Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

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

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to jedinate's comment:

    Not all rookies have to suck either: Anquan Boldin had 101 catches for 1,337 yard his rookie year. With Jeff Blake at QB... 



    Heck, Terry Glenn had 90 catches for 1132 yards his rookie season... Of course, he was a top 10 pick. Boldin to Dobson should be a fair comparison 54th pick vs 59th pick.

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

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    Rookies wide receiver from Texans, has 114 yards yesterday to bail out the Texans in the final drive.

    my 2 cents

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:

    IF people want to complain about what the WR corps is, then please show me what you expected out of a couple of rookies, 1 and 2 games into their careers, respectively.

    Did you expect Calvin Johnson? He of a 48 catch rookie season?

    I can only imagine how Bungles fans reacted after AJ Green's 1 catch opening performance.

    Julio Jones, all those picks to move up and get him? 54 catches in his rookie year. 5 in game one, which probably means the rest of the season was a letdown since he averaged less than that per game, over 12. Yes, 12, because he missed 4 in the middle of the season. I know, injuries in the NFL? Who-da-thunk-it!

    People seem to have disturbingly unrealistic expectations, and a sickening level of entitlement.

    This TEAM and this FRANCHISE does not revolve around any single player. I don't care if God himself floats down and dons a Pats jersey. Even he wouldn't have the right to make demands of the coach and team like some around here would like to, and want to see Brady do.

    Once upon a time, this ENTIRE TEAM had to redo the offense to accomodate a backup QB who was young and couldn't do all the things his predecessor could. Worked out ok, no? So maybe, just maybe...we can have some fking patience for these kids too!




     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     

    His story is greater than his results? Please explain.

    I thought his results are his story, that they're one and the same? You are what your record says you are, right? His record says he's alright.

     




    Story:  Greatest GM of the cap era.  Greatest GM ever.  Amazing GM.  Blah blah blah

     

    Results:  No Superbowl wins in almost 10 years.



    By that insane standard, 95% of current NFL head coaches and GMs are garbage. Apparently, it's a league run by morons. Interesting that you enjoy it at all.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Hey Ma6dragon. I don't think anyone here expects the rookies to play out-of-this-world. If they do, they are being unrealistic. 

    I think the debate is clustered around Brady yelling at Edelman (which everyone takes for Dobson) and their reaction to that. 

    And then some others voicing anger at the risking way NE assembled their roster this offseason: letting healthy proven players go, and replacing them with injury prone players, then not picking up veterans to take the heat off the younger players.

    Every time one of those rookies is out there sweating, you need to blame managment for putting them in this situation. 

    When Julio Jones came in he was backed by Roddy White and Atlanta went out and even got a HOF vet TE to take the heat off the kid. He was option #3 or #4 in that passing offense. He wasn't thrust into a spot where he is option #1B or C or D around two other rookies, a backup slot, and a utility TE. 

    NE put all their chips in on Amendola being healthy (he isn't and is likely out 6 weeks out of the gate now) and Gronk being ready in time (he isn't either).

    They'll get a bogey for the Hernandez thing. But even accounting for that ... adding Hernandez wouldn't work a miracle. 

     



    And how many rings has that produced?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please


    Fact is...Wes Welker should be here. That is, was, and will remain a mistake.

    Beyond that...GET OVER IT!

    B Lloyd doesn't want to play football.

    They gave a contract I THOUGHT, as did many, would be enough to get Emmanuel Sanders. It wasn't. It happens.

    Who else should they have brought in?

    Was BALT going to send Boldin this way? Not likely?

    Who else?

    All this complaining, and nobody seems to have any other options. Just vague complaints that "it shouldn't be this way."

    Apparently nobody wanted Gronk because he's now too injury prone. 

    Apparently nobody wanted Hernandez, or at least knew this was coming.

    It was a strange bit of circumstance and bad timing - Some odd issue with Welker and he's gone at the same time Lloyd going totally crazy and retires at the same time Hernandez has one of the most bizarre stories in NFL history exposed and goes to jail at the same time Gronk is recovering from a marathon 4 surgery off-season at the same time another team actually matched a decent offer sheet for one of theirs...If just ONE of those things goes the other way, far fewer people are complaining, and Brady isn't so visibly frustrated.

