Patrick Chung got BIG

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

    Patrick Chung got BIG

    Woah! 


     


    ]

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    Good! Hope he subs-in and lays people out!

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    great, now he'll be slower in coverage with all the muscle on him

     

    Chung isn't making the roster, especially with all the positive Tavon Wilson reports

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

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    If only he got better

       
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    The wonders of modern science.

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

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    He does look a little bigger, I think Chung's problems were two things....he couldn't cover and physically he couldn't stand up to the demands of an in the box safety. Which made him pretty much useless. If he is bigger and stronger perhaps the second part of his problems will be solved, I doubt it though because we are talking about a guy who usually came up grabbing some part of his body after a tackle or collision, I'm not sure being bigger will change that.

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

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    great, now he'll be slower in coverage with all the muscle on him

     

    Chung isn't making the roster, especially with all the positive Tavon Wilson reports

    [/QUOTE]

    lmao....i was thinking the same thing when I read "big" - and slower :)

    maybe if the new bulk are fast twitch muscles...

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

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    great, now he'll be slower in coverage with all the muscle on him

     

    Chung isn't making the roster, especially with all the positive Tavon Wilson reports

    [/QUOTE]

    I tend to agree.  Barring injury, he would appear to be a vet camp invite and system guy, which is fine.  Nothing wrong with quality depth at any position in camp.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I tend to agree.  Barring injury, he would appear to be a vet camp invite and system guy, which is fine.  Nothing wrong with quality depth at any position in camp.

    [/QUOTE]


    Let's hope "quality" applies . . . 

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

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     


    I tend to agree.  Barring injury, he would appear to be a vet camp invite and system guy, which is fine.  Nothing wrong with quality depth at any position in camp.





    Let's hope "quality" applies . . . 


    [/QUOTE]

    What i mean is, he knows the system in and out.  No mental breakdowns on the back end with who they have back there.


    Combine that with the cbs and it is a good recipe.


    Chung's problem was health.  Flawed with range as are most strong safeties.  Ever see polamalu try to cover through his career?  Not good.  He may be a great in the box safety, but he would get torched because of his reckless, gambling style.


    I just hope ebner is finally cut.  Good tackler but that is it.


    Enjoying your yellow highlighter are we?

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

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    If they use Chung situationally with Harmon being more the cover guy he might be useful.

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

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    I tend to agree.  Barring injury, he would appear to be a vet camp invite and system guy, which is fine.  Nothing wrong with quality depth at any position in camp.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Let's hope "quality" applies . . . 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What i mean is, he knows the system in and out.  No mental breakdowns on the back end with who they have back there.

     

    Combine that with the cbs and it is a good recipe.

     

    Chung's problem was health.  Flawed with range as are most strong safeties.  Ever see polamalu try to cover through his career?  Not good.  He may be a great in the box safety, but he would get torched because of his reckless, gambling style.

     

    I just hope ebner is finally cut.  Good tackler but that is it.

     

    Enjoying your yellow highlighter are we?

    [/QUOTE]

    See what you wrote here is really not true, you can mention Polamalu in coverage, but he was great in the box - Chung was not. So basically when you are a strong safety you had better be good at one of your two responsibilities (coverage or physical play inside the box)...Chung could do neither and he wasn't big and physical enough to cover a tight end either.

    So Chung's problem wasn't only his "health" - although as we all know he couldn't stand up to the physical play that a safety is required to provide - he also just flat out couldn't play. Another second round waste.

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

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    I am not sure I can see a lot of difference in the play of Chung, Wilson and Harmon. They all have ST value, they all tackle fairly well, and all don't really cover that well. I assume Harmon has the most upside, but after watching last year, I have not seen it yet. He was serviceable, but as expected from a first year player, he made a lot of mistakes. Harmon is the least expensive, so I suppose that gives him an advantage over the other 2. 

    I agree regarding Ebner. Nice ST guy, but simply has no business being on the field playing defense. Seems that the Pats have many, many players that can do what Ebner does on ST. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If only he got better

       [/QUOTE]

    Lol

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

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    He'll probably be suspended for the use of PED's.


    That being said, I'm rooting for the guy because I'll root for anyone  who may be able to help the team in some way.

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

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    I tend to agree.  Barring injury, he would appear to be a vet camp invite and system guy, which is fine.  Nothing wrong with quality depth at any position in camp.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Let's hope "quality" applies . . . 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What i mean is, he knows the system in and out.  No mental breakdowns on the back end with who they have back there.

     

    Combine that with the cbs and it is a good recipe.

     

    Chung's problem was health.  Flawed with range as are most strong safeties.  Ever see polamalu try to cover through his career?  Not good.  He may be a great in the box safety, but he would get torched because of his reckless, gambling style.

     

    I just hope ebner is finally cut.  Good tackler but that is it.

     

    Enjoying your yellow highlighter are we?

    [/QUOTE]

    See what you wrote here is really not true, you can mention Polamalu in coverage, but he was great in the box - Chung was not. So basically when you are a strong safety you had better be good at one of your two responsibilities (coverage or physical play inside the box)...Chung could do neither and he wasn't big and physical enough to cover a tight end either.

    So Chung's problem wasn't only his "health" - although as we all know he couldn't stand up to the physical play that a safety is required to provide - he also just flat out couldn't play. Another second round waste.

    [/QUOTE]


    Chung and Spikes made a world of difference back in 2011 when each returned to that lineup for the playoff run.  Obviously.  Each were very good that postseason, too. We've been over this. You're an inbred for thinking every player BB picks needs to be a HOF player.

