Patriots Contracts

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

    In response to m. a. pat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Every FA they targeted, which was really only LLoyd, since the team was built already through the draft and internal development (Woodhead, Connolly, Wendell, Nink, Arrington, etc), was captured under team friendly money. Lloyd knew the system, had nowhere else to go and clearly outperformed his contract even with some mininmal dead money this year.

     

     




    Lloyd's dead money this year against the cap is $3.5 million. That's a little more than minimal. The Pats would have had less of a cap hit this year if they had kept him on the roster.

    How did he outperform his contract?

    [/QUOTE]

    The market for that production is set by Miami with Mike Wallace at 13 million per. That's how.

    ALso, Dobson, Edelman and Thompkins make up about 3.5 million in salary. That's 3 players who are producing well.

    Umm, so that means Lloyd's 3.5 million on the books, if that is even accurate, has ZERO effect.

    BB signed exactly the FAs he wanted to sign this offseason. Period.  I don't care who it was, Svitek, Kelly, Edelman, Arrington, Talib, Amendola, etc.

    None of this supposed scary dead money affected the team. End of story.

    PLease get to a college when you can.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Zero effect your azz.  That's 3.5 M he no longer has to improve the TEAM

    Just like the 23.7M he no longer has to IMPROVE THE TEAM.

    Dead money means poor financial and team building.

    Poor financial and team building means the team was never as good as it could have been without wasted cap space.

    Do you know that with 22.7M in DEAD cap money, that gave the team only 100M to spend

    when they should have had closer to 123M?

    BB's poor drafts and FA's have caused excessive dead money.  There is NO disputing this.

    Live with it.

    We've been living with it for years, unfortunately.

    Too bad TB won't be bailing out bb's poor cap management self any more.

    Not only does he have to deal with crappy (rookie) receivers and a Bad Defense, he has to bail the GM out of cap hell all the time.

    Damn shame!

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What does that have to do with the 11-5 record?  They destroyed the Cardinals at home ,when they were healthy and rolling, but somehow that's not a good thing?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Cardinals clearly mailed it in because they had clinched as much as they were going to. They weren't going to put it all on the line in NE for nothing more than a probable worse draft pick.

    Try being honest for a change. Shock us.

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What does that have to do with the 11-5 record?  They destroyed the Cardinals at home ,when they were healthy and rolling, but somehow that's not a good thing?

    All their losses occurred earlier in the year minus that OT loss to the Jets.  

    Leave it to you to be angry that the Pats got better as the season went on, even with two horrendous road trips to the west coast in back to back weeks.

    Also, where did I "lie"?  

    The only liar or moron here is you. You just said Rex Ryan is a good coach. bawhhah!

    [/QUOTE]


    What the hell are you talking about, that I'm angry about how well we did in 2008 dum bass? I predicted we would still go 10-6 against that schedule when Brady went down.

    Just because I body slam your lies and spin doesn't mean I didn't enjoy a good season, even though we missed the playoffs.

    You're too much. You ask, "where did I "lie"?. You just did again in this very post! Nitwit.

     

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    ....



    No!  You are the biggest liar to ever log on to BDC and are exposed Daily.

    So what are you doing here?

    Mthurls figures may have been off slightly or grossly in some cases but his message is clear and DEAD ON!  Probably going by memory but it doesn't matter.  The proof is in the numbers.

    BB's failed draft and FA accusations have hurt this team, in a big way.

    Not only do those failed players have to be replaced but the DEAD money created as a result is HUGE.  This DEAD money prohibits the team from making other accusations and is the reason they are relying on ROOKIES and UDFA's to carry the team.

    Just looking at this year and last, the results are obvious, although the failures go back many years.

    2013 Dead MONEY, 16,697000, which is more than TB's salary cap hit of 13.8M

    2012 Dead MONEY, 22.2M, which is nearly triple TB's cap hit of 8M

    Remember how you said TB's salary cap hit has doubled and tripled since 2010?

    What a LIAR!

    It certainly DOESN'T appear they are wasting $$$$ on their HoF QB, but MORE $$$$ on players who sucked, never contributed a damn thing and who are NO LONGER WITH THE TEAM.

    What a waste.

    Case closed!

    http://www.overthecap.com/teamcap.php?Team=Patriots&Year=2013

     


    [QUOTE]

     

    "The proof is in the numbers," isn't that what you wrote? I think you did.

    But then you acknowledged that his numbers may have been "grossly exaggerated" in some cases. That the numbers are so far off as to be a joke is not relevant? Which is it? Is the proof in the numbers or not?

    The only thing that matters is that whatever numbers someone throws out support the premise that BB is a failure. Whether they're accurate or not is besides the point? Is that basically what you're saying? 

    Truth is, I don't think you'll find much support for your conclusions in any numbers that are actual and not made up.

    Here's another one, Ocho's contract: The OP said it was 3 years/$18 million and once again just counts it as if that money was actually spent. The truth is is was 3 years/$12 million and He was only actually paid about a third of that. 

    Hernandez was probably the worst contract they signed just because of how it turned out. But the OP just lists his contract as $45 million, with no detail. Of course, it wasn't ever $45 million, it was $39.5, and he was not paid anything close to that much, roughly one-fourth with the possibility still in play that they can get relief from next year's dead money.

    But, I get it. "Don't bother me with details, just repeat after me, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM..."

    [/QUOTE]


    The only reason why numbers are even brought into the equation on my post is because this argument stems from weather I would of prefered Julious Peppers, over the players we signed. How "value" was the better approach, and how I didn't think it was when talking about a difference making players vs. a 100 plus million of trash. Because that is what we got for all those contracts and time wasted...trash.

    I hardly ever in my 4 years on here talk about player contract length/size...why? Because NFL contacts are about as real as Santa Claus. If we had made the attempt to sign a difference maker on defense, it's a virtual certainty that the player would be asked to renogotiate his deal at some point - or he would be cut like Lloyd and his contract would be absorbed into the salary structure the NFL has put in place. It wouldn't of crippled us, it wouldn't of put us in "salary cap hell", it wouldn't of brought this franchise down to it's kness...in fact we may of won another Super Bowl in the process.

    That is my point. It is NOT to point out that BB is a terrible GM, because he is not...he has hit a rough stretch, he is as good as anyone else, but to pretend that he is the "greatest of all time" is stupid. To pretend that the mistakes he's made over the last 5 years didn't happen is silly.

    [/QUOTE]

    First of all, it's Julius Peppers.  You're spelling it like someone would mistakenly spell "genious" when they combine the word "generous" and "genius". What a moron.

    You also said "Jet's" above which is not a typo. That's not knowing how to use a possessive and a plural, but then again, you're only a Home Ec teacher.

    LOL!

    Name a better GM in the cap era or walk away. Do that or tell us why the pre cap era is the same challenge for a GM as the cap era.

    Let's see if you have the stones to provide the board with either, Cupcake.

    Muzwell and I have bludgeoned you on this topic and you still don't get it, because you're dumb and ignorant at the same time.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I would say that any GM that did not waste as much in dead money as they paid Wilfork, Mankins and Brady, in cap for 2012,.........was a better GM

    Just imagine who they could have paid, instead of paying players they had to replace because they were garbage.

    Here's your sign...........

    [/QUOTE]

    Any dead money in 2012 was irrelevant considering how LOADED that team last year once BB dealt for Talib.

    If he had dead money to the point of it hurting the team, you'd be correct. But, his team was so well built with 3 superrb drafts in a row, it was utterly irrelevant.

    Brady's 4th target was bargain basement Brandon Lloyd. He had 74 receptions, 4 TDs and 900 yards receiving.  Read that again. That was his FOURTH favorite guy.

    Miami just paid Mike Wallace 13 mil per.  #1 or #2 option for Tannehill....73 receptions, 930 yards and 5 TDs.

    Read it and weep. THAT is bad ROI and REAL dead money, moron.  Get to a college, please. It will not hurt you.

    You will never win this argument because it was over before it ever started.  Go watch SB 42 AND SB 46 and you'll see a QB who wanted to make history on a big stage and make it about him throwing a lot. lol

    There's you answer.

    Enjoy knowing the truth!

    [/QUOTE]


    Dead money is NEVER irrelevant.

    Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!

    Dead money is cap space you should have to spend and DON"T

    2012 Dead money 22.67 M,  Brady's, Wilforks, Mankins cap hit 22.8M.

    What a waste of cap space

    Here's your sign

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Pezz, when are you ever going to get a clue about professional football and team building. I should also add when will you get a clue about living in the real world?

    [/QUOTE]


    A clue?

    What would you know about a clue, rustynila?

    Hey, I have a clue.  How bout you show us how a loss of available cap due to paying players who are no longer on the team, because they were garbage, is a good thing?

    Can you do that, clueless?

    I'll wait.

    [/QUOTE]


    "Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!"

    The above is the most ignorant statement uttered in this thread. hence the need for you to get a clue and start living in the real world.

    I don't have too, why don't you list all 31 other teams dead money totals?

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Rtuinila just bludgeoning Hurlie and Jizzdispenser all in one fell swoop. Absolutely priceless.

    BB has Pro Bowlers all over his roster every year, nails now 4 drafts in a row and Jizzdispenser is now bringing up "dead money" with older vets who weren't good enough to make the team, as Brady leads our offense to 13 points in the AFC title game again.

    LMAO

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Rustynili did no such thing, delusional troll.

    Would you care to tell us how 22.67 in dead money is a good thing.

    I'll wait

    Ps.  Why did they have to pay these vets who weren't good enough for the team?

    Where did those failures come from?  The GM?

    Waiting

    [/QUOTE]


    I could explain it to you but I can see your limited understanding of team building in todays NFL will preclude you from arriving at a truly knowlegable conclusion.

    Consider this, Loyd isn't on the team because the rookies made him irrelavent.

    Also consider this, you get no points in the NFL for having less dead money. You do get points by scoring touchdowns, field goals, safeties and point after touchdowns.

    To win games in the NFL, you need to score more points than the other team and for 13 years, the Pats have done that better than any other team. (Hint, the GM has a lot to do with that, bad GMs don't win that many games and neither do good GMs win that many games)

    another consideration, The Pats have a well paid middle class of players and won't spend dollars on primadonnas. Therefor they get a lot of turn over in that middle class as knowing when person "A" is going to be better that person "B" is not an exact scince.
     Neither is it an exact science when Player C is going to have injuries or career ending injuries.

     

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ocho Cinco...traded a 5 and a six for him, then acquired his remaining three years 18 million.