    Seriously, add one of these:

    Welker

    Lloyd

    Sanders

    Healthy Gronk

    Hernandez

    Now much better do you like the passing game now? Unfortunately, luck did NOT favor the Pats this off-season. Poor planning, bad luck, arrogance, some mix of all that and more...oh well.

    I guess, for me, I expect nothing from this team. I HOPE for a lot. To that end, I expect these rookies to be rookies. I expect this offense to struggle early, and hope they get better with the season.

    In 07, we had the opposite offseason. Moss got traded to us. Welker's offer sheet was NOT matched, and away they went. It always balances out in the end.

    If you want to cherry-pick Boldin's 101 catch rookie campaign and ignore the 3 I offered, or cherry-pick one good game from another rookie around the league...well, you're going to be a frustrated, sad fan this year.

    At some point, those NUMEROUS "just misses" with the rookies will become some hits. Thompkins laying out? Dobson deep? Other little misses?

    Here's a prediction: Tom Brady does not have another game under 50% completion.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    You have 100% missed the point.

    The problem isn't Thompkins.  It isn't Boyce.  It isn't Sudfeld.  It isn't Dobson.

    It's the fact that they're all on the team as rookies at the same time.  The only other receivers are an injured TE, an injured WR and a Special Teams guy.

    No one expects any rookie to be a miracle worker.  They should get limited playing time and limited targets while they learn everything.

    The GM has proven, once again, his story is a lot greater than his results.

     



     

    Then what exactly is "your" point?

    Patriots brought in the following Vets:

    Hawkins: (Beat out by a rookie)

    Jones: (Beat out by a rookie)

    Jenkins: (Beat out by a rookie)

    Amendola: (Made the team) [Argument "could" be made he was more a replacement for Llyod and NOT welker)

    Blount: (Made the team)

    Washington: (On the team)

    Patriots tried to get or keep the following Vets:

    Welker: Apparently offered him a better deal than what he ended up with. Was attempting to pay him what the "market" not the "patriots" was dictacting his value to be. He or his attorney did not like or want it. ...and because there were other options out there affecting the supply and demand of the market place, Welker and his attorney tried to play the stall game. Hoping the other options would sign elsewhere, changing the supply and demand equation, forcing the Pats into a bad negotating situation. The Patriots wisely said we are not going to allow that. Current injury to Amendola and all it was still the correct business move imo.

    Sanders: Offered him a deal. The steelers matched. Before everyone jumps at the chance to say the Patriots have so much cap blah blah, they could have offered 1 mil more. Let me point out that if the steelers wanted him they could have done a number of things with existing contracts to still match the higher tender. PatsEng goes on and on about that very thing all the time.

    Lloyd: Asked him back. He said no, not just to Pats, but everyone.

    Patriots had returning:

    Gronk: (he will be back, you are not temporarily replacing him with a stud, just a patch)

    Hernandez: (who knew his situation would happen? Happened after draft and you are not finding a talent of his caliber laying about the streets. Everyone loved that the Pats extended him early. No one should be a fraud and say they didn't. Argument "could" be made that he as well as Edelman were going to be looked at to fill Welkers role. 

    Hooman: (Made the team)

    Fells: (Beat out by a rookie)

    Edelman: (Made the team, currently leading league in receptions)

    Vareen: (Made the team)

    I certainly am not sure I get what your point or other peoples point is. Everyone acts like the Patriots did NOT bring in any Veteran WR's. I must be missing something because it appears that they did but those WR's were beat out by the rookies. I clearly do not see the point trying to be made. Are you suggesting keeping the lesser quality WR's because they have more years in the league?

    So in the end just exactly what, in detail, did you want the Patriots to do? It would be nice to show it as a guaranteed success as well, if you can.

    Love how you always spin and disrespect Edelman or are you leaving him out completely and referring to Slater?

    Edelman, if that is "your" special teams guy you are referring to is only currently tied for leading the NFL in receptions.

    It probably won't stay that way but as long as it is. Then it is what it is and you have to give him his due.

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

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    Edelman, if that is "your" special teams guy you are referring to is only currently tied for leading the NFL in receptions.

    It probably won't stay that way but as long as it is. Then it is what it is and you have to give him his due.



    Agree with everything you said except this, it is highly likely that (health provided) playing slot for Tom Brady Edelman could lead the league in receptions.  The only thing truly exceptional (lucky) about Wes Welker was his ability to stay healthy and avoid big hits, Julian along with numerous other guys in the NFL have the same skill set as Welker.  

