Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     


    I disagree with your last paragraph about the 10 draft class not looking good. We got 5 big time contributors in Dmc, gronk, hern and spikes and mesko. They all played an integral role on 3 playoff appearances and 3 of them in 3 afc championship appearances in a row. Even if all 4 of them are off the roster next year,  we utilized them for an amazing run?

    O

    bviously the Hern situation and Gronk situation hurt as they were signed to big extensions, but anybody trying to say that was a bad move  is lying, unless they were looking in their crystal balls. If you told me a 2nd and 4rth round pick would only play 3.5 years and 3 years but catch 60 touch downs in that time I would say....sign me up! After all the average career in the NFL is 3.5 years is it not?

     

     

    Getting a team captain and leader of the defense( who imo will be priority number 1 this off season) and the best TE in the game makes any draft a huge win alone.

    And 6 of those 12 picks came in the last 3 rounds btw. Its a 53 man roster eng. 75% of our draft picks are going to be gone in a few years, not because they all suck, but because we win, and only have so many roster spots. 



    To some degree you have to keep the class you drafted or you're always going to be rebuilding that's the issue. Where they were drafted you can say all but Gronk and Hern (punters should be able to come out and start right away), took a couple years to fit into the roles they are now. Spikes was good but didn't become one of the elite run stopping LB's until late his 2nd year into his early 3rd year. 4yrs of a player with 2-3yrs of good production then moving on to the next team isn't holding on to your talent you want to build around so no matter how you look at it, unless they leave because of injury they weren't a fit for the team and that pick might have been better for a player that will stay longer than 4 yrs.

    As for Gronk, I'd do that deal everyday. No crystal ball it was the right move. Hern, we all thought was a bit high but we saw potential he could be worth that amount too. The one issue I have is now that we know all the details of his past (something we didn't know before), I wouldn't have given him that much for that long. That is one contract I would have held out on simply because of the details of the past that the org knew about. Know yes no way to know he was going to kill someone but you can't read about the issues in Florida, that he couldn't get away from his old life and still, the issues early on in the locker room, and still feel good about the contract. BB rolled the dice on a kid with a bad history that sold him snake oil on getting away from it. To me that's the one time BB should have gone to the end of the rook contract because of his past and unfortunately this time it bite him.

    I understand 6 can in the last 3 rounds but 5 came in the first 3 too. Aren't you and others always touting how BB finds talent in the back of the rounds and in UDFA? So Why didn't he this time with 6 picks find 1 player? And why with 5 picks did none of them stick? It reminds me of the 09' draft. I'd take McCourty over anyone in that draft, same with Gronk but so much was made of how great that draft was and all we have left is Edelman who flashed this year and might not be back and Vollmer who is having issues staying on the field for whatever reason. It stinks but part of how you judge a draft also has to come from how many you retain. If you pick 12 and only 2 stay for longer than 4 yrs can you call it a successful draft in the end? I wouldn't call it horrible because we did get some good play from them I'd put it almost neutral. Nether good nor all that bad, but you do need to keep more than 2 of 12 in the end.

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    Are you seriously this stupid?  IRing a player due to disciplinary measures is against the rules because it can block the player from earning bonuses that may be built into the contract.

     

    Rapoport and current Herald beatwriter, the guy who replaced Rapoport are less trusting to you than Chris Mortensen?

    Your credibility is diminishing here, RallyC. Big time.

    Anyone trusting ESPN or the Glober here over NFLN and the Herald with Pats reporting is either new the anti-BB media game or a flippin moron.

