Ron Brace waived

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

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    Is it OK to call him a BUST now?  

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

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    I wouldn't mind seeing what Fortson can do.  Maybe he'll be in the mix come playoff time?

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

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    In response to WazzuWheatfarmer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I wouldn't mind seeing what Fortson can do.  Maybe he'll be in the mix come playoff time?

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't they activated him to the roster, but I'd like to see what he can do too. Perhaps it's a bit too late in the year to have a rookie come in and play, but he can't be any worse than Brace.

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

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    If he had not been drafted so high he would never have made the roster the past seasons most likely.

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

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    The ONLY reason he hung around as lone as he did was the fact that he was a second rounder......and yes...a wasted pick from day one.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ytsejamer1. Show Ytsejamer1's posts

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    In response to pats-fan-2007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A waste of a roster spot. Should have kept Jeff Demps instead.

    Seems like everyone else but the Pats knew Brace couldn't play.

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm wondering why they're still wasting their time and effort with Myron Pryor.  Talk about a guy who can't even get TO the field...let alone stay on it.  As for Brace...it's about time they released him.  He can't stay healthy and when he was on the field, he didn't make much of an impact at all.

    Someone will bring him in as a camp body, but I'm almost positive he'll likely wash out...at that point he might bounce around a few practice squads for depth purposes.

    Regarding Demps...they should have put him on IR with designation to return.  Unless they saw something longer term that he needed to get over or improve upon, he'd have been perfect.  Instead they wasted it on a guy who never really got a chance to get on the field and the one or two plays he was in, didn't do anything.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    In response to Paul_K's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The front office has to answer two questions:

    --  Is this guy worth anything more to us this season?

    Brace will stay injured for the next five weeks. 

    --  Do we have any rights on him next season and beyond?

    As a 2009 pick, Brace should be a free agent next season.  He's not at all a franchise player.  Simply by having his name associated with "Patriots", Brace will command twice elsewhere whatever he's worth to the Patriots, whether he's healthy or not, whether he's any good next year or not.

    [/QUOTE]


    Good post, sums it up

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    this really sucks since he is a MA guy, but deaderick and francis have been playing well....and that coupled with the fact that cunningham is back, makes this move make sense.

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

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    this really sucks since he is a MA guy, but deaderick and francis have been playing well....and that coupled with the fact that cunningham is back, makes this move make sense.

    [/QUOTE]

    Fortson is strong, young and cheap... that means Brace isn't getting a contract.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Frank158. Show Frank158's posts

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    That entire draft class was among the worst of Bill's career.  I can't see Chung being around after this year.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Frank158. Show Frank158's posts

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not true.

    Vollmer, when healthy, is the most dominant RT in the game right now, Edelman is a great little jack of all trades player and Chung showed his value last year when he returned from injury late in the year.   Pryor's injury problems are also maddening, because he's showed great strides in 2010 before, yep, getting hurt.

    Again, health has been the issue with that draft.  BB trading back in 2009 into the deepest draft in 25 years, netted us Gronkowski, too. Gee, Clay Matthews, or loading up to maneuver to eventually get Gronk? No brainer.

    The draft will forever be known as the injury bug draft. Good draft, but the injury bug has deflated its overall impact.

    The worst of Bill's career is 2006. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Sure, Volmer & Edelman are good players.  That's two of twelve.  Of 5 or 6 top three round picks, I think one or two were more than passable.  A lot of good players came out of the 2009 draft.  2010s was better, but only marginally when starters attained and awards are concerned. 

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Frank158. Show Frank158's posts

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Did you just say 2010's draft was "marginally" better than 2009's?

    LOL!

    Welcome, Troll!

    [/QUOTE]

    Again with asking me what I just posted?  You know you can just read it again, right?

    Yes, I did and I said why I thought so.  How would you measure such things?  Thinking that the 2009/ 2010 draft talent level was not as huge as you say it was makes someone a troll?  That's interesting.  

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Frank158. Show Frank158's posts

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Frank158's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Did you just say 2010's draft was "marginally" better than 2009's?

    LOL!

    Welcome, Troll!

    [/QUOTE]

    Again with asking me what I just posted?  You know you can just read it again, right?

    Yes, I did and I said why I thought so.  How would you measure such things?  Thinking that the 2009/ 2010 draft talent level was not as huge as you say it was makes someone a troll?  That's interesting.  

    [/QUOTE]


    Why did you use the word "marginally"?

