Pitt can't match...unless

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

     

    Rusty is only person alive that doesn't think the Pats defense's inability to get key stops hasn't hurt them in the Superbowl loses. Nink's off side penalty on 3rd down could be easily pinpointed as the that cost them a Superbowl.

     



    That's pretty much up there with the Welker drop/Brady throw play.  That was key at a critical time.

     




    BINGO!!  But Burger man will have an excuse how that wasn't a big deal.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     



    Bill Belichick, waiting in the weeds . . .

     

     

     




    barracuda?

     




    Muskellunge (Muskie for short)

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

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to jri37's comment:

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to jri37's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to jri37's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to jri37's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:

     

    The Pats offered Emmanuel Sanders a 1 year 2.5 million dollar contract to steal him from AFC rival Pittsburgh Steelers, but the ball is in Pittsburgh's court as they now have a chance to match the Pats offer. To retain Sanders, Pitt has to be willing to pay that 2.5 mill...

     

    Here's where the genius of Bill Belichick sets in, Pitt only has 1.9 million in free cap space. We'll know if Pitt wants Samuel or not, they'll have to cut someone or restructure someone's contract. 

     

    In other words...BB > Pitt...as usual.

     




    I think the genius is that he's not doing a multi year deal. If he did, Pitt might be able to make it work easier.

     

    That's the genius.

    This is what Tony Mazz and Felger don't get. They kept whining with those high pitched voices all afternoon yesterday, but BB won't be throwing a 3rd to sign Sanders to 1 year here. If he offered a multi year deal, Pitt coud spread it out and maybe handle another roster mover after 2013.

    BB has the screws put to Colbert right now and RKrap andMt Puuke still don't get it.

    If they do get him, which the more time goes by, it appears they will, BB will then extend Sanders to a 3 or 4 year deal in camp or before the season starts.

    That way he controls the contract. At least, that is the hope. Sanders will get a signiifcant raise, long term security, etc.

    What you're seeing now with Pitt, the Giants, Ravens, etc, essentially all these GMs that peopl have been saying are better than BB, are cleary not better in terms of salary allocation, reading markets, etc. Not even close.

    Can you imagine if BB had drafted Mike Wallace or had a good WR that was needed what was drafted 3 years ago, who are now gone, simply because of poor salary allocation?  This board would be asking for him to resign.

    This is exactly the kind of stuff I've been talking about with BB in recent years. He has leverage to pick and choose who he wants in FA in 2013 and 2014.

    Utter genius.

     



    NUMBER OF CHAMPIONSHIPS SINCE 2005:

     

    GIANTS 2

    STEELERS 2

    RAVENS 1

    PATS 0

     



    There is only one defending champ... that would be the Ravens... so unless you are a ravens fan you have no gloating rights troll. BTW, did the NYG even make the playoffs last year?

     

     




    as usual u missed the point

     

     




     

    No I didn't miss any point... the reason you are here is because you are a snarky, smarmy, slimy, gloating troll.

     




    nope just talking football and when we talk 42 and 46 it involves my team

     

    i am just offering a little perspective to Rusty's and i never bring up my team unless people like u denigrate and disparage them then i defend my team but otherwise i stay on topic

    and i am NOT slimy! i shower everyday

     



     based on this response we can add self absorbed.

     

     




    i shower every day!

     

     




     

    And now we can add clueless



    Southern ct baby.    Thinks barracuda live in Canada too.  Ha ha. Survivor, last one to leave the island.   Tell us again about how you don't gloat.   

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

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    Just an interesting thought, the term waiting in the weeds comes from how big game cats stalk their prey; typically referring to the lions. It means being patient and waiting for your prey to come to you. However, in most cases including the lion, the prey is the weakest, sickest, or oldest of the herd and is specifically picked out because they are the easiest to obtain with minimal effort and less risk of injury during take down.... that kind of sounds like BB's strategy so I guess that's an appropiate saying. Personally I wish he took more of the Cowboy approach and just bring a gun and shoot whatever prey he wants whenever he wants instead of waiting in the weeds for the herd to thin

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    I think it's " laying in the weeds, waiting to pounce". 

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

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    The Pats get in the big games and they are out coached and beaten by more all around talented teams.  They can't put it all on TFB's shoulders.  Montana couldn't do it all himself, he was surrounded by talent.  Elway couldn't do it all himself, he didn't win SB's until he had good talent around him.  Name me 1 QB who won a SB without talent around him?  It's no secret, the Patriots are praised year in and year out to be very good with less talented teams, but it catches up to them in the big games when they face more all around talented teams.  Sure injuries hurt the Pats in big games but it's part of the game, gotta be prepared for that.  Who's shoulders does that fall on? 



    People on this board have no idea what an untalented team looks like.  We haven't had one in years.  This lack of talent thing is just stupid.  Look every team (even ones that win the SB) have rosters that can be upgraded.  It is part of the game in the salary cap era.  Let's consider the last SB against the Giants.  I would argue the Patriots had a more talented QB, OL and TE corps.  The Giants had a more talented DL and WR and RB corps (Ridley might have had as much talent as a dinged up Bradshaw, but BJGE was the starter at that point).  The Giant's secondary was practically as bad as ours that season and their linebacking corps was nothing special and certainly wasn't head and shoulders above ours.  I mean christ we had 4 players make an all-pro team and the Giants had 2.  They won the game, but not because they were more talented.  If we had more talent would we have won?  Sure, but that is a dumb argument.   You can always have more talent and the 2011 team did not lose because the Giants had more.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share