    Edelman's biggest deficiency in my mind isn't that he's "injury prone" but rather he plays with a reckless abandon that ultimately gets him hurt, if he has learned to avoid contact either watching Welker or through experience and he has a high degree of luck he will be our leading receiver.  I don't think he'll change his style of play, so we really need him to be lucky.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    Edelman, if that is "your" special teams guy you are referring to is only currently tied for leading the NFL in receptions.

    It probably won't stay that way but as long as it is. Then it is what it is and you have to give him his due.

     



    Agree with everything you said except this, it is highly likely that (health provided) playing slot for Tom Brady Edelman could lead the league in receptions.  The only thing truly exceptional (lucky) about Wes Welker was his ability to stay healthy and avoid big hits, Julian along with numerous other guys in the NFL have the same skill set as Welker.  

     

    Edelman's biggest deficiency in my mind isn't that he's "injury prone" but rather he plays with a reckless abandon that ultimately gets him hurt, if he has learned to avoid contact either watching Welker or through experience and he has a high degree of luck he will be our leading receiver.  I don't think he'll change his style of play, so we really need him to be lucky.

     



    You are correct Woz. I was anticipating being dinged up and missing a game or some games at some point.

    Also was leaving a possibility for a rookie or two to step up on the outside sometime later in season and them moving Amendola, when healthy,  to slot taking some of Edelmans reps.

    Bottom line, I like Edleman, just who knows what will happen going forward.

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

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    You have 100% missed the point.

    The problem isn't Thompkins.  It isn't Boyce.  It isn't Sudfeld.  It isn't Dobson.

    It's the fact that they're all on the team as rookies at the same time.  The only other receivers are an injured TE, an injured WR and a Special Teams guy.

    No one expects any rookie to be a miracle worker.  They should get limited playing time and limited targets while they learn everything.

    The GM has proven, once again, his story is a lot greater than his results.

     



     

    Then what exactly is "your" point?

    Patriots brought in the following Vets:

    Hawkins: (Beat out by a rookie)

    Jones: (Beat out by a rookie)

    Jenkins: (Beat out by a rookie)

    Amendola: (Made the team) [Argument "could" be made he was more a replacement for Llyod and NOT welker)

    Blount: (Made the team)

    Washington: (On the team)

    Patriots tried to get or keep the following Vets:

    Welker: Apparently offered him a better deal than what he ended up with. Was attempting to pay him what the "market" not the "patriots" was dictacting his value to be. He or his attorney did not like or want it. ...and because there were other options out there affecting the supply and demand of the market place, Welker and his attorney tried to play the stall game. Hoping the other options would sign elsewhere, changing the supply and demand equation, forcing the Pats into a bad negotating situation. The Patriots wisely said we are not going to allow that. Current injury to Amendola and all it was still the correct business move imo.

    Sanders: Offered him a deal. The steelers matched. Before everyone jumps at the chance to say the Patriots have so much cap blah blah, they could have offered 1 mil more. Let me point out that if the steelers wanted him they could have done a number of things with existing contracts to still match the higher tender. PatsEng goes on and on about that very thing all the time.

    Lloyd: Asked him back. He said no, not just to Pats, but everyone.

    Patriots had returning:

    Gronk: (he will be back, you are not temporarily replacing him with a stud, just a patch)

    Hernandez: (who knew his situation would happen? Happened after draft and you are not finding a talent of his caliber laying about the streets. Everyone loved that the Pats extended him early. No one should be a fraud and say they didn't. Argument "could" be made that he as well as Edelman were going to be looked at to fill Welkers role. 

    Hooman: (Made the team)

    Fells: (Beat out by a rookie)

    Edelman: (Made the team, currently leading league in receptions)

    Vareen: (Made the team)

    I certainly am not sure I get what your point or other peoples point is. Everyone acts like the Patriots did NOT bring in any Veteran WR's. I must be missing something because it appears that they did but those WR's were beat out by the rookies. I clearly do not see the point trying to be made. Are you suggesting keeping the lesser quality WR's because they have more years in the league?

    So in the end just exactly what, in detail, did you want the Patriots to do? It would be nice to show it as a guaranteed success as well, if you can.