    Jonathan Fanene. Cincy laughed as we signed him to a 3 year 12 million dollar deal. They laughed harder when he went home crying, never to be seen again.

    Leigh Bodden. 25 million dollar deal. Never made it past his second year into it.

    Fred Taylor. 12 million dollar deal. Played four games.

    Shaun Ellis. 2 years 8 million. Was supposed to replace Seymore. Instead he literally crapped his pants every Sunday in front of 60k people.

    Kyle Arrington. 3 years 12 million

    Danny Amendola. 30 million dollar contract

    Brandon Llyod. What was it? 15 million

    Sciancoe and Fells. 5 million between the both of them...neither one did anything.

    Adalious Thomas. 33 million

    Mike Wright. 8 million

    Aaron Hernandez. 45 million...turned out to be Dexter Morgan

    Holt, Galloway, Gaffney, Stallworth. 6 million. Not a single one could even stand on their own two legs.

    Robert Gallery, Joseph Addai, Marcus Stroud. What did they cost? Doesn't matter...not a single one of them made it past two days in training camp!

    Adrian Wilson. Gave him a 1.5 million dollar retirement gift. Gave one to John Lynch too.

    Albert Heynesworth. 2 years 5 million. They had to dress him up and drive him to his court appearances. Then he tried to punch Pepper Johnson in the face. See yeah later'

    There is more, but I have to go shopping:(.  Too bad the Patriots didn't do a little better shopping when we had 5 years of salary cap space and a huge window of opportunity...more draft picks than anyone, etc. we were set up for the future, etc...we were smarter than everyone else.

    The warnings were out people!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Amazing how a team could ever over come all of those franchise crippling acquisitions.  Oh, maybe these guys helped. 

    Brady

    Seymour

    Wilfork

    Warren

    Ted Washington

    Light

    Kazcur

    Neal

    Koppen

    Branch

    Givens

    Graham

    Antowoin smith

    Corey Dillion

    Patton

    Marc edwards

    Evans

    Colvin

    Rodney harrison

    Vrabel

    Asante samuel

    Ty poole

    T-Buck

    Randy Moss

    Dante stalworth

    Jabar gaffney

    Logan Mankins

    Wes welker

    Jerod mayo

    Gronkowski

    Aaron hernandez

    Bjge( guy made 700k to run for 1,800 yards and 24 tds in 2 seasons)

    Stevan ridley

    Shane vareen

    Danny woodhead

    Brandon Spikes

    Kyle arrington

    Sebastian volmer

    Nate solder

    Marcus cannon

    Rob Ninkovich

    Aquib Talib

    Devin Mccourty

    Dennard

    Hightower

    Chandler Jones

    Julian edelman

    Jamie collins

    Logan ryan

    Duron harmon

    Matthew slater

    Nate ebner

    I wonder if every team has lists of players who made it and didn't. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I checked, it is indeed true that every other team signs a bunch of guys who don't work out! Phewwwwww, after reading murtl I thought we were the only one!

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    ....



    No!  You are the biggest liar to ever log on to BDC and are exposed Daily.

    So what are you doing here?

    Mthurls figures may have been off slightly or grossly in some cases but his message is clear and DEAD ON!  Probably going by memory but it doesn't matter.  The proof is in the numbers.

    BB's failed draft and FA accusations have hurt this team, in a big way.

    Not only do those failed players have to be replaced but the DEAD money created as a result is HUGE.  This DEAD money prohibits the team from making other accusations and is the reason they are relying on ROOKIES and UDFA's to carry the team.

    Just looking at this year and last, the results are obvious, although the failures go back many years.

    2013 Dead MONEY, 16,697000, which is more than TB's salary cap hit of 13.8M

    2012 Dead MONEY, 22.2M, which is nearly triple TB's cap hit of 8M

    Remember how you said TB's salary cap hit has doubled and tripled since 2010?

    What a LIAR!

    It certainly DOESN'T appear they are wasting $$$$ on their HoF QB, but MORE $$$$ on players who sucked, never contributed a damn thing and who are NO LONGER WITH THE TEAM.

    What a waste.

    Case closed!

    http://www.overthecap.com/teamcap.php?Team=Patriots&Year=2013

     


    [QUOTE]

     

    "The proof is in the numbers," isn't that what you wrote? I think you did.

    But then you acknowledged that his numbers may have been "grossly exaggerated" in some cases. That the numbers are so far off as to be a joke is not relevant? Which is it? Is the proof in the numbers or not?

    The only thing that matters is that whatever numbers someone throws out support the premise that BB is a failure. Whether they're accurate or not is besides the point? Is that basically what you're saying? 

    Truth is, I don't think you'll find much support for your conclusions in any numbers that are actual and not made up.

    Here's another one, Ocho's contract: The OP said it was 3 years/$18 million and once again just counts it as if that money was actually spent. The truth is is was 3 years/$12 million and He was only actually paid about a third of that. 

    Hernandez was probably the worst contract they signed just because of how it turned out. But the OP just lists his contract as $45 million, with no detail. Of course, it wasn't ever $45 million, it was $39.5, and he was not paid anything close to that much, roughly one-fourth with the possibility still in play that they can get relief from next year's dead money.

    But, I get it. "Don't bother me with details, just repeat after me, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM..."

    [/QUOTE]


    The only reason why numbers are even brought into the equation on my post is because this argument stems from weather I would of prefered Julious Peppers, over the players we signed. How "value" was the better approach, and how I didn't think it was when talking about a difference making players vs. a 100 plus million of trash. Because that is what we got for all those contracts and time wasted...trash.

    I hardly ever in my 4 years on here talk about player contract length/size...why? Because NFL contacts are about as real as Santa Claus. If we had made the attempt to sign a difference maker on defense, it's a virtual certainty that the player would be asked to renogotiate his deal at some point - or he would be cut like Lloyd and his contract would be absorbed into the salary structure the NFL has put in place. It wouldn't of crippled us, it wouldn't of put us in "salary cap hell", it wouldn't of brought this franchise down to it's kness...in fact we may of won another Super Bowl in the process.

    That is my point. It is NOT to point out that BB is a terrible GM, because he is not...he has hit a rough stretch, he is as good as anyone else, but to pretend that he is the "greatest of all time" is stupid. To pretend that the mistakes he's made over the last 5 years didn't happen is silly.

    [/QUOTE]

    First of all, it's Julius Peppers.  You're spelling it like someone would mistakenly spell "genious" when they combine the word "generous" and "genius". What a moron.

    You also said "Jet's" above which is not a typo. That's not knowing how to use a possessive and a plural, but then again, you're only a Home Ec teacher.

    LOL!

    Name a better GM in the cap era or walk away. Do that or tell us why the pre cap era is the same challenge for a GM as the cap era.

    Let's see if you have the stones to provide the board with either, Cupcake.

    Muzwell and I have bludgeoned you on this topic and you still don't get it, because you're dumb and ignorant at the same time.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I would say that any GM that did not waste as much in dead money as they paid Wilfork, Mankins and Brady, in cap for 2012,.........was a better GM

    Just imagine who they could have paid, instead of paying players they had to replace because they were garbage.

    Here's your sign...........

    [/QUOTE]

    Any dead money in 2012 was irrelevant considering how LOADED that team last year once BB dealt for Talib.

    If he had dead money to the point of it hurting the team, you'd be correct. But, his team was so well built with 3 superrb drafts in a row, it was utterly irrelevant.

    Brady's 4th target was bargain basement Brandon Lloyd. He had 74 receptions, 4 TDs and 900 yards receiving.  Read that again. That was his FOURTH favorite guy.

    Miami just paid Mike Wallace 13 mil per.  #1 or #2 option for Tannehill....73 receptions, 930 yards and 5 TDs.

    Read it and weep. THAT is bad ROI and REAL dead money, moron.  Get to a college, please. It will not hurt you.

    You will never win this argument because it was over before it ever started.  Go watch SB 42 AND SB 46 and you'll see a QB who wanted to make history on a big stage and make it about him throwing a lot. lol

    There's you answer.

    Enjoy knowing the truth!

    [/QUOTE]


    Dead money is NEVER irrelevant.

    Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!

    Dead money is cap space you should have to spend and DON"T

    2012 Dead money 22.67 M,  Brady's, Wilforks, Mankins cap hit 22.8M.

    What a waste of cap space

    Here's your sign

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Pezz, when are you ever going to get a clue about professional football and team building. I should also add when will you get a clue about living in the real world?

    [/QUOTE]


    A clue?

    What would you know about a clue, rustynila?

    Hey, I have a clue.  How bout you show us how a loss of available cap due to paying players who are no longer on the team, because they were garbage, is a good thing?

    Can you do that, clueless?

    I'll wait.

    [/QUOTE]


    "Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!"

    The above is the most ignorant statement uttered in this thread. hence the need for you to get a clue and start living in the real world.

    I don't have too, why don't you list all 31 other teams dead money totals?

    [/QUOTE]


    What, rustynila?

    You are digging a pretty deep hole there.

    Do you even know what DEAD Money is?

    Here's another clue:

    There is any number of ways to judge a National Football League general manager.

    How has he drafted? How has he used free agency? How has his head coach performed? How has he managed the salary cap? Has he secured a franchise quarterback? Has he succeeded in retaining his best players?

    Another way to measure his performance is to look at the amount of "dead money" that appears on his salary cap ledger.

    In some ways, "dead money," or the salary cap charges that count for players no longer on the team, answer many of those aforementioned questions. The more dead money you have, the worse job you've done making good personnel, financial and planning decisions.


    So, rustynila, Do you have a clue?   Apparently not.

    As your big brother, crusty, always says.  Please go to college.  Watch a game.  Study up on NFL cap.

    Do anything other than parroting the village idiot, unless you actually are him.

    There is less and less doubt that you are.

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If he did not have $22M in dead money he could have signed Edelman to a contract that would have kept him here for a few years. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Like you or anyone else KNEW Edelman was going to have a year like this! Gotta love that 20-20 hindsight!

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from m. a. pat. Show m. a. pat's posts

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to m. a. pat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Every FA they targeted, which was really only LLoyd, since the team was built already through the draft and internal development (Woodhead, Connolly, Wendell, Nink, Arrington, etc), was captured under team friendly money. Lloyd knew the system, had nowhere else to go and clearly outperformed his contract even with some mininmal dead money this year.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Lloyd's dead money this year against the cap is $3.5 million. That's a little more than minimal. The Pats would have had less of a cap hit this year if they had kept him on the roster.

    How did he outperform his contract?

    [/QUOTE]

    The market for that production is set by Miami with Mike Wallace at 13 million per. That's how.

