Pats Still Have Credibility

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

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Pats Still Have Credibility:
    As a bonus, check out the priceless bits of Ron Borges' buffoonery contained the the following article: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/05/04/seymour-helped-push-gerard-warren-to-new-england/      LOL!!! 
    Posted by TexasPat3


    Priceless: David Terrell or Koren Robinson or Kenyatta Walker VS Big Sey... Even as a bunch they were not half the player Big Sey was (is?). Muuuuuaahahahahahaaa
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    At least Borges went on record and he shows the distaste for Patriot football even back then.  How did he ever get a gig with the Globe is beyond me.  I guess all we have to do is look at the clowns that are there now.  The motto:  "Eat your own!".   Imagine a peer calling you out like that.

    With hope Warren can resurrect his career here with the Pats.  It'll be the first time he's had decent coaching. 

    The Pats still have some respect out there when the odds in Vegas have them as one of the fav's to win/go to the SB.  Vegas says it all because it's about money and not fans or the medias opinion.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jerh5. Show jerh5's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

      That was funny!  Borges, just go away, and take Breer with you.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    These two guys should get together and write a novel here's a working title: The Plagarist and the Moron,fighting the good fight.....These two guys borrowed their English degrees from dead people,as there is no other viable explanation as to how either of them were ever hired to arlicitate their thoughts on a daily basis for any kind of compensation. Neither one has a connection to the Patriots as they both have acheived Personna Non Gratis status,or in other words they are harbringers of deadbeat beat writers. With no source high enough up on the food chain to learn anything of substance about the team they cover.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility:
    These two guys should get together and write a novel here's a working title: The Plagarist and the Moron,fighting the good fight.....These two guys borrowed their English degrees from dead people,as there is no other viable explanation as to how either of them were ever hired to arlicitate their thoughts on a daily basis for any kind of compensation. Neither one has a connection to the Patriots as they both have acheived Personna Non Gratis status,or in other words they are harbringers of deadbeat beat writers. With no source high enough up on the food chain to learn anything of substance about the team they cover.
    Posted by sportsbozo1


    I'm not getting how you feel about these guy's. You need to learn how to express yourself!  Wink
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hagen910. Show hagen910's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    heres the quote

    On a day when they could have had impact players David Terrell or Koren Robinson or the second-best tackle in the draft in Kenyatta Walker, they took Georgia defensive tackle Richard Seymour, who had 1 sacks last season in the pass-happy SEC and is too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end," Borges wrote. 

    "This genius move was followed by trading out of a spot where they could have gotten the last decent receiver in Robert Ferguson and settled for tackle Matt Light, who will not help any time soon."
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DogenHanda. Show DogenHanda's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    The Plagiarist vs. the Moron.....the hack writers' version of Alien vs. Predator, or Freddy vs. Jason......what did NE do to deserve not one but two incredibly bad writers....
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    When a fan writes this headline, doesn't it mean that the opposite is actually true?  

    I accept that I may eat my words, but that's not really the point. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Pats Still Have Credibility:
         Gerard Warren, formerly of the Oakland Raiders, credits none other than Richard Seymour for steering him to the Patriots. As a bonus, check out the priceless bits of Ron Borges' buffoonery contained the the following article: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/05/04/seymour-helped-push-gerard-warren-to-new-england/      LOL!!! 
    Posted by TexasPat3


    Nice..I love it when a writer actually goes back and fact checks another writer.
    As for seymour I have always been of the belief that these EX-Pat players are kind of like spurned lovers that are kind of hurt when they don't get resigned or traded. They are all kind of valuable peices of the puzzle but you can't pay them all. Good to hear that he hasn't got that much hate left in him.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from DogenHanda. Show DogenHanda's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility:
    When a fan writes this headline, doesn't it mean that the opposite is actually true?   I accept that I may eat my words, but that's not really the point. 
    Posted by underdoggg



    It all depends on your perspective as a fan and even within the broad divides of fan perspective (as it refers to the headline) the issue can be split even further (which is why fan forums were developed...LOL).

    For example: if you are a Pats fan, it can be broadly taken to mean (among other things):

    1/ The team may have slipped somewhat but it still has credibility in terms of being a playoff team with a shot at winning a Super Bowl. Or

    2/ The team may not be seen as credible by many fans who are loath to admit it and are hoping that the 2010 draft is the beginning of a comeback to what Pats have been used to over the past decade. Or

    3/ The fans that feel no loss in team credibility: "O thou of little faith....go ahead and scorn the Pats"....when the regular season comes around we'll show the world once again that the BB/TB tandem is still a force to be reckoned with in the NFL.