    Love how you always spin and disrespect Edelman or are you leaving him out completely and referring to Slater?

    Edelman, if that is "your" special teams guy you are referring to is only currently tied for leading the NFL in receptions.

    It probably won't stay that way but as long as it is. Then it is what it is and you have to give him his due.

     



    Not to inject myself into a back-and-forth but rather to offer commentary on Low's post.  

     

    I've actually read what you've posted, Low, and am hard-pressed to find fault with the approach that BB took or with your analysis of it.  Given the approach that the team takes, year in and year out, and the well-examined need to refresh the wide receiver position, we probably have as good a result as we could expect given the circumstances.

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

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    Then what exactly is "your" point?

    Patriots brought in the following Vets:

    Hawkins: (Beat out by a rookie) - JAG and everyone knew it. Not a proper vet to bring in if you are relying on an oft injured starter

    Jones: (Beat out by a rookie) - Oft injured with major concerns. Not a proper vet to bring in if you are relying on an oft injured starter

    Jenkins: (Beat out by a rookie) - After his injures was essentially a JAG. Not a proper vet to bring in if you are relying on an oft injured starter

    Amendola: (Made the team) [Argument "could" be made he was more a replacement for Llyod and NOT welker) - Oft injured and has shown he is. Fine to bring in if you have a durable vet to back him up

    Blount: (Made the team) - Honestly who did he have to beat? Bolden? Yeah not that difficult considering out of our two main RBs 1 is oft injured so you needed a vet in. Rather have him over Bolden and have Woodhead on the team.

    Washington: (On the team) - Our return game is so poor they needed to bring someone in Washington seemed like a wise decision

    Patriots tried to get or keep the following Vets:

    Welker: Apparently offered him a better deal than what he ended up with. Was attempting to pay him what the "market" not the "patriots" was dictacting his value to be. He or his attorney did not like or want it. ...and because there were other options out there affecting the supply and demand of the market place, Welker and his attorney tried to play the stall game. Hoping the other options would sign elsewhere, changing the supply and demand equation, forcing the Pats into a bad negotating situation. The Patriots wisely said we are not going to allow that. Current injury to Amendola and all it was still the correct business move imo.

    So you'd rather have someone who can't stay on the field over someone who has proven to be durable? It might be if Amendola can stay healthy but right now it doesn't look to be since one is still catching passes while the other is barely attempting to limp on the field. BTW it wasn't the offer but the makable bonuses that are the difference. It's been reported that Welker has a better chance to earn more money in Den this year than he would have in NE based on performance based incentives.

    Sanders: Offered him a deal. The steelers matched. Before everyone jumps at the chance to say the Patriots have so much cap blah blah, they could have offered 1 mil more. Let me point out that if the steelers wanted him they could have done a number of things with existing contracts to still match the higher tender. PatsEng goes on and on about that very thing all the time.

    Pit at the time was straped for cash and needed to make moves just to match the offer. You had plenty of cap and obviously wanted the player. You do what it takes to get him in here. BTW you say that Pit could have done more to keep him is just as much of a guess that the Pats would have gotten him for $1mil more but the chances were they'd have a better shot if they offered $1mil more than what they actually offered. Everybody said they low balled the Sanders offer to try to guess the breaking point of the Steelers. They made a play for the deal not for the player. BTW, how much has all the extra cap space helped us so far this year?

    Lloyd: Asked him back. He said no, not just to Pats, but everyone.

    And if they never cut him he'd still be on the team in the first place. I'm not saying cutting him wasn't the best move but cutting him before you replaced him was the wrong move. That's the major difference

    Patriots had returning:

    Gronk: (he will be back, you are not temporarily replacing him with a stud, just a patch)

    Hernandez: (who knew his situation would happen? Happened after draft and you are not finding a talent of his caliber laying about the streets. Everyone loved that the Pats extended him early. No one should be a fraud and say they didn't. Argument "could" be made that he as well as Edelman were going to be looked at to fill Welkers role. 

    Hooman: (Made the team)

    Fells: (Beat out by a rookie)

    General comment on TE's. Really nothing can be done there except maybe bring in Clark after you let Hernandez go. All in all can't put it on them for what happened

    Edelman: (Made the team, currently leading league in receptions)

    Only because Brady has no other choice. His rooks can't hold on to the ball, he has no one on TE to throw to, and his only pass catching RB is injured. When you are the only option you tend to get the most passes

    Vareen: (Made the team)

    Oft injured in his time with the Pats with no proper backup if he was injured. Notice a tread here? The guys you are relying on the most are also the most injured and you didn't provide them with proper backups?