    ALso, Dobson, Edelman and Thompkins make up about 3.5 million in salary. That's 3 players who are producing well.

    Umm, so that means Lloyd's 3.5 million on the books, if that is even accurate, has ZERO effect.

    BB signed exactly the FAs he wanted to sign this offseason. Period.  I don't care who it was, Svitek, Kelly, Edelman, Arrington, Talib, Amendola, etc.

    None of this supposed scary dead money affected the team. End of story.

    PLease get to a college when you can.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    One more thing: mininmal is not a word. And you're telling people to get to a college?

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    ....



    No!  You are the biggest liar to ever log on to BDC and are exposed Daily.

    So what are you doing here?

    Mthurls figures may have been off slightly or grossly in some cases but his message is clear and DEAD ON!  Probably going by memory but it doesn't matter.  The proof is in the numbers.

    BB's failed draft and FA accusations have hurt this team, in a big way.

    Not only do those failed players have to be replaced but the DEAD money created as a result is HUGE.  This DEAD money prohibits the team from making other accusations and is the reason they are relying on ROOKIES and UDFA's to carry the team.

    Just looking at this year and last, the results are obvious, although the failures go back many years.

    2013 Dead MONEY, 16,697000, which is more than TB's salary cap hit of 13.8M

    2012 Dead MONEY, 22.2M, which is nearly triple TB's cap hit of 8M

    Remember how you said TB's salary cap hit has doubled and tripled since 2010?

    What a LIAR!

    It certainly DOESN'T appear they are wasting $$$$ on their HoF QB, but MORE $$$$ on players who sucked, never contributed a damn thing and who are NO LONGER WITH THE TEAM.

    What a waste.

    Case closed!

    http://www.overthecap.com/teamcap.php?Team=Patriots&Year=2013

     


    [QUOTE]

     

    "The proof is in the numbers," isn't that what you wrote? I think you did.

    But then you acknowledged that his numbers may have been "grossly exaggerated" in some cases. That the numbers are so far off as to be a joke is not relevant? Which is it? Is the proof in the numbers or not?

    The only thing that matters is that whatever numbers someone throws out support the premise that BB is a failure. Whether they're accurate or not is besides the point? Is that basically what you're saying? 

    Truth is, I don't think you'll find much support for your conclusions in any numbers that are actual and not made up.

    Here's another one, Ocho's contract: The OP said it was 3 years/$18 million and once again just counts it as if that money was actually spent. The truth is is was 3 years/$12 million and He was only actually paid about a third of that. 

    Hernandez was probably the worst contract they signed just because of how it turned out. But the OP just lists his contract as $45 million, with no detail. Of course, it wasn't ever $45 million, it was $39.5, and he was not paid anything close to that much, roughly one-fourth with the possibility still in play that they can get relief from next year's dead money.

    But, I get it. "Don't bother me with details, just repeat after me, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM..."




    The only reason why numbers are even brought into the equation on my post is because this argument stems from weather I would of prefered Julious Peppers, over the players we signed. How "value" was the better approach, and how I didn't think it was when talking about a difference making players vs. a 100 plus million of trash. Because that is what we got for all those contracts and time wasted...trash.

    I hardly ever in my 4 years on here talk about player contract length/size...why? Because NFL contacts are about as real as Santa Claus. If we had made the attempt to sign a difference maker on defense, it's a virtual certainty that the player would be asked to renogotiate his deal at some point - or he would be cut like Lloyd and his contract would be absorbed into the salary structure the NFL has put in place. It wouldn't of crippled us, it wouldn't of put us in "salary cap hell", it wouldn't of brought this franchise down to it's kness...in fact we may of won another Super Bowl in the process.

    That is my point. It is NOT to point out that BB is a terrible GM, because he is not...he has hit a rough stretch, he is as good as anyone else, but to pretend that he is the "greatest of all time" is stupid. To pretend that the mistakes he's made over the last 5 years didn't happen is silly.

    [/QUOTE]

    First of all, it's Julius Peppers.  You're spelling it like someone would mistakenly spell "genious" when they combine the word "generous" and "genius". What a moron.

    You also said "Jet's" above which is not a typo. That's not knowing how to use a possessive and a plural, but then again, you're only a Home Ec teacher.

    LOL!

    Name a better GM in the cap era or walk away. Do that or tell us why the pre cap era is the same challenge for a GM as the cap era.

    Let's see if you have the stones to provide the board with either, Cupcake.

    Muzwell and I have bludgeoned you on this topic and you still don't get it, because you're dumb and ignorant at the same time.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I would say that any GM that did not waste as much in dead money as they paid Wilfork, Mankins and Brady, in cap for 2012,.........was a better GM

    Just imagine who they could have paid, instead of paying players they had to replace because they were garbage.

    Here's your sign...........

    [/QUOTE]

    Any dead money in 2012 was irrelevant considering how LOADED that team last year once BB dealt for Talib.

    If he had dead money to the point of it hurting the team, you'd be correct. But, his team was so well built with 3 superrb drafts in a row, it was utterly irrelevant.

    Brady's 4th target was bargain basement Brandon Lloyd. He had 74 receptions, 4 TDs and 900 yards receiving.  Read that again. That was his FOURTH favorite guy.

    Miami just paid Mike Wallace 13 mil per.  #1 or #2 option for Tannehill....73 receptions, 930 yards and 5 TDs.

    Read it and weep. THAT is bad ROI and REAL dead money, moron.  Get to a college, please. It will not hurt you.

    You will never win this argument because it was over before it ever started.  Go watch SB 42 AND SB 46 and you'll see a QB who wanted to make history on a big stage and make it about him throwing a lot. lol

    There's you answer.

    Enjoy knowing the truth!

    [/QUOTE]


    Dead money is NEVER irrelevant.

    Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!

    Dead money is cap space you should have to spend and DON"T

    2012 Dead money 22.67 M,  Brady's, Wilforks, Mankins cap hit 22.8M.

    What a waste of cap space

    Here's your sign

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Pezz, when are you ever going to get a clue about professional football and team building. I should also add when will you get a clue about living in the real world?

    [/QUOTE]


    A clue?

    What would you know about a clue, rustynila?

    Hey, I have a clue.  How bout you show us how a loss of available cap due to paying players who are no longer on the team, because they were garbage, is a good thing?

    Can you do that, clueless?

    I'll wait.

    [/QUOTE]


    "Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!"

    The above is the most ignorant statement uttered in this thread. hence the need for you to get a clue and start living in the real world.

    I don't have too, why don't you list all 31 other teams dead money totals?

    [/QUOTE]


    What, rustynila?

    You are digging a pretty deep hole there.

    Do you even know what DEAD Money is?

    Here's another clue:

    There is any number of ways to judge a National Football League general manager.

    How has he drafted? How has he used free agency? How has his head coach performed? How has he managed the salary cap? Has he secured a franchise quarterback? Has he succeeded in retaining his best players?

    Another way to measure his performance is to look at the amount of "dead money" that appears on his salary cap ledger.

    In some ways, "dead money," or the salary cap charges that count for players no longer on the team, answer many of those aforementioned questions. The more dead money you have, the worse job you've done making good personnel, financial and planning decisions.


    So, rustynila, Do you have a clue?   Apparently not.

    As your big brother, crusty, always says.  Please go to college.  Watch a game.  Study up on NFL cap.

    Do anything other than parroting the village idiot, unless you actually are him.

    There is less and less doubt that you are.

    [/QUOTE]

    In some ways, "dead money," or the salary cap charges that count for players no longer on the team, answer many of those aforementioned questions. The more dead money you have, the worse job you've done making good personnel, financial and planning decisions

    Is also one of the most ignorant statements made on this thread as it doesn't take into consideration career ending injuries, off field problems and ends of careers.

    Yes I do know what dead money is. I also know it is a balancing act to keep the dead money at an acceptable level. You don't seem to undestand that and refuse to see the proof of my facts against your fantasy ravings. So tell me I need to go to college all you want, it shows you know you haven't a leg to stand onand have already lost the argument.

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ocho Cinco...traded a 5 and a six for him, then acquired his remaining three years 18 million.

    Jonathan Fanene. Cincy laughed as we signed him to a 3 year 12 million dollar deal. They laughed harder when he went home crying, never to be seen again.

    Leigh Bodden. 25 million dollar deal. Never made it past his second year into it.

    Fred Taylor. 12 million dollar deal. Played four games.

    Shaun Ellis. 2 years 8 million. Was supposed to replace Seymore. Instead he literally crapped his pants every Sunday in front of 60k people.

    Kyle Arrington. 3 years 12 million

    Danny Amendola. 30 million dollar contract

    Brandon Llyod. What was it? 15 million

    Sciancoe and Fells. 5 million between the both of them...neither one did anything.

    Adalious Thomas. 33 million

    Mike Wright. 8 million

    Aaron Hernandez. 45 million...turned out to be Dexter Morgan

    Holt, Galloway, Gaffney, Stallworth. 6 million. Not a single one could even stand on their own two legs.

    Robert Gallery, Joseph Addai, Marcus Stroud. What did they cost? Doesn't matter...not a single one of them made it past two days in training camp!

    Adrian Wilson. Gave him a 1.5 million dollar retirement gift. Gave one to John Lynch too.

    Albert Heynesworth. 2 years 5 million. They had to dress him up and drive him to his court appearances. Then he tried to punch Pepper Johnson in the face. See yeah later'

    There is more, but I have to go shopping:(.  Too bad the Patriots didn't do a little better shopping when we had 5 years of salary cap space and a huge window of opportunity...more draft picks than anyone, etc. we were set up for the future, etc...we were smarter than everyone else.

    The warnings were out people!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Amazing how a team could ever over come all of those franchise crippling acquisitions.  Oh, maybe these guys helped. 

    Brady

    Seymour

    Wilfork

    Warren

    Ted Washington

    Light

    Kazcur

    Neal

    Koppen

    Branch

    Givens

    Graham

    Antowoin smith

    Corey Dillion

    Patton

    Marc edwards

    Evans

    Colvin

    Rodney harrison

    Vrabel

    Asante samuel

    Ty poole

    T-Buck

    Randy Moss

    Dante stalworth

    Jabar gaffney

    Logan Mankins

    Wes welker

    Jerod mayo

    Gronkowski

    Aaron hernandez

    Bjge( guy made 700k to run for 1,800 yards and 24 tds in 2 seasons)

    Stevan ridley

    Shane vareen

    Danny woodhead

    Brandon Spikes

    Kyle arrington

    Sebastian volmer

    Nate solder

    Marcus cannon

    Rob Ninkovich

    Aquib Talib

    Devin Mccourty

    Dennard

    Hightower

    Chandler Jones

    Julian edelman

    Jamie collins

    Logan ryan

    Duron harmon

    Matthew slater

    Nate ebner

    I wonder if every team has lists of players who made it and didn't. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I checked, it is indeed true that every other team signs a bunch of guys who don't work out! Phewwwwww, after reading murtl I thought we were the only one!