    Answer that for us. If 2009's draft didn't turn out as well as hoped, why would 2010's incredible yield only be "marginally" better?

    Hmm?

    [/QUOTE]

    Our draft was a lot better, primarily because of using our first round pick and getting two great TEs, drafted below their talent level due to concerns.  League wide, it was not nearly as much of a discrepency.  Why do you think that the 2010 draft was so incredible league wide?

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    I love these draft debates, this year vs. that year.  Very funny.  The reality is, no matter what they did in any year, without lucking out on Tom Brady, they would have ZERO super bowl rings.  He has covered the Pats butts on a whole list of mistakes.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Frank158. Show Frank158's posts

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Frank158's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Frank158's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Did you just say 2010's draft was "marginally" better than 2009's?

    LOL!

    Welcome, Troll!

    [/QUOTE]

    Again with asking me what I just posted?  You know you can just read it again, right?

    Yes, I did and I said why I thought so.  How would you measure such things?  Thinking that the 2009/ 2010 draft talent level was not as huge as you say it was makes someone a troll?  That's interesting.  

    [/QUOTE]


    Why did you use the word "marginally"?

    Answer that for us. If 2009's draft didn't turn out as well as hoped, why would 2010's incredible yield only be "marginally" better?

    Hmm?

    [/QUOTE]

    Our draft was a lot better, primarily because of using our first round pick and getting two great TEs, drafted below their talent level due to concerns.  League wide, it was not nearly as much of a discrepency.  Why do you think that the 2010 draft was so incredible league wide?

    [/QUOTE]


    Ok, so now you're moving away from "marginally" after I picked up on it? Ok, I give you credit for at least changing your adjective to "a lot better".

    It was the deepest draft in 25 years by most accounts, but the difference is, BB had two picks in the first 3 rds, which basically doubled everyone else's.

    I might be mistaken, but I am pretty sure no other GM had 2 picks per round from 1-3. This, effectively, allowed BB to control the board. So, if he's controlling the board, how is that not great in that situation? In other words, I am glad he loaded up in 2010, trading out of 2009.

    And, I defy you to show me a better yield in 2010.

    He also pulled a couple nice complementary UDFA pieces in Love and Dane Fletcher.

    Quick side note: I've noticed some fans in here bashing Kyle Love this year. Not to make excuses, but to be fair, he's been battling a knee sprain most of year. This has allowed other guys like Cunningham, Francis and Deaderick to get more looks, which rests Love a bit and gives those guys more reps for better depth up front in the long run (playoffs).

    Nothing to knock.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Listen here, pal, if you are going to play this silly little game of jumping on what adjectives I use to try to try prove some point that you refuse to provide any real backup for, then I'll file you away to the same place that it seems every other person here has, as irrelevant.

    Never mind reading my posts, read your own posts where you ask what it is that I just wrote while copying the text of exactly what I wrote.  I said that the 2010 draft was marginally better than the 2009 draft.  I then said that OUR 2010 draft was a lot better than out 2009 draft.  This is not true league wide.  Unlike yourself, I gave reasons for both.  You say things like "by most accounts" , I say things like league awards and number of starters. Which is more quantifiable?  Where are these accounts that have discussed the greatness of the 2010 draft after the players have played a snap or two?

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Frank158. Show Frank158's posts

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Frank158's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Frank158's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Frank158's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Did you just say 2010's draft was "marginally" better than 2009's?

    LOL!

    Welcome, Troll!

    [/QUOTE]

    Again with asking me what I just posted?  You know you can just read it again, right?

    Yes, I did and I said why I thought so.  How would you measure such things?  Thinking that the 2009/ 2010 draft talent level was not as huge as you say it was makes someone a troll?  That's interesting.  

    [/QUOTE]


    Why did you use the word "marginally"?

    Answer that for us. If 2009's draft didn't turn out as well as hoped, why would 2010's incredible yield only be "marginally" better?

    Hmm?

    [/QUOTE]

    Our draft was a lot better, primarily because of using our first round pick and getting two great TEs, drafted below their talent level due to concerns.  League wide, it was not nearly as much of a discrepency.  Why do you think that the 2010 draft was so incredible league wide?

    [/QUOTE]


    Ok, so now you're moving away from "marginally" after I picked up on it? Ok, I give you credit for at least changing your adjective to "a lot better".