    I certainly am not sure I get what your point or other peoples point is. Everyone acts like the Patriots did NOT bring in any Veteran WR's. I must be missing something because it appears that they did but those WR's were beat out by the rookies. I clearly do not see the point trying to be made. Are you suggesting keeping the lesser quality WR's because they have more years in the league?

    You completely seem to glace over that they didn't bring in proper vets! That's the point you are missing. You can bring in a million JAGs but if none of them have a chance to make the team than what's the point of saying they brought vets in to begin with? You need to bring in the proper players not just players that fill one of the 90man spots.

    So in the end just exactly what, in detail, did you want the Patriots to do? It would be nice to show it as a guaranteed success as well, if you can.

    Bring back Woodhead to back up Vereen, Bring back Welker or Sanders or both we have the cap space for it just sitting around doing nothing this year and would have made the WR core that much stronger while giving the rooks a chance to develop, and bring in Clark after you released Hernandez. What would it have hurt to bring in Clark and having Clark until Gronk gets back is certainly better than only having Hooman start an entire game. Would these things make the team better?

    Love how you always spin and disrespect Edelman or are you leaving him out completely and referring to Slater?

    Edelman, if that is "your" special teams guy you are referring to is only currently tied for leading the NFL in receptions.

    It probably won't stay that way but as long as it is. Then it is what it is and you have to give him his due.




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

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    Bottom line, I like Edleman, just who knows what will happen going forward.



    Only the soothsayers on this board who apparently can see into the future.  Years later in hindsight they have the amazing talent to say "I told you so."

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

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    You completely seem to glace over that they didn't bring in proper vets! That's the point you are missing. 

    Who?

    Who should they have gotten?  Welker was offered more than he's making now and turned it down. We offered Sanders more than Pitt and they matched it.  Woodhead was a limited player, Washington is better and always has been, do you really think Woody would be helping us now, he currently has zero starts, 3 yards a carry rushing and ten receptions for San Diego averaging 5 yards a catch?

    Who are the top flight receivers who were available this past offseason?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     Current injury to Amendola and all it was still the correct business move imo.

    So you'd rather have someone who can't stay on the field over someone who has proven to be durable? It might be if Amendola can stay healthy but right now it doesn't look to be since one is still catching passes while the other is barely attempting to limp on the field. BTW it wasn't the offer but the makable bonuses that are the difference. It's been reported that Welker has a better chance to earn more money in Den this year than he would have in NE based on performance based incentives.

     



    Come on PatsEng.

    First let's just get one thing out of the way. Welker was lucky to tear an ACL "when" he did and NOT that he never was injured. If he does it in week 1 then he has a whole season missed. Proven durable? NO. Proven mostly durable and lucky MAJOR injury timing yes I would agree.

    Second, the Pats didn't prefer, they went after Welker first.

    Third, Welkers "original" hangup was he wanted more Guaranteed money. A bigger payday that he felt he earned. Except in professional sports, the wise pay based on what you project the player to do moving forward as well as current market value. Not what you did in the past.

    Fourth, the NFL is a sports entertainment business correct? If yes, I still say it was the prudent "business" decision.

    Fifth they signed a 2nd WR with very similar skill set to hopefully alleviate some of the risk.

    Hey I could be all wrong but yes those are my opinions and what I believe.

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

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    You completely seem to glace over that they didn't bring in proper vets! That's the point you are missing. 

     

     

    Who?

    Who should they have gotten?  Welker was offered more than he's making now and turned it down. We offered Sanders more than Pitt and they matched it.  Woodhead was a limited player, Washington is better and always has been, do you really think Woody would be helping us now, he currently has zero starts, 3 yards a carry rushing and ten receptions for San Diego averaging 5 yards a catch?

    Who are the top flight receivers who were available this past offseason?



    Welker being offered more is a falsehood as he was offered more only if he obtained in season incentives of which Den gave him the easier of the incentives to reach.

    Yes Woodhead is awful for all the years he worked with Brady, btw how has Washington done with the Pats so far?