    [/QUOTE]

    +1.  Every other team in the league doesn't have a 13 yr winning season because of solid players up and down the lineup. much tougher to make the team in NE, than say NY.Tongue Out

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ocho Cinco...traded a 5 and a six for him, then acquired his remaining three years 18 million.

    Jonathan Fanene. Cincy laughed as we signed him to a 3 year 12 million dollar deal. They laughed harder when he went home crying, never to be seen again.

    Leigh Bodden. 25 million dollar deal. Never made it past his second year into it.

    Fred Taylor. 12 million dollar deal. Played four games.

    Shaun Ellis. 2 years 8 million. Was supposed to replace Seymore. Instead he literally crapped his pants every Sunday in front of 60k people.

    Kyle Arrington. 3 years 12 million

    Danny Amendola. 30 million dollar contract

    Brandon Llyod. What was it? 15 million

    Sciancoe and Fells. 5 million between the both of them...neither one did anything.

    Adalious Thomas. 33 million

    Mike Wright. 8 million

    Aaron Hernandez. 45 million...turned out to be Dexter Morgan

    Holt, Galloway, Gaffney, Stallworth. 6 million. Not a single one could even stand on their own two legs.

    Robert Gallery, Joseph Addai, Marcus Stroud. What did they cost? Doesn't matter...not a single one of them made it past two days in training camp!

    Adrian Wilson. Gave him a 1.5 million dollar retirement gift. Gave one to John Lynch too.

    Albert Heynesworth. 2 years 5 million. They had to dress him up and drive him to his court appearances. Then he tried to punch Pepper Johnson in the face. See yeah later'

    There is more, but I have to go shopping:(.  Too bad the Patriots didn't do a little better shopping when we had 5 years of salary cap space and a huge window of opportunity...more draft picks than anyone, etc. we were set up for the future, etc...we were smarter than everyone else.

    The warnings were out people!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Amazing how a team could ever over come all of those franchise crippling acquisitions.  Oh, maybe these guys helped. 

    Brady

    Seymour

    Wilfork

    Warren

    Ted Washington

    Light

    Kazcur

    Neal

    Koppen

    Branch

    Givens

    Graham

    Antowoin smith

    Corey Dillion

    Patton

    Marc edwards

    Evans

    Colvin

    Rodney harrison

    Vrabel

    Asante samuel

    Ty poole

    T-Buck

    Randy Moss

    Dante stalworth

    Jabar gaffney

    Logan Mankins

    Wes welker

    Jerod mayo

    Gronkowski

    Aaron hernandez

    Bjge( guy made 700k to run for 1,800 yards and 24 tds in 2 seasons)

    Stevan ridley

    Shane vareen

    Danny woodhead

    Brandon Spikes

    Kyle arrington

    Sebastian volmer

    Nate solder

    Marcus cannon

    Rob Ninkovich

    Aquib Talib

    Devin Mccourty

    Dennard

    Hightower

    Chandler Jones

    Julian edelman

    Jamie collins

    Logan ryan

    Duron harmon

    Matthew slater

    Nate ebner

    I wonder if every team has lists of players who made it and didn't. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I checked, it is indeed true that every other team signs a bunch of guys who don't work out! Phewwwwww, after reading murtl I thought we were the only one!

    [/QUOTE]

    Truest of champs, I made my list based off the last five years. I didn't go back to the very beginning when we were drafting well, signing the right guys and winning championships. I hope I didn't get too technical for you:)

    So if you'd like to do sort of a do over, you can list all the free agents signed over the last five years. All the players drafted. All the money and resources wasted. All the golden oppurtnuties lost. And then you can take your yourself off of the toilet (where you are crapping giant pink Patriot GM helmets) and face reality.

    Here I'll start and finish the list of guys we hit on over the last five years during free agency, ready? Andre Carter (for 8 games of production) and Mark Anderson (for four). Five years worth of 100's of millions of dollars and we got a pass rusher that lasted 8 games and another that was a one trick pony who gave us four. Yippppeeeee!!!! 

    Now If you're rusty you will say Lloyd was another - even though he was bipolar and cut after one season (and left us with 3.5 million in dead money for this season). I'll give you that one if you like.

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    ....



    No!  You are the biggest liar to ever log on to BDC and are exposed Daily.

    So what are you doing here?

    Mthurls figures may have been off slightly or grossly in some cases but his message is clear and DEAD ON!  Probably going by memory but it doesn't matter.  The proof is in the numbers.

    BB's failed draft and FA accusations have hurt this team, in a big way.

    Not only do those failed players have to be replaced but the DEAD money created as a result is HUGE.  This DEAD money prohibits the team from making other accusations and is the reason they are relying on ROOKIES and UDFA's to carry the team.

    Just looking at this year and last, the results are obvious, although the failures go back many years.

    2013 Dead MONEY, 16,697000, which is more than TB's salary cap hit of 13.8M

    2012 Dead MONEY, 22.2M, which is nearly triple TB's cap hit of 8M

    Remember how you said TB's salary cap hit has doubled and tripled since 2010?

    What a LIAR!

    It certainly DOESN'T appear they are wasting $$$$ on their HoF QB, but MORE $$$$ on players who sucked, never contributed a damn thing and who are NO LONGER WITH THE TEAM.

    What a waste.

    Case closed!

    http://www.overthecap.com/teamcap.php?Team=Patriots&Year=2013

     


    [QUOTE]

     

    "The proof is in the numbers," isn't that what you wrote? I think you did.

    But then you acknowledged that his numbers may have been "grossly exaggerated" in some cases. That the numbers are so far off as to be a joke is not relevant? Which is it? Is the proof in the numbers or not?

    The only thing that matters is that whatever numbers someone throws out support the premise that BB is a failure. Whether they're accurate or not is besides the point? Is that basically what you're saying? 

    Truth is, I don't think you'll find much support for your conclusions in any numbers that are actual and not made up.

    Here's another one, Ocho's contract: The OP said it was 3 years/$18 million and once again just counts it as if that money was actually spent. The truth is is was 3 years/$12 million and He was only actually paid about a third of that. 

    Hernandez was probably the worst contract they signed just because of how it turned out. But the OP just lists his contract as $45 million, with no detail. Of course, it wasn't ever $45 million, it was $39.5, and he was not paid anything close to that much, roughly one-fourth with the possibility still in play that they can get relief from next year's dead money.

    But, I get it. "Don't bother me with details, just repeat after me, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM..."

    [/QUOTE]


    The only reason why numbers are even brought into the equation on my post is because this argument stems from weather I would of prefered Julious Peppers, over the players we signed. How "value" was the better approach, and how I didn't think it was when talking about a difference making players vs. a 100 plus million of trash. Because that is what we got for all those contracts and time wasted...trash.

    I hardly ever in my 4 years on here talk about player contract length/size...why? Because NFL contacts are about as real as Santa Claus. If we had made the attempt to sign a difference maker on defense, it's a virtual certainty that the player would be asked to renogotiate his deal at some point - or he would be cut like Lloyd and his contract would be absorbed into the salary structure the NFL has put in place. It wouldn't of crippled us, it wouldn't of put us in "salary cap hell", it wouldn't of brought this franchise down to it's kness...in fact we may of won another Super Bowl in the process.

    That is my point. It is NOT to point out that BB is a terrible GM, because he is not...he has hit a rough stretch, he is as good as anyone else, but to pretend that he is the "greatest of all time" is stupid. To pretend that the mistakes he's made over the last 5 years didn't happen is silly.

    [/QUOTE]

    First of all, it's Julius Peppers.  You're spelling it like someone would mistakenly spell "genious" when they combine the word "generous" and "genius". What a moron.

    You also said "Jet's" above which is not a typo. That's not knowing how to use a possessive and a plural, but then again, you're only a Home Ec teacher.

    LOL!

    Name a better GM in the cap era or walk away. Do that or tell us why the pre cap era is the same challenge for a GM as the cap era.

    Let's see if you have the stones to provide the board with either, Cupcake.

    Muzwell and I have bludgeoned you on this topic and you still don't get it, because you're dumb and ignorant at the same time.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I would say that any GM that did not waste as much in dead money as they paid Wilfork, Mankins and Brady, in cap for 2012,.........was a better GM

    Just imagine who they could have paid, instead of paying players they had to replace because they were garbage.

    Here's your sign...........

    [/QUOTE]

    Any dead money in 2012 was irrelevant considering how LOADED that team last year once BB dealt for Talib.

    If he had dead money to the point of it hurting the team, you'd be correct. But, his team was so well built with 3 superrb drafts in a row, it was utterly irrelevant.

    Brady's 4th target was bargain basement Brandon Lloyd. He had 74 receptions, 4 TDs and 900 yards receiving.  Read that again. That was his FOURTH favorite guy.

    Miami just paid Mike Wallace 13 mil per.  #1 or #2 option for Tannehill....73 receptions, 930 yards and 5 TDs.

    Read it and weep. THAT is bad ROI and REAL dead money, moron.  Get to a college, please. It will not hurt you.

    You will never win this argument because it was over before it ever started.  Go watch SB 42 AND SB 46 and you'll see a QB who wanted to make history on a big stage and make it about him throwing a lot. lol

    There's you answer.

    Enjoy knowing the truth!

    [/QUOTE]


    Dead money is NEVER irrelevant.

    Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!

    Dead money is cap space you should have to spend and DON"T

    2012 Dead money 22.67 M,  Brady's, Wilforks, Mankins cap hit 22.8M.

    What a waste of cap space

    Here's your sign

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Pezz, when are you ever going to get a clue about professional football and team building. I should also add when will you get a clue about living in the real world?

    [/QUOTE]


    A clue?

    What would you know about a clue, rustynila?

    Hey, I have a clue.  How bout you show us how a loss of available cap due to paying players who are no longer on the team, because they were garbage, is a good thing?

    Can you do that, clueless?

    I'll wait.

    [/QUOTE]


    "Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!"

    The above is the most ignorant statement uttered in this thread. hence the need for you to get a clue and start living in the real world.

    I don't have too, why don't you list all 31 other teams dead money totals?