    It was the deepest draft in 25 years by most accounts, but the difference is, BB had two picks in the first 3 rds, which basically doubled everyone else's.

    I might be mistaken, but I am pretty sure no other GM had 2 picks per round from 1-3. This, effectively, allowed BB to control the board. So, if he's controlling the board, how is that not great in that situation? In other words, I am glad he loaded up in 2010, trading out of 2009.

    And, I defy you to show me a better yield in 2010.

    He also pulled a couple nice complementary UDFA pieces in Love and Dane Fletcher.

    Quick side note: I've noticed some fans in here bashing Kyle Love this year. Not to make excuses, but to be fair, he's been battling a knee sprain most of year. This has allowed other guys like Cunningham, Francis and Deaderick to get more looks, which rests Love a bit and gives those guys more reps for better depth up front in the long run (playoffs).

    Nothing to knock.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Listen here, pal, if you are going to play this silly little game of jumping on what adjectives I use to try to try prove some point that you refuse to provide any real backup for, then I'll file you away to the same place that it seems every other person here has, as irrelevant.

    Never mind reading my posts, read your own posts where you ask what it is that I just wrote while copying the text of exactly what I wrote.  I said that the 2010 draft was marginally better than the 2009 draft.  I then said that OUR 2010 draft was a lot better than out 2009 draft.  This is not true league wide.  Unlike yourself, I gave reasons for both.  You say things like "by most accounts" , I say things like league awards and number of starters. Which is more quantifiable?  Where are these accounts that have discussed the greatness of the 2010 draft after the players have played a snap or two?

    [/QUOTE]

    What?

    This is your attempt to spin out?   You JUST said the 2010 draft was deep that every NFL team yielded good drafts.

    If that;s the case, post which teams you feel had good ones and then compare it to BB's 2010.

    Yes, you said "marginally" and you likely picked that word for a reason.  Regardless, you're wrong on both counts.  BB's NE draft in 2010 was outstanding, better than 2009s by A LOT, as was the depth of the talent pool in 2010 as compared to 2009's.

    So, you're wrong.  Factually wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's like talking to a wall. I'm not sure if you can't read or are just argumentative.  

    And no I did not say that every NFL team yielded good drafts in 2010.

    Read again or have someone read it to you.

    I said that the 2010 draft was marginally better than the 2009 draft.  Notice I did not say our draft or any other specific  team's draft.  The draft as a whole was marginally better in 2010 compared to 2009.  This is factual because there was only a slight increase in starters found in the draft, players sticking with their teams and awards given to players of that draft.

    I said that our draft was a lot better in 2010 than it was in 2009.  This is true because we got more starters, better starters and hit on a far better percentage of our picks.  One reason for this is that we not only used our first round pick in 2010, but we gambled and won on a couple of players that were rated far better than where we drafted them.

    These scenarios are not true league wide.  Some teams drafted better in 2009 than in 2010, got more starters and a better percentage stuck with their team.  The fact that we bombed the 2009 draft is not proof that 2009 was some kind of historically bad draft year any more than our good draft in 2010 is proof that it was the deepest draft in 20 years.  These things are easily shown through review of what has actually happened in the NFL, how the players have played and what success or lack of they have had.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Frank158. Show Frank158's posts

    Re: Ron Brace waived

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Frank158's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Frank158's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Frank158's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Frank158's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Did you just say 2010's draft was "marginally" better than 2009's?

    LOL!

    Welcome, Troll!

    [/QUOTE]

    Again with asking me what I just posted?  You know you can just read it again, right?

    Yes, I did and I said why I thought so.  How would you measure such things?  Thinking that the 2009/ 2010 draft talent level was not as huge as you say it was makes someone a troll?  That's interesting.  

    [/QUOTE]


    Why did you use the word "marginally"?

    Answer that for us. If 2009's draft didn't turn out as well as hoped, why would 2010's incredible yield only be "marginally" better?

    Hmm?

    [/QUOTE]

    Our draft was a lot better, primarily because of using our first round pick and getting two great TEs, drafted below their talent level due to concerns.  League wide, it was not nearly as much of a discrepency.  Why do you think that the 2010 draft was so incredible league wide?

    [/QUOTE]


    Ok, so now you're moving away from "marginally" after I picked up on it? Ok, I give you credit for at least changing your adjective to "a lot better".

    It was the deepest draft in 25 years by most accounts, but the difference is, BB had two picks in the first 3 rds, which basically doubled everyone else's.