    Sanders was low balled. Everyone and the grandmother knew the Pats went for the deal not the player. Who knows if Pit would have matched if the Pats offered more but the odds are certainly better he'd be on the team if they did.

    Heyward-Bey was a cheap durbale vet who would have been a decent #3 backup why didn't they bring him in for a look. Certainly better than the JAGs they had in camp.

    How about simply keeping Lloyd until they found a replacement in camp? His cap hit would have been no different releasing in camp if they found a proper replacement than if they released him when they did. 

    Wozzy you sound exactly like the Sox fans who started watching after 04'. They couldn't do any wrong, until they did and then they stopped following them. But, tell me this year they have $13mil in dead money and over another $10 mil in current cap space. Now I'm not neive to think they wouldn't have at least $6mil in dead space as most teams do but are you telling me with over $15mil in cap space (provided proper personal decisions to reduce dead money to begin with) they couldn't have found proper backups or replacements? I hope you aren't that bad with your money at home.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    Sanders: Offered him a deal. The steelers matched. Before everyone jumps at the chance to say the Patriots have so much cap blah blah, they could have offered 1 mil more. Let me point out that if the steelers wanted him they could have done a number of things with existing contracts to still match the higher tender. PatsEng goes on and on about that very thing all the time.

    Pit at the time was straped for cash and needed to make moves just to match the offer. You had plenty of cap and obviously wanted the player. You do what it takes to get him in here. BTW you say that Pit could have done more to keep him is just as much of a guess that the Pats would have gotten him for $1mil more but the chances were they'd have a better shot if they offered $1mil more than what they actually offered. Everybody said they low balled the Sanders offer to try to guess the breaking point of the Steelers. They made a play for the deal not for the player. BTW, how much has all the extra cap space helped us so far this year?

     



    The fact that you would argue this point is priceless to me.

    You live and die by the "you can do any multitude of roster/contract manipulations to made money available" speeches on here.

    You are being so disingenuous arguing both sides. Frankly that is not like you.

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

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     


    Come on PatsEng.

     

    First let's just get one thing out of the way. Welker was lucky to tear an ACL "when" he did and NOT that he never was injured. If he does it in week 1 then he has a whole season missed. Proven durable? NO. Proven mostly durable and lucky MAJOR injury timing yes I would agree.

    Who's missed more games over their careers? Call it durable or call it lucky whatever you want but on a per game basis Welker has missed less games than Amendola so no spending more money (contract wise) on a player more likely to get hurt and miss more time is not a wise business decision

    Second, the Pats didn't prefer, they went after Welker first.

    So they wanted Welker and settled for Amendola is what you are saying? If that's true than it makes it a stupid business decision to not make sure you get your #1 choice if you have the ability to do so, which they did

    Third, Welkers "original" hangup was he wanted more Guaranteed money. A bigger payday that he felt he earned. Except in professional sports, the wise pay based on what you project the player to do moving forward as well as current market value. Not what you did in the past.

    Lets wait for the end of the year and compare guaranteed money for this year across the year. I will bet Amendola makes more per game played than Welker based on gauranteed money vs games actually played. Bad business to pay more per game with less total production

    Fourth, the NFL is a sports entertainment business correct? If yes, I still say it was the prudent "business" decision.

    How is it prudent at all? One guy playing more games is better entertainment than one sitting on the bench

    Fifth they signed a 2nd WR with very similar skill set to hopefully alleviate some of the risk.

    If you are talking about Edelman, he's another injury prone player. If I have a car that is consistently breaking down my back up car is not going to be another car that consistenly breaks down that makes no sense

    Hey I could be all wrong but yes those are my opinions and what I believe.




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

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    Sanders: Offered him a deal. The steelers matched. Before everyone jumps at the chance to say the Patriots have so much cap blah blah, they could have offered 1 mil more. Let me point out that if the steelers wanted him they could have done a number of things with existing contracts to still match the higher tender. PatsEng goes on and on about that very thing all the time.

    Pit at the time was straped for cash and needed to make moves just to match the offer. You had plenty of cap and obviously wanted the player. You do what it takes to get him in here. BTW you say that Pit could have done more to keep him is just as much of a guess that the Pats would have gotten him for $1mil more but the chances were they'd have a better shot if they offered $1mil more than what they actually offered. Everybody said they low balled the Sanders offer to try to guess the breaking point of the Steelers. They made a play for the deal not for the player. BTW, how much has all the extra cap space helped us so far this year?