    Like I said, it all depends on your given perspective as a fan: pro- or anti-Patriot.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility:
    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility : Umm, is it 350th or 35th?   I had no idea there are 350+ teams in the NFL. If it's the latter (which I am assuming you know there aren't 350 teams in the NFL...lol), Corky, this means out of 64 max possible starting DTs (not counting a team that uses a 3-4), Warren was middle of the pack on an awful team. Not as bad as you paint it out to be.  As usual.  Any time you can add quality depth, something the Jets have no idea about, it's a good move. Good day, dork.
    Posted by russgriswold


    Rusty - Bjeuss is correct.  Warren was ranked 368 in tackles in the league with 35 tackles last year.  there were 367 players in the league that had more tackles than him.  He was actually ranked 32th in tackles as either a DT/NT.  According to Pat Kirwan, 13 of 32 teams employed the 3-4.  That suggests 51 starting NT/DT's.  Warren is definitely in the bottom half, but closer to the middle.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility:
    He needs to learn to communicate because he didn't type it like that. Very misleading and that is why he did that.   So, I was correct in stating that Warren was a middle of the pack DT based on tackle totals.  I find it funny he puts out 368 as a number to make it seem so awful, when Warren played on a crappy team, yet Warren is actually ranked in the middle.  lol Bargain pick up, hungry veteran who never played on a good team in his entire career. Depth and possible impact complementary player.  Sounds like a smart signing to me. I wonder what Keith Traylor's numbers were in the 2003 season?
    Posted by russgriswold


    Couple of thoughts here:

    1.  You say he did not communicate well, but I understood it perfectly.  You may have been reading it the way you wanted to rather than the way it was written.

    2.  Regarding his middle of the pack rank, he is 32 of 51.  That puts him in the 63rd percentile - Much closer to the bottom 3rd than the middle of the 2nd third. 

    3.  You will have no way of knowing whether or not he was a good pick up or not until he plays for the pats.  For whatever it is worth, the other starting D Tackle for the Raiders had 55 tackles.  A third D Tackle who did not start one game had 32 tackles. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility:
    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility : Couple of thoughts here: 1.  You say he did not communicate well, but I understood it perfectly.  You may have been reading it the way you wanted to rather than the way it was written. 2.  Regarding his middle of the pack rank, he is 32 of 51.  That puts him in the 63rd percentile - Much closer to the bottom 3rd than the middle of the 2nd third.  3.  You will have no way of knowing whether or not he was a good pick up or not until he plays for the pats.  For whatever it is worth, the other starting D Tackle for the Raiders had 55 tackles.  A third D Tackle who did not start one game had 32 tackles. 
    Posted by underdoggg


    Of course this is ALL misleading because if your really good at stuffing the run, teams will RUN AWAY FROM YOU, so you would have LESS tackles not more.  Not saying this was the case but # of tackles means nothing.

    A more accurate measure would be # of plays Warren was on the field, # of times the ball was run in his direction, # of tackles, # of misses or times he was blocked.

    Its the same thing when you have a shut down corner and he has no interceptions and few passes defended.  It isnt because he stinks, its because he is SO GOOD THEY AVOID HIS SIDE OF THE FIELD.

    Now im not saying Warren is an ALL pro or anything but just looking at # of tackles in no way to judge his effectiveness. 

    Another thought is isnt it the job of the DT and DL (especially in the PATS system, not sure about Oaklands) to take up the blockers and let the linebackers fill the holes and make tackles?  So again in this instance, tackles would be meaningless stat to track his effectiveness.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    Nice jobe Patsman2.

    We all know that you can pick and choose and otherwise manipulate statistics to support whatever outlandish claim you care to make, but apparently it is still necesssary to come right out and say it once in a while.


     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility:
    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility : Of course this is ALL misleading because if your really good at stuffing the run, teams will RUN AWAY FROM YOU, so you would have LESS tackles not more.  Not saying this was the case but # of tackles means nothing. A more accurate measure would be # of plays Warren was on the field, # of times the ball was run in his direction, # of tackles, # of misses or times he was blocked. Its the same thing when you have a shut down corner and he has no interceptions and few passes defended.  It isnt because he stinks, its because he is SO GOOD THEY AVOID HIS SIDE OF THE FIELD. Now im not saying Warren is an ALL pro or anything but just looking at # of tackles in no way to judge his effectiveness.  Another thought is isnt it the job of the DT and DL (especially in the PATS system, not sure about Oaklands) to take up the blockers and let the linebackers fill the holes and make tackles?  So again in this instance, tackles would be meaningless stat to track his effectiveness.
    Posted by Patsman2


         Patsman and All:

         Dog(gg) and the Jets' stooges are just trolls being trolls. None of us know how effective Warren will be. But, he appears to be a good pick-up.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility:
    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility : Couple of thoughts here: 1.  You say he did not communicate well, but I understood it perfectly.  You may have been reading it the way you wanted to rather than the way it was written. 2.  Regarding his middle of the pack rank, he is 32 of 51.  That puts him in the 63rd percentile - Much closer to the bottom 3rd than the middle of the 2nd third.  3.  You will have no way of knowing whether or not he was a good pick up or not until he plays for the pats.  For whatever it is worth, the other starting D Tackle for the Raiders had 55 tackles.  A third D Tackle who did not start one game had 32 tackles. 
    Posted by underdoggg


    1. Regardless of who had how many tackles that was not the point of the thread.  It is not about Warren being great, it's about that he wanted to come to the Pats because he heard good things, from Seymour surprisingly.