    [/QUOTE]


    What, rustynila?

    You are digging a pretty deep hole there.

    Do you even know what DEAD Money is?

    Here's another clue:

    There is any number of ways to judge a National Football League general manager.

    How has he drafted? How has he used free agency? How has his head coach performed? How has he managed the salary cap? Has he secured a franchise quarterback? Has he succeeded in retaining his best players?

    Another way to measure his performance is to look at the amount of "dead money" that appears on his salary cap ledger.

    In some ways, "dead money," or the salary cap charges that count for players no longer on the team, answer many of those aforementioned questions. The more dead money you have, the worse job you've done making good personnel, financial and planning decisions.


    So, rustynila, Do you have a clue?   Apparently not.

    As your big brother, crusty, always says.  Please go to college.  Watch a game.  Study up on NFL cap.

    Do anything other than parroting the village idiot, unless you actually are him.

    There is less and less doubt that you are.

    [/QUOTE]

    In some ways, "dead money," or the salary cap charges that count for players no longer on the team, answer many of those aforementioned questions. The more dead money you have, the worse job you've done making good personnel, financial and planning decisions

    Is also one of the most ignorat statements made on this thread as it doesn't take into consideration career ending injuries, off field problems and ends of careers.

    Yes I do know what dead money is. I also know it is a balancing act to keep the dead money at an acceptable level. You don't seem to undestand that and refuse to see the proof of my facts against your fantasy ravings. So tell me I need to go to college all you want, it shows you know you haven't a leg to stand onand have already lost the argument.

    [/QUOTE]

    No.  You have no leg, rustynila.

    Dead money is the direct result of paying players who are no longer on the team.

    They are no longer on the team because they were given contracts and did not live up to their contracts.  In other words they sucked and so did their contracts.

    Ir'd players are different.  They are still on the team but yes, their salaries have to be paid too.  That is not considered DEAD MONEY!

    DEAD money is drafting and picking up FA failures and giving them contracts and having them SUCK, over and over and over, releasing them and signing new contract to players who also SUCK.  That's how you get excessive DEAD MONEY.

    Last I checked, the average teams DEAD MONEY is about 8M. not F'n 23M.

    Bad, bad teams have dead money in excess of 20M.  The only thing saving them is Brady's cap saving restructures. FACT!

    Get a clue!

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    ....



    No!  You are the biggest liar to ever log on to BDC and are exposed Daily.

    So what are you doing here?

    Mthurls figures may have been off slightly or grossly in some cases but his message is clear and DEAD ON!  Probably going by memory but it doesn't matter.  The proof is in the numbers.

    BB's failed draft and FA accusations have hurt this team, in a big way.

    Not only do those failed players have to be replaced but the DEAD money created as a result is HUGE.  This DEAD money prohibits the team from making other accusations and is the reason they are relying on ROOKIES and UDFA's to carry the team.

    Just looking at this year and last, the results are obvious, although the failures go back many years.

    2013 Dead MONEY, 16,697000, which is more than TB's salary cap hit of 13.8M

    2012 Dead MONEY, 22.2M, which is nearly triple TB's cap hit of 8M

    Remember how you said TB's salary cap hit has doubled and tripled since 2010?

    What a LIAR!

    It certainly DOESN'T appear they are wasting $$$$ on their HoF QB, but MORE $$$$ on players who sucked, never contributed a damn thing and who are NO LONGER WITH THE TEAM.

    What a waste.

    Case closed!

    http://www.overthecap.com/teamcap.php?Team=Patriots&Year=2013

     


    [QUOTE]

     

    "The proof is in the numbers," isn't that what you wrote? I think you did.

    But then you acknowledged that his numbers may have been "grossly exaggerated" in some cases. That the numbers are so far off as to be a joke is not relevant? Which is it? Is the proof in the numbers or not?

    The only thing that matters is that whatever numbers someone throws out support the premise that BB is a failure. Whether they're accurate or not is besides the point? Is that basically what you're saying? 

    Truth is, I don't think you'll find much support for your conclusions in any numbers that are actual and not made up.

    Here's another one, Ocho's contract: The OP said it was 3 years/$18 million and once again just counts it as if that money was actually spent. The truth is is was 3 years/$12 million and He was only actually paid about a third of that. 

    Hernandez was probably the worst contract they signed just because of how it turned out. But the OP just lists his contract as $45 million, with no detail. Of course, it wasn't ever $45 million, it was $39.5, and he was not paid anything close to that much, roughly one-fourth with the possibility still in play that they can get relief from next year's dead money.

    But, I get it. "Don't bother me with details, just repeat after me, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM..."

    [/QUOTE]


    The only reason why numbers are even brought into the equation on my post is because this argument stems from weather I would of prefered Julious Peppers, over the players we signed. How "value" was the better approach, and how I didn't think it was when talking about a difference making players vs. a 100 plus million of trash. Because that is what we got for all those contracts and time wasted...trash.

    I hardly ever in my 4 years on here talk about player contract length/size...why? Because NFL contacts are about as real as Santa Claus. If we had made the attempt to sign a difference maker on defense, it's a virtual certainty that the player would be asked to renogotiate his deal at some point - or he would be cut like Lloyd and his contract would be absorbed into the salary structure the NFL has put in place. It wouldn't of crippled us, it wouldn't of put us in "salary cap hell", it wouldn't of brought this franchise down to it's kness...in fact we may of won another Super Bowl in the process.

    That is my point. It is NOT to point out that BB is a terrible GM, because he is not...he has hit a rough stretch, he is as good as anyone else, but to pretend that he is the "greatest of all time" is stupid. To pretend that the mistakes he's made over the last 5 years didn't happen is silly.

    [/QUOTE]

    First of all, it's Julius Peppers.  You're spelling it like someone would mistakenly spell "genious" when they combine the word "generous" and "genius". What a moron.

    You also said "Jet's" above which is not a typo. That's not knowing how to use a possessive and a plural, but then again, you're only a Home Ec teacher.

    LOL!

    Name a better GM in the cap era or walk away. Do that or tell us why the pre cap era is the same challenge for a GM as the cap era.

    Let's see if you have the stones to provide the board with either, Cupcake.

    Muzwell and I have bludgeoned you on this topic and you still don't get it, because you're dumb and ignorant at the same time.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I would say that any GM that did not waste as much in dead money as they paid Wilfork, Mankins and Brady, in cap for 2012,.........was a better GM

    Just imagine who they could have paid, instead of paying players they had to replace because they were garbage.

    Here's your sign...........

    [/QUOTE]

    Any dead money in 2012 was irrelevant considering how LOADED that team last year once BB dealt for Talib.

    If he had dead money to the point of it hurting the team, you'd be correct. But, his team was so well built with 3 superrb drafts in a row, it was utterly irrelevant.

    Brady's 4th target was bargain basement Brandon Lloyd. He had 74 receptions, 4 TDs and 900 yards receiving.  Read that again. That was his FOURTH favorite guy.

    Miami just paid Mike Wallace 13 mil per.  #1 or #2 option for Tannehill....73 receptions, 930 yards and 5 TDs.

    Read it and weep. THAT is bad ROI and REAL dead money, moron.  Get to a college, please. It will not hurt you.

    You will never win this argument because it was over before it ever started.  Go watch SB 42 AND SB 46 and you'll see a QB who wanted to make history on a big stage and make it about him throwing a lot. lol

    There's you answer.

    Enjoy knowing the truth!

    [/QUOTE]


    Dead money is NEVER irrelevant.

    Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!

    Dead money is cap space you should have to spend and DON"T

    2012 Dead money 22.67 M,  Brady's, Wilforks, Mankins cap hit 22.8M.

    What a waste of cap space

    Here's your sign

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Pezz, when are you ever going to get a clue about professional football and team building. I should also add when will you get a clue about living in the real world?

    [/QUOTE]


    A clue?

    What would you know about a clue, rustynila?

    Hey, I have a clue.  How bout you show us how a loss of available cap due to paying players who are no longer on the team, because they were garbage, is a good thing?

    Can you do that, clueless?

    I'll wait.

    [/QUOTE]


    "Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!"

    The above is the most ignorant statement uttered in this thread. hence the need for you to get a clue and start living in the real world.

    I don't have too, why don't you list all 31 other teams dead money totals?

    [/QUOTE]


    What, rustynila?

    You are digging a pretty deep hole there.

    Do you even know what DEAD Money is?

    Here's another clue:

    There is any number of ways to judge a National Football League general manager.

    How has he drafted? How has he used free agency? How has his head coach performed? How has he managed the salary cap? Has he secured a franchise quarterback? Has he succeeded in retaining his best players?

    Another way to measure his performance is to look at the amount of "dead money" that appears on his salary cap ledger.

    In some ways, "dead money," or the salary cap charges that count for players no longer on the team, answer many of those aforementioned questions. The more dead money you have, the worse job you've done making good personnel, financial and planning decisions.


    So, rustynila, Do you have a clue?   Apparently not.

    As your big brother, crusty, always says.  Please go to college.  Watch a game.  Study up on NFL cap.

    Do anything other than parroting the village idiot, unless you actually are him.

    There is less and less doubt that you are.

    [/QUOTE]

    In some ways, "dead money," or the salary cap charges that count for players no longer on the team, answer many of those aforementioned questions. The more dead money you have, the worse job you've done making good personnel, financial and planning decisions

    Is also one of the most ignorat statements made on this thread as it doesn't take into consideration career ending injuries, off field problems and ends of careers.

    Yes I do know what dead money is. I also know it is a balancing act to keep the dead money at an acceptable level. You don't seem to undestand that and refuse to see the proof of my facts against your fantasy ravings. So tell me I need to go to college all you want, it shows you know you haven't a leg to stand onand have already lost the argument.

    [/QUOTE]

    No.  You have no leg, rustynila.

    Dead money is the direct result of paying players who are no longer on the team.

    They are no longer on the team because they were given contracts and did not live up to their contracts.  In other words they sucked and so did their contracts.

    Ir'd players are different.  They are still on the team but yes, their salaries have to be paid too.  That is not considered DEAD MONEY!

    DEAD money is drafting and picking up FA failures and giving them contracts and having them SUCK, over and over and over, releasing them and signing new contract to players who also SUCK.  That's how you get excessive DEAD MONEY.

    Last I checked, the average teams DEAD MONEY is about 8M. not F'n 23M.

    Bad, bad teams have dead money in excess of 20M.  The only thing saving them is Brady's cap saving restructures. FACT!

    Get a clue!