    I might be mistaken, but I am pretty sure no other GM had 2 picks per round from 1-3. This, effectively, allowed BB to control the board. So, if he's controlling the board, how is that not great in that situation? In other words, I am glad he loaded up in 2010, trading out of 2009.

    And, I defy you to show me a better yield in 2010.

    He also pulled a couple nice complementary UDFA pieces in Love and Dane Fletcher.

    Quick side note: I've noticed some fans in here bashing Kyle Love this year. Not to make excuses, but to be fair, he's been battling a knee sprain most of year. This has allowed other guys like Cunningham, Francis and Deaderick to get more looks, which rests Love a bit and gives those guys more reps for better depth up front in the long run (playoffs).

    Nothing to knock.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Listen here, pal, if you are going to play this silly little game of jumping on what adjectives I use to try to try prove some point that you refuse to provide any real backup for, then I'll file you away to the same place that it seems every other person here has, as irrelevant.

    Never mind reading my posts, read your own posts where you ask what it is that I just wrote while copying the text of exactly what I wrote.  I said that the 2010 draft was marginally better than the 2009 draft.  I then said that OUR 2010 draft was a lot better than out 2009 draft.  This is not true league wide.  Unlike yourself, I gave reasons for both.  You say things like "by most accounts" , I say things like league awards and number of starters. Which is more quantifiable?  Where are these accounts that have discussed the greatness of the 2010 draft after the players have played a snap or two?

    [/QUOTE]

    What?

    This is your attempt to spin out?   You JUST said the 2010 draft was deep that every NFL team yielded good drafts.

    If that;s the case, post which teams you feel had good ones and then compare it to BB's 2010.

    Yes, you said "marginally" and you likely picked that word for a reason.  Regardless, you're wrong on both counts.  BB's NE draft in 2010 was outstanding, better than 2009s by A LOT, as was the depth of the talent pool in 2010 as compared to 2009's.

    So, you're wrong.  Factually wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's like talking to a wall. I'm not sure if you can't read or are just argumentative.  

    And no I did not say that every NFL team yielded good drafts in 2010.

    Read again or have someone read it to you.

    I said that the 2010 draft was marginally better than the 2009 draft.  Notice I did not say our draft or any other specific  team's draft.  The draft as a whole was marginally better in 2010 compared to 2009.  This is factual because there was only a slight increase in starters found in the draft, players sticking with their teams and awards given to players of that draft.

    I said that our draft was a lot better in 2010 than it was in 2009.  This is true because we got more starters, better starters and hit on a far better percentage of our picks.  One reason for this is that we not only used our first round pick in 2010, but we gambled and won on a couple of players that were rated far better than where we drafted them.

    These scenarios are not true league wide.  Some teams drafted better in 2009 than in 2010, got more starters and a better percentage stuck with their team.  The fact that we bombed the 2009 draft is not proof that 2009 was some kind of historically bad draft year any more than our good draft in 2010 is proof that it was the deepest draft in 20 years.  These things are easily shown through review of what has actually happened in the NFL, how the players have played and what success or lack of they have had.

    [/QUOTE]


    I read it. You're wrong. The 2010 draft was the deepest draft since 1983. Period.  To say somehow 2009's came close in depth, is factually incorrect.

    Look at the UDFAs alone and how teams had a plethora of 2010 UDFAs available to them, as compared to 2009.

    Why?  Deeper draft. ALso, many Juniors left early from college in 2010. Why? Because their agents told them to, in order to avoid the new CBA's rookie cap of 2011.   Your analysis is incorrect.

    You're wrong. Don't try to escape it now, because you're wrong even if you decided to change your board name to something else to troll here out of the blue.

    Finally, we didn't "bomb" in the 2009 draft.  It is bad luck, however, that the good draft it could have been is tied to literally every player being injury prone. The selections reflect well based on talent and need at the time.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You continuing to say that the 2010 draft was the deepest since 1983 does not make it any more true than it was earlier today.  Brash statements such as that warrant proof.  Where is yours? 

    Put your money where your mouth is.  If the 2010 draft was the deepest draft in 25 years, then it would make sense that more starters came from that draft, more players stuck with the team that drafted them, there were more pro bowl, all pro, etc etc from that draft than any other in the last 25 years.  Is this your belief?  Or do you want to leave it at your continued unsubstantiated comment without a shred of proof of it was the deepest draft because you say it was.

     

Share