    Chung is good around the line of scrimmage, but loses range in coverage because he isn't long enough in the torso to have that range just like Polamalu, the latter who looks like he's running around with a chicken with his head cut off 90% of the time.

    One good play, then one awful one on the next play from Polamalu. To this day, I have no idea why anyone considers him a great all-round player, when his lone value is being really good in the box, in and around the line of scrimmage, almost exclusively.

    He's a true SS, just like Chung.  Polamalu has had a great career but you'll never hear their goofy fans admit how poor he is in coverage.

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

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    I tend to agree.  Barring injury, he would appear to be a vet camp invite and system guy, which is fine.  Nothing wrong with quality depth at any position in camp.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Let's hope "quality" applies . . . 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What i mean is, he knows the system in and out.  No mental breakdowns on the back end with who they have back there.

     

    Combine that with the cbs and it is a good recipe.

     

    Chung's problem was health.  Flawed with range as are most strong safeties.  Ever see polamalu try to cover through his career?  Not good.  He may be a great in the box safety, but he would get torched because of his reckless, gambling style.

     

    I just hope ebner is finally cut.  Good tackler but that is it.

     

    Enjoying your yellow highlighter are we?

    [/QUOTE]

    See what you wrote here is really not true, you can mention Polamalu in coverage, but he was great in the box - Chung was not. So basically when you are a strong safety you had better be good at one of your two responsibilities (coverage or physical play inside the box)...Chung could do neither and he wasn't big and physical enough to cover a tight end either.

    So Chung's problem wasn't only his "health" - although as we all know he couldn't stand up to the physical play that a safety is required to provide - he also just flat out couldn't play. Another second round waste.

    [/QUOTE]


    Chung and Spikes made a world of difference back in 2011 when each returned to that lineup for the playoff run.  Obviously.  Each were very good that postseason, too. We've been over this. You're an inbred for thinking every player BB picks needs to be a HOF player.

    Chung is good around the line of scrimmage, but loses range in coverage because he isn't long enough in the torso to have that range just like Polamalu, the latter who looks like he's running around with a chicken with his head cut off 90% of the time.

    One good play, then one awful one on the next play from Polamalu. To this day, I have no idea why anyone considers him a great all-round player, when his lone value is being really good in the box, in and around the line of scrimmage, almost exclusively.

    He's a true SS, just like Chung.  Polamalu has had a great career but you'll never hear their goofy fans admit how poor he is in coverage.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lol! Every player "needs to be a hall of famer" when they are drafted by Belichick? I forgot how much you like to throw that one around every time we blow it on another player. Sad. 

    Yes we all know Polamalu strength is not his coverage skills, and that he is a SS, but please don't put Chung in the same category...to do so is just dumb. Chung can't play in the box, he bounces off blockers like a tennis ball to pavement and then he gets hurt:(. So sad, but you go on believing he "made a world of difference" for our 2011 playoff run...keep doing that, it obviously makes you feel better:) Personally I think you should go to the fridge and get yourself a cup of milk to replenish the vitamin D you weren't given at birth.

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

    Re: Patrick Chung got BIG

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    I tend to agree.  Barring injury, he would appear to be a vet camp invite and system guy, which is fine.  Nothing wrong with quality depth at any position in camp.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Let's hope "quality" applies . . . 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What i mean is, he knows the system in and out.  No mental breakdowns on the back end with who they have back there.

     

    Combine that with the cbs and it is a good recipe.

     

    Chung's problem was health.  Flawed with range as are most strong safeties.  Ever see polamalu try to cover through his career?  Not good.  He may be a great in the box safety, but he would get torched because of his reckless, gambling style.

     

    I just hope ebner is finally cut.  Good tackler but that is it.

     

    Enjoying your yellow highlighter are we?

    [/QUOTE]

    See what you wrote here is really not true, you can mention Polamalu in coverage, but he was great in the box - Chung was not. So basically when you are a strong safety you had better be good at one of your two responsibilities (coverage or physical play inside the box)...Chung could do neither and he wasn't big and physical enough to cover a tight end either.

    So Chung's problem wasn't only his "health" - although as we all know he couldn't stand up to the physical play that a safety is required to provide - he also just flat out couldn't play. Another second round waste.

    [/QUOTE]


    Chung and Spikes made a world of difference back in 2011 when each returned to that lineup for the playoff run.  Obviously.  Each were very good that postseason, too. We've been over this. You're an inbred for thinking every player BB picks needs to be a HOF player.

    Chung is good around the line of scrimmage, but loses range in coverage because he isn't long enough in the torso to have that range just like Polamalu, the latter who looks like he's running around with a chicken with his head cut off 90% of the time.

    One good play, then one awful one on the next play from Polamalu. To this day, I have no idea why anyone considers him a great all-round player, when his lone value is being really good in the box, in and around the line of scrimmage, almost exclusively.

    He's a true SS, just like Chung.  Polamalu has had a great career but you'll never hear their goofy fans admit how poor he is in coverage.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lol! Every player "needs to be a hall of famer" when they are drafted by Belichick? I forgot how much you like to throw that one around every time we blow it on another player. Sad. 

    Yes we all know Polamalu strength is not his coverage skills, and that he is a SS, but please don't put Chung in the same category...to do so is just dumb. Chung can't play in the box, he bounces off blockers like a tennis ball to pavement and then he gets hurt:(. So sad, but you go on believing he "made a world of difference" for our 2011 playoff run...keep doing that, it obviously makes you feel better:) Personally I think you should go to the fridge and get yourself a cup of milk to replenish the vitamin D you weren't given at birth.

    [/QUOTE]


    I am not comparing the players, dummy. I am comparing the skill sets.  You have always not understood the difference, because quite frankly, you are not very bright.

     

Share