    [/QUOTE]

    Rusty  has claimed many times that BB budgets 20 mil a year for dead money.

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Some of the contracts on this Pats team are out of control.  I mean, look at what Brady is earning!  Look at what they're paying Mankins.

    Who negotiated these deals anyway?

    [/QUOTE]


    The BRUNES GM

    36 SECONDS...2 GOALS IN 36 SECONDS...SOME CONTRACT THAT!!!

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    ....



    No!  You are the biggest liar to ever log on to BDC and are exposed Daily.

    So what are you doing here?

    Mthurls figures may have been off slightly or grossly in some cases but his message is clear and DEAD ON!  Probably going by memory but it doesn't matter.  The proof is in the numbers.

    BB's failed draft and FA accusations have hurt this team, in a big way.

    Not only do those failed players have to be replaced but the DEAD money created as a result is HUGE.  This DEAD money prohibits the team from making other accusations and is the reason they are relying on ROOKIES and UDFA's to carry the team.

    Just looking at this year and last, the results are obvious, although the failures go back many years.

    2013 Dead MONEY, 16,697000, which is more than TB's salary cap hit of 13.8M

    2012 Dead MONEY, 22.2M, which is nearly triple TB's cap hit of 8M

    Remember how you said TB's salary cap hit has doubled and tripled since 2010?

    What a LIAR!

    It certainly DOESN'T appear they are wasting $$$$ on their HoF QB, but MORE $$$$ on players who sucked, never contributed a damn thing and who are NO LONGER WITH THE TEAM.

    What a waste.

    Case closed!

    http://www.overthecap.com/teamcap.php?Team=Patriots&Year=2013

     


    [QUOTE]

     

    "The proof is in the numbers," isn't that what you wrote? I think you did.

    But then you acknowledged that his numbers may have been "grossly exaggerated" in some cases. That the numbers are so far off as to be a joke is not relevant? Which is it? Is the proof in the numbers or not?

    The only thing that matters is that whatever numbers someone throws out support the premise that BB is a failure. Whether they're accurate or not is besides the point? Is that basically what you're saying? 

    Truth is, I don't think you'll find much support for your conclusions in any numbers that are actual and not made up.

    Here's another one, Ocho's contract: The OP said it was 3 years/$18 million and once again just counts it as if that money was actually spent. The truth is is was 3 years/$12 million and He was only actually paid about a third of that. 

    Hernandez was probably the worst contract they signed just because of how it turned out. But the OP just lists his contract as $45 million, with no detail. Of course, it wasn't ever $45 million, it was $39.5, and he was not paid anything close to that much, roughly one-fourth with the possibility still in play that they can get relief from next year's dead money.

    But, I get it. "Don't bother me with details, just repeat after me, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM..."

    [/QUOTE]


    The only reason why numbers are even brought into the equation on my post is because this argument stems from weather I would of prefered Julious Peppers, over the players we signed. How "value" was the better approach, and how I didn't think it was when talking about a difference making players vs. a 100 plus million of trash. Because that is what we got for all those contracts and time wasted...trash.

    I hardly ever in my 4 years on here talk about player contract length/size...why? Because NFL contacts are about as real as Santa Claus. If we had made the attempt to sign a difference maker on defense, it's a virtual certainty that the player would be asked to renogotiate his deal at some point - or he would be cut like Lloyd and his contract would be absorbed into the salary structure the NFL has put in place. It wouldn't of crippled us, it wouldn't of put us in "salary cap hell", it wouldn't of brought this franchise down to it's kness...in fact we may of won another Super Bowl in the process.

    That is my point. It is NOT to point out that BB is a terrible GM, because he is not...he has hit a rough stretch, he is as good as anyone else, but to pretend that he is the "greatest of all time" is stupid. To pretend that the mistakes he's made over the last 5 years didn't happen is silly.

    [/QUOTE]

    First of all, it's Julius Peppers.  You're spelling it like someone would mistakenly spell "genious" when they combine the word "generous" and "genius". What a moron.

    You also said "Jet's" above which is not a typo. That's not knowing how to use a possessive and a plural, but then again, you're only a Home Ec teacher.

    LOL!

    Name a better GM in the cap era or walk away. Do that or tell us why the pre cap era is the same challenge for a GM as the cap era.

    Let's see if you have the stones to provide the board with either, Cupcake.

    Muzwell and I have bludgeoned you on this topic and you still don't get it, because you're dumb and ignorant at the same time.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I would say that any GM that did not waste as much in dead money as they paid Wilfork, Mankins and Brady, in cap for 2012,.........was a better GM

    Just imagine who they could have paid, instead of paying players they had to replace because they were garbage.

    Here's your sign...........

    [/QUOTE]

    Any dead money in 2012 was irrelevant considering how LOADED that team last year once BB dealt for Talib.

    If he had dead money to the point of it hurting the team, you'd be correct. But, his team was so well built with 3 superrb drafts in a row, it was utterly irrelevant.

    Brady's 4th target was bargain basement Brandon Lloyd. He had 74 receptions, 4 TDs and 900 yards receiving.  Read that again. That was his FOURTH favorite guy.

    Miami just paid Mike Wallace 13 mil per.  #1 or #2 option for Tannehill....73 receptions, 930 yards and 5 TDs.

    Read it and weep. THAT is bad ROI and REAL dead money, moron.  Get to a college, please. It will not hurt you.

    You will never win this argument because it was over before it ever started.  Go watch SB 42 AND SB 46 and you'll see a QB who wanted to make history on a big stage and make it about him throwing a lot. lol

    There's you answer.

    Enjoy knowing the truth!

    [/QUOTE]


    Dead money is NEVER irrelevant.

    Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!

    Dead money is cap space you should have to spend and DON"T

    2012 Dead money 22.67 M,  Brady's, Wilforks, Mankins cap hit 22.8M.

    What a waste of cap space

    Here's your sign

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Pezz, when are you ever going to get a clue about professional football and team building. I should also add when will you get a clue about living in the real world?

    [/QUOTE]


    A clue?

    What would you know about a clue, rustynila?

    Hey, I have a clue.  How bout you show us how a loss of available cap due to paying players who are no longer on the team, because they were garbage, is a good thing?

    Can you do that, clueless?

    I'll wait.

    [/QUOTE]


    "Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!"

    The above is the most ignorant statement uttered in this thread. hence the need for you to get a clue and start living in the real world.

    I don't have too, why don't you list all 31 other teams dead money totals?

    [/QUOTE]


    What, rustynila?

    You are digging a pretty deep hole there.

    Do you even know what DEAD Money is?

    Here's another clue:

    There is any number of ways to judge a National Football League general manager.

    How has he drafted? How has he used free agency? How has his head coach performed? How has he managed the salary cap? Has he secured a franchise quarterback? Has he succeeded in retaining his best players?

    Another way to measure his performance is to look at the amount of "dead money" that appears on his salary cap ledger.

    In some ways, "dead money," or the salary cap charges that count for players no longer on the team, answer many of those aforementioned questions. The more dead money you have, the worse job you've done making good personnel, financial and planning decisions.


    So, rustynila, Do you have a clue?   Apparently not.

    As your big brother, crusty, always says.  Please go to college.  Watch a game.  Study up on NFL cap.

    Do anything other than parroting the village idiot, unless you actually are him.

    There is less and less doubt that you are.

    [/QUOTE]

    In some ways, "dead money," or the salary cap charges that count for players no longer on the team, answer many of those aforementioned questions. The more dead money you have, the worse job you've done making good personnel, financial and planning decisions

    Is also one of the most ignorat statements made on this thread as it doesn't take into consideration career ending injuries, off field problems and ends of careers.

    Yes I do know what dead money is. I also know it is a balancing act to keep the dead money at an acceptable level. You don't seem to undestand that and refuse to see the proof of my facts against your fantasy ravings. So tell me I need to go to college all you want, it shows you know you haven't a leg to stand onand have already lost the argument.

    [/QUOTE]

    No.  You have no leg, rustynila.

    Dead money is the direct result of paying players who are no longer on the team.

    They are no longer on the team because they were given contracts and did not live up to their contracts.  In other words they sucked and so did their contracts.

    Ir'd players are different.  They are still on the team but yes, their salaries have to be paid too.  That is not considered DEAD MONEY!

    DEAD money is drafting and picking up FA failures and giving them contracts and having them SUCK, over and over and over, releasing them and signing new contract to players who also SUCK.  That's how you get excessive DEAD MONEY.

    Last I checked, the average teams DEAD MONEY is about 8M. not F'n 23M.

    Bad, bad teams have dead money in excess of 20M.  The only thing saving them is Brady's cap saving restructures. FACT!

    Get a clue!

    [/QUOTE]

    Rusty  has claimed many times that BB budgets 20 mil a year for dead money.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dead Money...sounds like the entire NY Jets roster... :)

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    ....



    No!  You are the biggest liar to ever log on to BDC and are exposed Daily.

    So what are you doing here?

    Mthurls figures may have been off slightly or grossly in some cases but his message is clear and DEAD ON!  Probably going by memory but it doesn't matter.  The proof is in the numbers.

    BB's failed draft and FA accusations have hurt this team, in a big way.

    Not only do those failed players have to be replaced but the DEAD money created as a result is HUGE.  This DEAD money prohibits the team from making other accusations and is the reason they are relying on ROOKIES and UDFA's to carry the team.

    Just looking at this year and last, the results are obvious, although the failures go back many years.

    2013 Dead MONEY, 16,697000, which is more than TB's salary cap hit of 13.8M

    2012 Dead MONEY, 22.2M, which is nearly triple TB's cap hit of 8M

    Remember how you said TB's salary cap hit has doubled and tripled since 2010?

    What a LIAR!

    It certainly DOESN'T appear they are wasting $$$$ on their HoF QB, but MORE $$$$ on players who sucked, never contributed a damn thing and who are NO LONGER WITH THE TEAM.

    What a waste.

    Case closed!

    http://www.overthecap.com/teamcap.php?Team=Patriots&Year=2013

     


    [QUOTE]

     

    "The proof is in the numbers," isn't that what you wrote? I think you did.

    But then you acknowledged that his numbers may have been "grossly exaggerated" in some cases. That the numbers are so far off as to be a joke is not relevant? Which is it? Is the proof in the numbers or not?

    The only thing that matters is that whatever numbers someone throws out support the premise that BB is a failure. Whether they're accurate or not is besides the point? Is that basically what you're saying? 

    Truth is, I don't think you'll find much support for your conclusions in any numbers that are actual and not made up.