    2.  Counting tackles from a DT is borderline retarded, you have to go into the hundreds just to find a DT on the list.  Why not count how many sacks a CB has, makes about as much sense.  There's a way to measure how good he is, it takes alot of time and watching video which none of us has done.  Not to mention that's not the position he will play in a 3-4 so the point would be moot if it wasn't already pointless.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility:
    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility :      Patsman and All:      Dog(gg) and the Jets' stooges are just trolls being trolls. None of us know how effective Warren will be. But, he appears to be a good pick-up.
    Posted by TexasPat3


    See this is a ridiculous post, but why be surprised. 

    TP apes the exact same thing I said which is that no one knows yet if the pick up was good but claims I am being a troll for saying such.   
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility:
    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility : 1. Regardless of who had how many tackles that was not the point of the thread.  It is not about Warren being great, it's about that he wanted to come to the Pats because he heard good things, from Seymour surprisingly. 2.  Counting tackles from a DT is borderline retarded, you have to go into the hundreds just to find a DT on the list.  Why not count how many sacks a CB has, makes about as much sense.  There's a way to measure how good he is, it takes alot of time and watching video which none of us has done.  Not to mention that's not the position he will play in a 3-4 so the point would be moot if it wasn't already pointless.
    Posted by shenanigan


    Shen, Rusty called out Bjeuss' stats.  I simply backed the stats up.  I made no statement as to whether or not this meant Warren was good.  In fact, you will note that I said there is no way yet to know whether or not Warren will be good for the pats.  Get on Bjeuss if you prefer, but don't bash me for simply defending the fact that the stats were correct.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility:
    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility : Shen, Rusty called out Bjeuss' stats.  I simply backed the stats up.  I made no statement as to whether or not this meant Warren was good.  In fact, you will note that I said there is no way yet to know whether or not Warren will be good for the pats.  Get on Bjeuss if you prefer, but don't bash me for simply defending the fact that the stats were correct.
    Posted by underdoggg


    Why would you back up a meaningless stat?  Why wouldnt you just say it doesnt matter if its 35 or 350 or 50th or 62 percentile its meaningless. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

         Here's an article on Gerard Warren: http://patsblog.projo.com/2010/05/gerard-warren-w.html
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility:
         Here's an article on Gerard Warren: http://patsblog.projo.com/2010/05/gerard-warren-w.html
    Posted by TexasPat3


    He sounds motivated. Singing the same tune that Moss and Dillon sung. I hope the results are the same.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    Last year Warren was middle-of-the-NFL in pass rush situations, which is a serviceable rating.  However, he was horrid in run situations.  If I were BB I'd save him for the third and long subpackage, a down where he can help the team.  Against running situations or against running teams like the Jets, Fins and Bills, I'd go with the Ron Brace we saw in weeks 15 and 16, Wilfork, Ty Warren and possibly Brandon Deaderick in a 4-3, or anybody else on the roster but this guy.  If Gerard Warren admits that he was playing injured last year and he's gotten better, give him a tryout against the running game in preseason.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility:
    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility : Why would you back up a meaningless stat?  Why wouldnt you just say it doesnt matter if its 35 or 350 or 50th or 62 percentile its meaningless. 
    Posted by Patsman2


    Are stats meaningless?  I am sure Pmike would like to weigh in on the subject.  I certainly agree that stats can be found to demonstrate whatever point of view you wish, but I wouldn't say that makes them meaningless. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    Statistics aren't meaningless in the proper context. They can serve a purpose. But starting with a premise and then selectively presenting narrow statistics that appear to support your predawn conclusion renders them ineffective as a crux of your argument. The same way you concluding that my continually pointing out that statistics are routinely manipulated to buttress points that they don't actually support -- as in the argument presented above -- implies that I believe all statistics are meaningless.


    You know better than that.



     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Pats Still Have Credibility

    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility:
    In Response to Re: Pats Still Have Credibility : Are stats meaningless?  I am sure Pmike would like to weigh in on the subject.  I certainly agree that stats can be found to demonstrate whatever point of view you wish, but I wouldn't say that makes them meaningless. 
    Posted by underdoggg

    I like how you play the antagonist and then act like you are completely innocent.  My daughter likes to get my son all wound up and tease him until he screams, then when I tell them to stop, she says "I wasn't screaming, it was him."  To which I say "you're right, it's completely his fault" and then I ground him for a week.
     

Share