Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. 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 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. 

     



    +1, this has been my feeling since the start of camp and I haven't changed that story since. It's not that they are rooks it's that rooks take time to develop. You need to put durbale vets around them to give them time to develop. Tossing them into the fire can hurt their development as much as it could help them. The worst part is they picked their durable vet in Sanders and went for the deal instead of the player. It's very similar to what they did to Goldson 2 years ago. A little extra money tossed at either and We'd have Sanders and Edelman along with Goldson and McCourty right now. I'd rather take the latter personally and not have to rely on rooks.

    Towards the original poster: Show me rook WRs who were awesome their first year that weren't first round picks? We shouldn't be putting that much pressure on them to succeed this quickly out of the gate. They should have a full year with playing time before being given significant snaps. To think they can develop into #1 and #2 starters in their first year is just as foolish as thinking they would perform right out of the gate

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

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

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


    The last Superbowl win was at the beginning of George W. Bush's second term.  If that's good enough for you, hey, congrats.

     

    It's not good enough for me.



    But the Bruins winning a Cup once in 40 years with Jeremy Jacobs manning the controls? 

    That's good with you.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from GO47. Show GO47's posts

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

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

    Queenie?  A new handle and right back on your pace of thirty thousand posts per year?  That is the most pathetic thing I have ever seen.




    ...and just how are you contributing to this discussion about, "Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please"? .

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

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

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    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. 

     

     



    +1, this has been my feeling since the start of camp and I haven't changed that story since. It's not that they are rooks it's that rooks take time to develop. You need to put durbale vets around them to give them time to develop. Tossing them into the fire can hurt their development as much as it could help them. The worst part is they picked their durable vet in Sanders and went for the deal instead of the player. It's very similar to what they did to Goldson 2 years ago. A little extra money tossed at either and We'd have Sanders and Edelman along with Goldson and McCourty right now. I'd rather take the latter personally and not have to rely on rooks.

     

     

    Towards the original poster: Show me rook WRs who were awesome their first year that weren't first round picks? We shouldn't be putting that much pressure on them to succeed this quickly out of the gate. They should have a full year with playing time before being given significant snaps. To think they can develop into #1 and #2 starters in their first year is just as foolish as thinking they would perform right out of the gate

     



    I'd just add that I think the problem began last season or even the season before, when they failed to sufficiently address the lack of a decent x receiver once Moss's talents began to decline.  This reminds me of having no effective back-up plan when Asante Samuel left or when Seymour was traded or when Branch was allowed to walk at the end of his first stint with the Pats.  For all BB's many talents as a GM and team builder there are times when he seems to think he can coach himself out of gaping holes at key positions.  I know it's hard to maintain quality at all positions given the salary cap and the limits of the draft . . . but still, sometimes it seems like we ignore developing problems until they become crises . . . or try to solve problems on the cheap and end up getting burned.  Lloyd just wasn't a long-term solution at the X receiver spot . . . I was never very enamoured of that choice.  I actually thought Garcon, though maybe over priced, would have been a better guy to take back then (yes, I know he was injured last year--but he doesn't have a history of those things like Amendola has).  Garcon was a mature receiver who had demonstrated the ability to play with Manning in a complex offense.  Lloyd was a known problem who got cut from every team he played for.  And this offseason, paying Welker for another year would have been good insurance given all the other question marks.  Going into a season with no proven player at a key position just seems very risky.  I do think Amendola has the potential to be at least as good as Welker . . . but the injury history should have raised big red flags, and going into the season so dependent on a guy with that history is maybe imprudent. 

     

    We'll see . . . I hope it all works out and Amendola is back and the rookies develop into something good.  But this is another high-risk approach to team-building with some real downside potential if things don't go right. 

     

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

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

    Have you considered that if rookie WRs don't do that much after 2 games then maybe the GM sould have made arrangements so he didn't put all his eggs in that one basket? LMAO

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

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

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:

    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!


    You mean like throw picks by the bushel baskets? LMAO

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

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

    They'll show up against Tampa, it's @ Falcons I'm thinking they'll be fkd




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

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

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:

    They'll show up against Tampa, it's @ Falcons I'm thinking they'll be fkd







    I think the gist of the concern has been that we can probably squeak by the bad teams with this mickey mouse receiving corps the GM has stuck us with. But the good teams will feast on our bones.