    Here's another one, Ocho's contract: The OP said it was 3 years/$18 million and once again just counts it as if that money was actually spent. The truth is is was 3 years/$12 million and He was only actually paid about a third of that. 

    Hernandez was probably the worst contract they signed just because of how it turned out. But the OP just lists his contract as $45 million, with no detail. Of course, it wasn't ever $45 million, it was $39.5, and he was not paid anything close to that much, roughly one-fourth with the possibility still in play that they can get relief from next year's dead money.

    But, I get it. "Don't bother me with details, just repeat after me, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM..."

    [/QUOTE]


    The only reason why numbers are even brought into the equation on my post is because this argument stems from weather I would of prefered Julious Peppers, over the players we signed. How "value" was the better approach, and how I didn't think it was when talking about a difference making players vs. a 100 plus million of trash. Because that is what we got for all those contracts and time wasted...trash.

    I hardly ever in my 4 years on here talk about player contract length/size...why? Because NFL contacts are about as real as Santa Claus. If we had made the attempt to sign a difference maker on defense, it's a virtual certainty that the player would be asked to renogotiate his deal at some point - or he would be cut like Lloyd and his contract would be absorbed into the salary structure the NFL has put in place. It wouldn't of crippled us, it wouldn't of put us in "salary cap hell", it wouldn't of brought this franchise down to it's kness...in fact we may of won another Super Bowl in the process.

    That is my point. It is NOT to point out that BB is a terrible GM, because he is not...he has hit a rough stretch, he is as good as anyone else, but to pretend that he is the "greatest of all time" is stupid. To pretend that the mistakes he's made over the last 5 years didn't happen is silly.

    [/QUOTE]

    First of all, it's Julius Peppers.  You're spelling it like someone would mistakenly spell "genious" when they combine the word "generous" and "genius". What a moron.

    You also said "Jet's" above which is not a typo. That's not knowing how to use a possessive and a plural, but then again, you're only a Home Ec teacher.

    LOL!

    Name a better GM in the cap era or walk away. Do that or tell us why the pre cap era is the same challenge for a GM as the cap era.

    Let's see if you have the stones to provide the board with either, Cupcake.

    Muzwell and I have bludgeoned you on this topic and you still don't get it, because you're dumb and ignorant at the same time.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I would say that any GM that did not waste as much in dead money as they paid Wilfork, Mankins and Brady, in cap for 2012,.........was a better GM

    Just imagine who they could have paid, instead of paying players they had to replace because they were garbage.

    Here's your sign...........

    [/QUOTE]

    Any dead money in 2012 was irrelevant considering how LOADED that team last year once BB dealt for Talib.

    If he had dead money to the point of it hurting the team, you'd be correct. But, his team was so well built with 3 superrb drafts in a row, it was utterly irrelevant.

    Brady's 4th target was bargain basement Brandon Lloyd. He had 74 receptions, 4 TDs and 900 yards receiving.  Read that again. That was his FOURTH favorite guy.

    Miami just paid Mike Wallace 13 mil per.  #1 or #2 option for Tannehill....73 receptions, 930 yards and 5 TDs.

    Read it and weep. THAT is bad ROI and REAL dead money, moron.  Get to a college, please. It will not hurt you.

    You will never win this argument because it was over before it ever started.  Go watch SB 42 AND SB 46 and you'll see a QB who wanted to make history on a big stage and make it about him throwing a lot. lol

    There's you answer.

    Enjoy knowing the truth!

    [/QUOTE]


    Dead money is NEVER irrelevant.

    Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!

    Dead money is cap space you should have to spend and DON"T

    2012 Dead money 22.67 M,  Brady's, Wilforks, Mankins cap hit 22.8M.

    What a waste of cap space

    Here's your sign

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Pezz, when are you ever going to get a clue about professional football and team building. I should also add when will you get a clue about living in the real world?

    [/QUOTE]


    A clue?

    What would you know about a clue, rustynila?

    Hey, I have a clue.  How bout you show us how a loss of available cap due to paying players who are no longer on the team, because they were garbage, is a good thing?

    Can you do that, clueless?

    I'll wait.

    [/QUOTE]


    "Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!"

    The above is the most ignorant statement uttered in this thread. hence the need for you to get a clue and start living in the real world.

    I don't have too, why don't you list all 31 other teams dead money totals?

    [/QUOTE]


    What, rustynila?

    You are digging a pretty deep hole there.

    Do you even know what DEAD Money is?

    Here's another clue:

    There is any number of ways to judge a National Football League general manager.

    How has he drafted? How has he used free agency? How has his head coach performed? How has he managed the salary cap? Has he secured a franchise quarterback? Has he succeeded in retaining his best players?

    Another way to measure his performance is to look at the amount of "dead money" that appears on his salary cap ledger.

    In some ways, "dead money," or the salary cap charges that count for players no longer on the team, answer many of those aforementioned questions. The more dead money you have, the worse job you've done making good personnel, financial and planning decisions.


    So, rustynila, Do you have a clue?   Apparently not.

    As your big brother, crusty, always says.  Please go to college.  Watch a game.  Study up on NFL cap.

    Do anything other than parroting the village idiot, unless you actually are him.

    There is less and less doubt that you are.

    [/QUOTE]

    In some ways, "dead money," or the salary cap charges that count for players no longer on the team, answer many of those aforementioned questions. The more dead money you have, the worse job you've done making good personnel, financial and planning decisions

    Is also one of the most ignorat statements made on this thread as it doesn't take into consideration career ending injuries, off field problems and ends of careers.

    Yes I do know what dead money is. I also know it is a balancing act to keep the dead money at an acceptable level. You don't seem to undestand that and refuse to see the proof of my facts against your fantasy ravings. So tell me I need to go to college all you want, it shows you know you haven't a leg to stand onand have already lost the argument.

    [/QUOTE]

    No.  You have no leg, rustynila.

    Dead money is the direct result of paying players who are no longer on the team.

    They are no longer on the team because they were given contracts and did not live up to their contracts.  In other words they sucked and so did their contracts.

    Ir'd players are different.  They are still on the team but yes, their salaries have to be paid too.  That is not considered DEAD MONEY!

    DEAD money is drafting and picking up FA failures and giving them contracts and having them SUCK, over and over and over, releasing them and signing new contract to players who also SUCK.  That's how you get excessive DEAD MONEY.

    Last I checked, the average teams DEAD MONEY is about 8M. not F'n 23M.

    Bad, bad teams have dead money in excess of 20M.  The only thing saving them is Brady's cap saving restructures. FACT!

    Get a clue!

    [/QUOTE]

    You might want to look up the real dead money numbers, the ones you are quoting are off by quite a bit.

    Fact is Pats have less than 20M in dead money, considerably less! Heck some of those players actually played for the Pats this year. It can't be dead money if they played for the team.

    You still aren't quoting facts, just fantasy ravings. I knew you wouldn't understand or more likely the truth you don't want to understand because if you did, you would have to admit BB is a better GM than you are.

    Fact is Pats have less than 20M in dead money, considerably less!

    Next time try bringing facts that are facts. Otherwise I might as well say the Pats only have $123.56 in dead money.

    BTW you are still calling me names, a sure sign you lack confidence in your statements. That you know you have lost the argument.

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to everyidiothere's comment:

    In response to everyotheridiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyidiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyotheridiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyidiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyotheridiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyidiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyotheridiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyidiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyotheridiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyidiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyotheridiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyidiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyotheridiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyidiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyotheridiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyidiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyotheridiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyidiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyotheridiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyidiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyotheridiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyidiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to everyotheridiothere's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    12 straight post season appearences.

     



    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spoken like a broken and hateful old man with nothing left in his life but the unending ability to constantly display his personal animus with the world at large.

    [/QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spoken like a broken and hateful old man with nothing left in his life but the unending ability to constantly display his personal animus with the world at large.

    [/QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spoken like a broken and hateful old man with nothing left in his life but the unending ability to constantly display his personal animus with the world at large.

    [/QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spoken like a broken and hateful old man with nothing left in his life but the unending ability to constantly display his personal animus with the world at large.

    [/QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spoken like a broken and hateful old man with nothing left in his life but the unending ability to constantly display his personal animus with the world at large.

    [/QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spoken like a broken and hateful old man with nothing left in his life but the unending ability to constantly display his personal animus with the world at large.

    [/QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spoken like a broken and hateful old man with nothing left in his life but the unending ability to constantly display his personal animus with the world at large.

    [/QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spoken like a broken and hateful old man with nothing left in his life but the unending ability to constantly display his personal animus with the world at large.

    [/QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spoken like a broken and hateful old man with nothing left in his life but the unending ability to constantly display his personal animus with the world at large.

    [/QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spoken like a broken and hateful old man with nothing left in his life but the unending ability to constantly display his personal animus with the world at large.

    [/QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spoken like a broken and hateful old man with nothing left in his life but the unending ability to constantly display his personal animus with the world at large.

    [/QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spoken like a broken and hateful old man with nothing left in his life but the unending ability to constantly display his personal animus with the world at large.

    [/QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Spoken like a broken and hateful old man with nothing left in his life but the unending ability to constantly display his personal animus with the world at large.

    [/QUOTE]

    12 straight post season appearences.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only one is 11-5 in 2008.  Only two times in NFL history since the 16 game schedule was introduced, did an 11 win team not make it:

     

    1985 Broncos

    2008 Patriots

    That may be incorrect, but Sportsbozo meaning to say 13 straight winning seasons, is beyond impressive in this era, and it ain't ending anytime soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Whatever, he was wrong, and I informed him of such.

    You mean the year the previously 1-15 Dolphins won the division? That year?

    List for me the teams with a winning record we played that didn't beat us in 2008 Einstein. Do it! Or shut it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    KC went 2-14 last year and 11-5 this year. So what?  Miami wasn't as bad as 1-15 in 2007 either just like Houston isn't as bad as 2-14 shows this year.

    A winning record in 2008?  You look it up.  I know how that season went and how the Pats got better as the year went on with a QB who hadn't played in a decade.

    Has that even happened before in NFL history? Seriously.  Was Darryl Lamonica brought back into the NFL by Al Davis after 10 years in the amazon jungle somewhere?  lol

    "Hi, I haven't played football in a decade and I just helped my team to an 11-5 record." - Matt Cassel

    Nice try, Babe. You lost again.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ I see hot air here, but I don't see the list.

    Put up or shut up liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can cut and paste the schedule.

    In 2008, Miami (2x), SD, Colts, Steelers (SB), Cardinals (SB) - 6 games, 5 teams who made the playoffs. I could literally go down every schedule and do the same thing with Brady under center instead of Cassel, too.

