, this meant he would be the first choice off the bench so to speak with Lloyd, Branch and Gronk already on the field. The logic would be not to deviate from the Hernandez based gameplan plays in the gameplan.

    Apparently, less intelligent critters on this board don't get this concept as they scour for reasons why more intelligent people somehow might be wrong in their guesses as to why Edelman was the choice over Welker.

    As great as Welker is, his skill set is not well rounded.

    The bottom line is, as you know, we have a contingent of pink hat dorks on here who can only root for perceived superstar players, since that what they're used to doing as newer fans from 2007 with a pink hat on.

    Not a superstar or blessed by Tony Mazz?  He stinks!

    [/QUOTE]


    Babe says he's a stiff so BB should get rid of him immediately. Of course Babe has the typical pink helmet view that every player on the team needs to be pro bowl quality. He never gets around to explaining how to pay them all. Edleman has a widely varied skill set and can be plugged in a number of positions in case of a rash of injuries. Typical of any jack of all trades he doesn't excel at any of them but his value is as an emergency backup not a starter. He gets his game touches now and then to keep his head in the game just like Woodhead does.

    [/QUOTE]


    Hi Rusty. Still talking about pink hats... err helmets I see. dufus

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

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    Edelman is an amazing athelete. The fact he has played QB, WR, DB and taken returns at a high level attests to that. He just doesn't do anything at an NFL level really well.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't get what running more has to do with Edelman being there or not. All it does is reinforce the idea that, yes, they were absolutely determined to run more this year in the gameplans whether Hernandez was on the field or not. Branch has been great so far blocking from the WR spot and Llloyd has also chipped in. 

    It's funny to me how dumb people want to look here. Patsman3 has always been neck and neck as one of the biggest morons around. He thinks he's onto something trying to get cute or look smart, and then walks right into the wall like Phat Rex.

    Priceless.

    If Hernandez was a big part of the gameplan with a run game and then NE started to use Woodhead as a lead back without one, why on earth is that a positive??

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Rusty your a tool plan and simple.  You come out here and say one thing then when proven wrong just deny deny deny.  Yes I am Phat Rex because I think Welker is better then Edelman.  Talk about one of the dumbest statements ever.  Keep making me laugh fool, thats all your good for.

    And talk about bieing a little child.  All your arguments consist of one thing....insulting people because you have nothing intelligent to say.  Keep it up Rusty, can't wait for your next ban.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    1. WR Wes Welker: Terrific all-around performance that saw nine of his 13 catches go for first downs or touchdowns. But he was just as involved in the running game with blocks, as were all the receivers.

    That's from the Bedard post.  Riess had a similar piece on ESPN-Boston.  They also were talking about it on 5th quarter after the game and on the radio.  I'm the 16 year old girl but at least I am man enough to admit when I am wrong. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: OMG they can run the ball without Edelman

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The way the O line and TEs has been blocking Welker hasn't had to do much blocking. Just out of curiosity who was saying this? I don't recall reading it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Really?  Go back to all the posts after the Arizona game when the big discussion was why was Edelman starting over Welker and see how this was a reason given over and over again by people on this board.

    For an even better laugh read the post titled This Welker BS has to stop.  Amazing how many of the people on this board were throwing Welker under the bus and the he is too old and it's over crap was everywhere.

     

     

Share