    El Stupido GMo should have brought in a vet as an insurance policy. (Moss by my reckoning.)

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

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

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    El Stupido GMo should have brought in a vet as an insurance policy. (Moss by my reckoning.)



    Yeah, should have been a consideration to have a vet at least till the bradylings got more seasoned.

    Moss? Did he have anything left?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from GO47. Show GO47's posts

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

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:

     

    They'll show up against Tampa, it's @ Falcons I'm thinking they'll be fkd




     




    I think the gist of the concern has been that we can probably squeak by the bad teams with this mickey mouse receiving corps the GM has stuck us with. But the good teams will feast on our bones.

     

    El Stupido GMo should have brought in a vet as an insurance policy. (Moss by my reckoning.)



    Like you've said who are we to judge the coach yet there's a lot of you who seem to think you can do a better job at putting a competitive team together year after year. Belichick and his staff know their needs better than anyone in this discussion board. It's not like they don't know they need someone who can stretch the field and sidelines.

    Last year they offered Reggie Wayne a contract but he decided to stay with the Colts. This year they offered Sanders a contract but Pittsburg matched it. Before AH was incarcerated they figured they had middle of the field as an  option expecting Gronk to return with AH. At the time they thought they just needed to fill one position.

    LYAO all you want and criticize all you want but he knows a heck of lot more about both jobs than all of us. ...and thank goodness he's the GM and the Coach and not anyone here.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37'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 ghostofjri37's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Yeah your right these results suck!

    153-57  .727%

    17-7      .708%

    7 AFCCG's

    5 AFCCT's

    5 SB Appearance's

    3 SB Titles

     



    The last Superbowl win was at the beginning of George W. Bush's second term.  If that's good enough for you, hey, congrats.

     

    It's not good enough for me.

    [/QUOTE]

    Neither is it good enough for me. The difference is I realize that there are 31 other teams trying to accomplish the same goal and I also understand that judging some teams or indivisuals after 2 weeks can be short sighted.

    Your opinion about the GM, rookies and this team after 2 weeks is no more valid than mine. If you want to get technical my opinion would hold more water based on their record but at least I know enough that 2 weeks does not make a season or my opinion any more valid than yours.

     
  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 digger0862's comment:

    Super bowl wins don't define a good GM. There are many good GMs that haven't won a super bowl. Belichick's way keeps the Pats in super bowl contention most every year. Very few teams can claim that.



    This^

    How many teams have not only not gone to a Super Bowl in the last decade, nevermind won one.  Answer = the majority of the NFL.

    OK so the Pats get a mulligan for Hernandez, believe full well that if he were here they wouldn't be struggling to the degree they are, same for Gronk.  The slot is where our bread is buttered.

    TJ Moe got hurt, you'll say "yeah but he's a rookie," we're talking about receptions and slot receivers are always the focus of this offense. 

    Jenkins, he was a vet, washed out, same with Donald Jones and the rest of the vets who couldn't beat the rookies out.  It's not like BB didn't bring vets to camp, he did.

    Not everyone is blessed with the gift of patience, this thread is another in a long list of examples found on this site.

    Frankly I'd rather have this collection of talent than any group we've had post 2008.  This offense will be good by season's end.

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

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

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    So, digger, the $64,000 question is this:  "Why can't the Pats be the HOT team in the playoffs?".  What is the missing link to them being the hot team at the right time?

    I understand the last few seasons the Pats endured injuries to key players at the wrong time, but, was the team playing like the hot team?  As I noted in my response to you, I do not recall that at all.

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     




     

    Yes, that is the question.  Why can't they be?  But why can't 31 other teams also be too?  I think it is safe to say that there are far more Super Bowl wins by teams who were the better team through the season then there are by teams that just got hot for the playoffs.  The underdog story and hopes are nice but you can't count on them working out a high percentage of time.

    So as fans, many of you are turning from fans of a dominating team to fans just hoping to get hot in the playoffs? WOW!!!  How things have changed.

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point, but the best teams haven't won the SB

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

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

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    El Stupido GMo should have brought in a vet as an insurance policy. (Moss by my reckoning.)

     



    Yeah, should have been a consideration to have a vet at least till the bradylings got more seasoned.

     

    Moss? Did he have anything left?