    Do you know how hard it is to play back to back games on the west coast, TWICE in a season?

    You put up or shut up. I've lied about nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have put up dumbkoff. You're the one who refuses to name the teams with winning records that they didn't lose to.

    Since you're too dishonest to name them, I will.

    The Cardinals. That's it, and they played us away after they clinched and a win would in no way have helped them.

    One fourth of the schedule was against teams with a combined 13-51 record!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the lying Village Imbecile. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's fun watching one village idiot attempt to bludgeon another person that they think is a village idiot but in reality, they are just being kind and refraining from returning the bludgeoning.

    [/QUOTE]


    Spoken like a true village idiot.

    [/QUOTE]


    Wow.  The posts are getting a little long.  Oh well, what can you do?

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    ....



    No!  You are the biggest liar to ever log on to BDC and are exposed Daily.

    So what are you doing here?

    Mthurls figures may have been off slightly or grossly in some cases but his message is clear and DEAD ON!  Probably going by memory but it doesn't matter.  The proof is in the numbers.

    BB's failed draft and FA accusations have hurt this team, in a big way.

    Not only do those failed players have to be replaced but the DEAD money created as a result is HUGE.  This DEAD money prohibits the team from making other accusations and is the reason they are relying on ROOKIES and UDFA's to carry the team.

    Just looking at this year and last, the results are obvious, although the failures go back many years.

    2013 Dead MONEY, 16,697000, which is more than TB's salary cap hit of 13.8M

    2012 Dead MONEY, 22.2M, which is nearly triple TB's cap hit of 8M

    Remember how you said TB's salary cap hit has doubled and tripled since 2010?

    What a LIAR!

    It certainly DOESN'T appear they are wasting $$$$ on their HoF QB, but MORE $$$$ on players who sucked, never contributed a damn thing and who are NO LONGER WITH THE TEAM.

    What a waste.

    Case closed!

    http://www.overthecap.com/teamcap.php?Team=Patriots&Year=2013

     


    [QUOTE]

     

    "The proof is in the numbers," isn't that what you wrote? I think you did.

    But then you acknowledged that his numbers may have been "grossly exaggerated" in some cases. That the numbers are so far off as to be a joke is not relevant? Which is it? Is the proof in the numbers or not?

    The only thing that matters is that whatever numbers someone throws out support the premise that BB is a failure. Whether they're accurate or not is besides the point? Is that basically what you're saying? 

    Truth is, I don't think you'll find much support for your conclusions in any numbers that are actual and not made up.

    Here's another one, Ocho's contract: The OP said it was 3 years/$18 million and once again just counts it as if that money was actually spent. The truth is is was 3 years/$12 million and He was only actually paid about a third of that. 

    Hernandez was probably the worst contract they signed just because of how it turned out. But the OP just lists his contract as $45 million, with no detail. Of course, it wasn't ever $45 million, it was $39.5, and he was not paid anything close to that much, roughly one-fourth with the possibility still in play that they can get relief from next year's dead money.

    But, I get it. "Don't bother me with details, just repeat after me, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM, BB is a failed GM..."

    [/QUOTE]


    The only reason why numbers are even brought into the equation on my post is because this argument stems from weather I would of prefered Julious Peppers, over the players we signed. How "value" was the better approach, and how I didn't think it was when talking about a difference making players vs. a 100 plus million of trash. Because that is what we got for all those contracts and time wasted...trash.

    I hardly ever in my 4 years on here talk about player contract length/size...why? Because NFL contacts are about as real as Santa Claus. If we had made the attempt to sign a difference maker on defense, it's a virtual certainty that the player would be asked to renogotiate his deal at some point - or he would be cut like Lloyd and his contract would be absorbed into the salary structure the NFL has put in place. It wouldn't of crippled us, it wouldn't of put us in "salary cap hell", it wouldn't of brought this franchise down to it's kness...in fact we may of won another Super Bowl in the process.

    That is my point. It is NOT to point out that BB is a terrible GM, because he is not...he has hit a rough stretch, he is as good as anyone else, but to pretend that he is the "greatest of all time" is stupid. To pretend that the mistakes he's made over the last 5 years didn't happen is silly.

    [/QUOTE]

    First of all, it's Julius Peppers.  You're spelling it like someone would mistakenly spell "genious" when they combine the word "generous" and "genius". What a moron.

    You also said "Jet's" above which is not a typo. That's not knowing how to use a possessive and a plural, but then again, you're only a Home Ec teacher.

    LOL!

    Name a better GM in the cap era or walk away. Do that or tell us why the pre cap era is the same challenge for a GM as the cap era.

    Let's see if you have the stones to provide the board with either, Cupcake.

    Muzwell and I have bludgeoned you on this topic and you still don't get it, because you're dumb and ignorant at the same time.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I would say that any GM that did not waste as much in dead money as they paid Wilfork, Mankins and Brady, in cap for 2012,.........was a better GM

    Just imagine who they could have paid, instead of paying players they had to replace because they were garbage.

    Here's your sign...........

    [/QUOTE]

    Any dead money in 2012 was irrelevant considering how LOADED that team last year once BB dealt for Talib.

    If he had dead money to the point of it hurting the team, you'd be correct. But, his team was so well built with 3 superrb drafts in a row, it was utterly irrelevant.

    Brady's 4th target was bargain basement Brandon Lloyd. He had 74 receptions, 4 TDs and 900 yards receiving.  Read that again. That was his FOURTH favorite guy.

    Miami just paid Mike Wallace 13 mil per.  #1 or #2 option for Tannehill....73 receptions, 930 yards and 5 TDs.

    Read it and weep. THAT is bad ROI and REAL dead money, moron.  Get to a college, please. It will not hurt you.

    You will never win this argument because it was over before it ever started.  Go watch SB 42 AND SB 46 and you'll see a QB who wanted to make history on a big stage and make it about him throwing a lot. lol

    There's you answer.

    Enjoy knowing the truth!

    [/QUOTE]


    Dead money is NEVER irrelevant.

    Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!

    Dead money is cap space you should have to spend and DON"T

    2012 Dead money 22.67 M,  Brady's, Wilforks, Mankins cap hit 22.8M.

    What a waste of cap space

    Here's your sign

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Pezz, when are you ever going to get a clue about professional football and team building. I should also add when will you get a clue about living in the real world?

    [/QUOTE]


    A clue?

    What would you know about a clue, rustynila?

    Hey, I have a clue.  How bout you show us how a loss of available cap due to paying players who are no longer on the team, because they were garbage, is a good thing?

    Can you do that, clueless?

    I'll wait.

    [/QUOTE]


    "Dead money is a result of Draft and FA FAILURES!"

    The above is the most ignorant statement uttered in this thread. hence the need for you to get a clue and start living in the real world.

    I don't have too, why don't you list all 31 other teams dead money totals?

    [/QUOTE]


    What, rustynila?

    You are digging a pretty deep hole there.

    Do you even know what DEAD Money is?

    Here's another clue:

    There is any number of ways to judge a National Football League general manager.

    How has he drafted? How has he used free agency? How has his head coach performed? How has he managed the salary cap? Has he secured a franchise quarterback? Has he succeeded in retaining his best players?

    Another way to measure his performance is to look at the amount of "dead money" that appears on his salary cap ledger.

    In some ways, "dead money," or the salary cap charges that count for players no longer on the team, answer many of those aforementioned questions. The more dead money you have, the worse job you've done making good personnel, financial and planning decisions.


    So, rustynila, Do you have a clue?   Apparently not.

    As your big brother, crusty, always says.  Please go to college.  Watch a game.  Study up on NFL cap.

    Do anything other than parroting the village idiot, unless you actually are him.

    There is less and less doubt that you are.

    [/QUOTE]

    In some ways, "dead money," or the salary cap charges that count for players no longer on the team, answer many of those aforementioned questions. The more dead money you have, the worse job you've done making good personnel, financial and planning decisions

    Is also one of the most ignorat statements made on this thread as it doesn't take into consideration career ending injuries, off field problems and ends of careers.

    Yes I do know what dead money is. I also know it is a balancing act to keep the dead money at an acceptable level. You don't seem to undestand that and refuse to see the proof of my facts against your fantasy ravings. So tell me I need to go to college all you want, it shows you know you haven't a leg to stand onand have already lost the argument.

    [/QUOTE]

    No.  You have no leg, rustynila.

    Dead money is the direct result of paying players who are no longer on the team.

    They are no longer on the team because they were given contracts and did not live up to their contracts.  In other words they sucked and so did their contracts.

    Ir'd players are different.  They are still on the team but yes, their salaries have to be paid too.  That is not considered DEAD MONEY!

    DEAD money is drafting and picking up FA failures and giving them contracts and having them SUCK, over and over and over, releasing them and signing new contract to players who also SUCK.  That's how you get excessive DEAD MONEY.

    Last I checked, the average teams DEAD MONEY is about 8M. not F'n 23M.

    Bad, bad teams have dead money in excess of 20M.  The only thing saving them is Brady's cap saving restructures. FACT!

    Get a clue!

    [/QUOTE]

    You might want to look up the real dead money numbers, the ones you are quoting are off by quite a bit.

    Fact is Pats have less than 20M in dead money, considerably less! Heck some of those players actually played for the Pats this year. It can't be dead money if they played for the team.

    You still aren't quoting facts, just fantasy ravings. I knew you wouldn't understand or more likely the truth you don't want to understand because if you did, you would have to admit BB is a better GM than you are.

    Fact is Pats have less than 20M in dead money, considerably less!

    Next time try bringing facts that are facts. Otherwise I might as well say the Pats only have $123.56 in dead money.

    BTW you are still calling me names, a sure sign you lack confidence in your statements. That you know you have lost the argument.

    [/QUOTE]


    Really rustynila.

    So, you're saying the cap sight is lying?

    Do you have a more accurate one?  If so, please link it.

    Fact 2012, 22.7M

    2013 16.7 M

    Next year they have close to 9M already,( That fantastic Hernandez extension) without the season even starting and not beginning to even shed dead weight yet.. 

    You lose again.

    Players that were on the team were cut and re-signed where their original contract created dead money. DUH  Too bad you didn't know that.

    Now, go play in the sand box like a good little rusty clone.

    Either that or grow up and admit dead money is a problem for this team.  Because it is.

    The truth shall set you free.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Patriots Contracts

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    SO STUPID

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

    Re: Patriots Contracts


    this page is why I started a thread asking to delete comments already responded to... i just got a headache. this is rediculous

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share