     

     



    The fact that you would argue this point is priceless to me.

     

    You live and die by the "you can do any multitude of roster/contract manipulations to made money available" speeches on here.

    You are being so disingenuous arguing both sides. Frankly that is not like you.



    I also am very good with odds. Could the Steelers have done many things yes but there is also a point of do they want to. Why is it that everyone sees only black and white and can't think 3 dimensional on these things. There is a point in which the Steelers would have determined that it's not acceptable to match the Pats offer because the 3rd and not having to make moves is worth more than Sanders by himself. We don't know what that point is but clearly it wasn't what the Pats offered. Offering more could have put them over that mark and edge to where the Steelers could have deemed the return back was more valuable then having to make additional moves. you have to think 3D here Low not a simple black and white

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

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Welker being offered more is a falsehood as he was offered more only if he obtained in season incentives of which Den gave him the easier of the incentives to reach.

    Welker was offered a better deal to extend the season prior to last year, he balked at it, they gave Amendola that money and Wes's agent came back asking for the final offer at which point they offered him the incentive laden deal.

    Now Welker is making less money, he should have extended the season prior and he would have retired a Patriot and would be making a lot more money.  That's a fact.

    Yes Woodhead is awful for all the years he worked with Brady, btw how has Washington done with the Pats so far?

    Can Woody return kickoffs or play special teams in any capacity, no, can Woody play third down back, hardly once teams figured him out he became a one dimensional receiving threat out of the backfield, can he switch fully to slot receiver, no... we had three years to see what Woody could do, I won't knock him because I like him, but he certainly didn't lead us to the promised land while here and was ineffective as a starter.

    Sanders was low balled. Everyone and the grandmother knew the Pats went for the deal not the player. Who knows if Pit would have matched if the Pats offered more but the odds are certainly better he'd be on the team if they did.

    The Pats offered Sanders a much better deal than the first one offered by the Steelers, this was common knowledge prior to them matching when it was assumed by the majority of the media that he would sign with the Pats.  For a guy who started eight games in three years they offered him the most money he had ever seen and more than he was worth.  Julian Edelman is the same player.  You're so quick to spend other people's money, as a GM I'd compare you to Daniel Snyder.

    Heyward-Bey was a cheap durbale vet who would have been a decent #3 backup why didn't they bring him in for a look. Certainly better than the JAGs they had in camp.

    And you guys hate that the rookies dropped a few passes in their debut but you have a stiffy for Bey, that's rich.  The guy had 140 catches in four seasons as a #1 pick and is notorious for having butter fingers, but we should have thrown the bank at him... laughable.

    How about simply keeping Lloyd until they found a replacement in camp? His cap hit would have been no different releasing in camp if they found a proper replacement than if they released him when they did. 

    The guy was a locker room cancer, dropped easy catches but kept you hanging on a line because he made a few circus catches but couldn't hit a home run if his life depended on it, he caught 74 balls from Brady and had 4 touchdowns.  Also I might add that if we kept him, who would you cut from the current receiving corps because despite your foggy math, you don't usually carry 7 or 8 receivers on a gameday roster?



     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    I certainly am not sure I get what your point or other peoples point is. Everyone acts like the Patriots did NOT bring in any Veteran WR's. I must be missing something because it appears that they did but those WR's were beat out by the rookies. I clearly do not see the point trying to be made. Are you suggesting keeping the lesser quality WR's because they have more years in the league?

    You completely seem to glace over that they didn't bring in proper vets! That's the point you are missing. You can bring in a million JAGs but if none of them have a chance to make the team than what's the point of saying they brought vets in to begin with? You need to bring in the proper players not just players that fill one of the 90man spots.

     

     



    I am not glancing over anything. DId you ever see me say any of those guys were jags and complain about them during the entire offseason process. I repsect you opinion that they are. Apparently the Patriots thought enough of them to sign them and had a differening opinion. I had no opinion because I mostly focus on the Patriots.

    Just because "you" think they were Jags does not change any of the facts of my points.

    In fact in the other thread you laid out "your" plan and you mentioned NO other "proper" vets what so ever other than the players the Patriots went after.

    There is also no guarantee that your "proper" vets would have been any better than the WR "jags" you disliked.