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't know. But the "experts" around here say he doesn't. All I know is plenty of elite NFL WRs had something left at 36, and I would bet the mortgage he could do more than these rookies have shown after two games. He had 28 catches and 3 TDs with SF in spot duty. It's a bttter Rec/TD ratio than mosty of our guys had last year.

     

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

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

    In response to GO47's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:

     

    They'll show up against Tampa, it's @ Falcons I'm thinking they'll be fkd




     




    I think the gist of the concern has been that we can probably squeak by the bad teams with this mickey mouse receiving corps the GM has stuck us with. But the good teams will feast on our bones.

     

    El Stupido GMo should have brought in a vet as an insurance policy. (Moss by my reckoning.)

     



    Like you've said who are we to judge the coach yet there's a lot of you who seem to think you can do a better job at putting a competitive team together year after year.

    [/QUOTE]

    The facts say BB is 1 for 7 in making the playoffs without Brady. That kinda stomps your claims of what a great job he does putting together a team.

    The reality is that if any of the other AFCE teams had Brady all these years and we had some mediocre NFL QB we would not have dominated as we have.

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

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

    In response to digger0862's comment:

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

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

     

    Results:  No Superbowl wins in almost 10 years.


    2007 16-0 regular season
    Lost super bowl because of a fluke play.

    2008 11-5 regular season
    Team was finding it's identity ready to make some noise in the playoffs. Only second 11-5 team ever to not make the playoffs.

    2009 10-6 regular season
    Too many key injuries. The healthy teams win the super bowls.

    2010 14-2 regular season
    This young team beat all comers, including both super bowl participants. They laid an egg in the playoffs.

    2011 13-3 regular season
    Lost another close game in super bowl.

    2012 12-4 regular season
    Lost to a hot, healthy team in the AFC championship game.

    Sorry but that's pretty darned good. Super bowl wins don't define a good GM. There are many good GMs that haven't won a super bowl. Belichick's way keeps the Pats in super bowl contention most every year. Very few teams can claim that.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Pretty darned good; with Brady. LMAO

    Without him they missed the playoffs despite the easiest schedule in the BB era, and lost the division to the previously 1-15 Dolphins! (who then went on to another losing season in '09)

     

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

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

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to GO47's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:

     

    They'll show up against Tampa, it's @ Falcons I'm thinking they'll be fkd




     




    I think the gist of the concern has been that we can probably squeak by the bad teams with this mickey mouse receiving corps the GM has stuck us with. But the good teams will feast on our bones.

     

    El Stupido GMo should have brought in a vet as an insurance policy. (Moss by my reckoning.)

     

     



    Like you've said who are we to judge the coach yet there's a lot of you who seem to think you can do a better job at putting a competitive team together year after year.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The factssay BB is 1 for 7 in making the playoffs without Brady. That kinda stomps your claims of what a great job he does putting together a team.

     

    The reality is that if any of the other AFCE teams had Brady all these years and we had some mediocre NFL QB we would not have dominated as we have.

    [/QUOTE]


    There you go again, referring to a hypothetical argument as being reality.  The reality about hypotheticals is that they are nothing but conjecture.  To suggest that you know what the outcome would have been had TB played on another team and BB had selected a different QB way back in 2001, seems more like fantasy to me.  But hey, that's just my reality. Wink

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

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

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to GO47's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:

     

    They'll show up against Tampa, it's @ Falcons I'm thinking they'll be fkd




     




    I think the gist of the concern has been that we can probably squeak by the bad teams with this mickey mouse receiving corps the GM has stuck us with. But the good teams will feast on our bones.

     

    El Stupido GMo should have brought in a vet as an insurance policy. (Moss by my reckoning.)

     

     

     



    Like you've said who are we to judge the coach yet there's a lot of you who seem to think you can do a better job at putting a competitive team together year after year.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The factssay BB is 1 for 7 in making the playoffs without Brady. That kinda stomps your claims of what a great job he does putting together a team.

     

     

    The reality is that if any of the other AFCE teams had Brady all these years and we had some mediocre NFL QB we would not have dominated as we have.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    There you go again, referring to a hypothetical argument as being reality.  The reality about hypotheticals is that they are nothing but conjecture.  To suggest that you know what the outcome would have been had TB played on another team and BB had selected a different QB way back in 2001, seems more like fantasy to me.  But hey, that's just my reality. Wink

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You're on ignore. Don't expect responses.

     

Share