    Wasn't it you that also listed DHB as a proper vet they should have brought in. Looking at his stats it looks like he had one good year and Jenkins numbers were more consistent over the long term.

    Again you are being disingenuous imo on this. They brought in vets. You didn't like the guys and wanted different guys. Vets are vets unless you are talking superstar. I am sure they focused on guys they thought "might" fit the role they were looking for. Guys they thought they knew something about, from back during pre draft scouting a player, knowing a coach who had previous experience with that player as a pro, or even a player who played with one of them.

    Right or wrong they have reasons they choose the guys they do. Simply because you do not approve of the veteran does not negate the argument that they brought in plenty of veterans.

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

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    BTW Kenbrell Thompkins has more catches, yards and yards per catch than Darius Heyward Bey does this season.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoNotSleepOnThePats. Show DoNotSleepOnThePats's posts

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    “PATRIOTS NEED TO SIGN DEION BRANCH OR RANDY MOSS THESE ROOKIES ARE TERRIBLE!!” No. No no no no. No. And here’s why: Kenbrell Thompkins, Aaron Dobson and Josh Boyce have deficiencies that are fixable. Randy Moss, Deion Branch and Terrell Owens (yes, people have actually suggested the Patriots sign TO) don’t. Those fixable errors in the rookies’ games won’t be solved unless they’re playing in real, live-action games. They won’t be fixed in practice. The rookies looked great in the preseason because Josh McDaniels and Bill Belichick scaled back the offense so opposing teams would not glean too much from games that don’t matter. Now that Tom Brady is ordering a non-vanilla offense, they’re having trouble. Plenty of people complain that New England cannot develop young receivers. Those are typically the same people who complain that the team needs to sign a vet. Those people can’t have their vanilla cake and eat it too. Branch knows the offense and has the trust of Brady, but he can’t suddenly attain more speed or separation ability. Thompkins, Boyce and Dobson can learn the offense, and they can get on the same page as Brady. It just takes practice and reps in the offense.

     

    From NESN

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Who's missed more games over their careers? Call it durable or call it lucky whatever you want but on a per game basis Welker has missed less games than Amendola so no spending more money (contract wise) on a player more likely to get hurt and miss more time is not a wise business decision

    Wow you really want to slide the symantec scale around. You said durable not about how many games. If you want to talk games it is a different story but don't say call it what you want because they are two very different things.

    So they wanted Welker and settled for Amendola is what you are saying? If that's true than it makes it a stupid business decision to not make sure you get your #1 choice if you have the ability to do so, which they did

    So the Patriots can just get who they want right? Hey you , you sign here on this line now or I'll break your head. Pretty sure it is a two way street.

    Lets wait for the end of the year and compare guaranteed money for this year across the year. I will bet Amendola makes more per game played than Welker based on gauranteed money vs games actually played. Bad business to pay more per game with less total production

    We'll see, I have no idea what the future holds, and it is not only about this year.

    How is it prudent at all? One guy playing more games is better entertainment than one sitting on the bench

    It is better to negotiate from a position of strength. As far as entertainment. Drama is entertainment even if unintended. The Sox are kicking butt and people are probably talking about the Pats as much or more because of this. These boards are more active than in a long time, maybe. It's all entertainment.

    If you are talking about Edelman, he's another injury prone player. If I have a car that is consistently breaking down my back up car is not going to be another car that consistenly breaks down that makes no sense

    Haha nice analogy except if you didn't have two cars that "might" break down at some point, why would you let an aging car, (you said you were good with odds elsewhere), dictate to you how much you were going to pay to replace the other two cars when the likelihood, odds wise, are that an againg car "might" also start breaking down at some point. The Patriots did do that anyway though, they tried. They are rarely going to break their operating model however.

     

    By the way, enjoying the discussion.

     

     



     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Section136. Show Section136's posts

    Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     

    His story is greater than his results? Please explain.

    I thought his results are his story, that they're one and the same? You are what your record says you are, right? His record says he's alright.

     




    Story:  Greatest GM of the cap era.  Greatest GM ever.  Amazing GM.  Blah blah blah

     

    Results:  No Superbowl wins in almost 10 years.




    Google longest super bowl droughts.....it's no wonder that other team's fans think we are obnoxious, spoiled and self entitled. I used to take pride in the fact that New England fans were the most rational, well informed fans in the country...now, not so much!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share