     

     




    So, Russ, are you wrong yet??? Go ahead and apologize. Its ok to admit you were wrong. Brandon Spikes isn't any more hurt today than he was before he played in the Bills game and he doesn't even need surgery for his damaged PCL, not ACL. The MORT story has teeth now and it did when it broke just as I and others tried to convince you. Brandon is D-U-N, DONE! as a PAT. Why not cut him? That would show the PATS hand waaaay too soon with his people and could create backlash by Sikes, by being vindictive and sharing info with the opposition even if he didn't get picked up by one of them in the short term. Call it brownie points in getting them to pick him up next season. By IR-ing Brandon he still has hope alive that he could still be resigned by the PATS and doesn't take chances by burning the bridge with his present team. Brilliant, but very sneaky maneuver by the genius that is BB. Tricked you too, eh, Russ? Brandon Spikes was put on IR merely for disciplinary reasons and the strategy is to not show definitively that they don't want him until they absolutely have too to keep him honest. GOOD LUCK getting anyone in the PATS ORG to admit it though! LOL....RUS, ADMIT IT, you were/are "DEADWRONG" on this one, not "DEADAHEAD". Its all good! I forgive you, man!

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    Are you seriously this stupid?  IRing a player due to disciplinary measures is against the rules because it can block the player from earning bonuses that may be built into the contract.

     

    Rapoport and current Herald beatwriter, the guy who replaced Rapoport are less trusting to you than Chris Mortensen?

    Your credibility is diminishing here, RallyC. Big time.

    Anyone trusting ESPN or the Glober here over NFLN and the Herald with Pats reporting is either new the anti-BB media game or a flippin moron.

     

     




    So, Russ, are you wrong yet??? Go ahead and apologize. Its ok to admit you were wrong. Brandon Spikes isn't any more hurt today than he was before he played in the Bills game and he doesn't even need surgery for his damaged PCL, not ACL. The MORT story has teeth now and it did when it broke just as I and others tried to convince you. Brandon is D-U-N, DONE! as a PAT. Why not cut him? That would show the PATS hand waaaay too soon with his people and could create backlash by Sikes, by being vindictive and sharing info with the opposition even if he didn't get picked up by one of them in the short term. Call it brownie points in getting them to pick him up next season. By IR-ing Brandon he still has hope alive that he could still be resigned by the PATS and doesn't take chances by burning the bridge with his present team. Brilliant, but very sneaky maneuver by the genius that is BB. Tricked you too, eh, Russ? Brandon Spikes was put on IR merely for disciplinary reasons and the strategy is to not show definitively that they don't want him until they absolutely have too to keep him honest. GOOD LUCK getting anyone in the PATS ORG to admit it though! LOL....RUS, ADMIT IT, you were/are "DEADWRONG" on this one, not "DEADAHEAD". Its all good! I forgive you, man!




    dont waste your time. He would admit that he is a homothug posting from his basement before he admits to evaaaa being wrong

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     


    I disagree with your last paragraph about the 10 draft class not looking good. We got 5 big time contributors in Dmc, gronk, hern and spikes and mesko. They all played an integral role on 3 playoff appearances and 3 of them in 3 afc championship appearances in a row. Even if all 4 of them are off the roster next year,  we utilized them for an amazing run?

    O

    bviously the Hern situation and Gronk situation hurt as they were signed to big extensions, but anybody trying to say that was a bad move  is lying, unless they were looking in their crystal balls. If you told me a 2nd and 4rth round pick would only play 3.5 years and 3 years but catch 60 touch downs in that time I would say....sign me up! After all the average career in the NFL is 3.5 years is it not?

     

     

    Getting a team captain and leader of the defense( who imo will be priority number 1 this off season) and the best TE in the game makes any draft a huge win alone.

    And 6 of those 12 picks came in the last 3 rounds btw. Its a 53 man roster eng. 75% of our draft picks are going to be gone in a few years, not because they all suck, but because we win, and only have so many roster spots. 



    To some degree you have to keep the class you drafted or you're always going to be rebuilding that's the issue. Where they were drafted you can say all but Gronk and Hern (punters should be able to come out and start right away), took a couple years to fit into the roles they are now. Spikes was good but didn't become one of the elite run stopping LB's until late his 2nd year into his early 3rd year. 4yrs of a player with 2-3yrs of good production then moving on to the next team isn't holding on to your talent you want to build around so no matter how you look at it, unless they leave because of injury they weren't a fit for the team and that pick might have been better for a player that will stay longer than 4 yrs.

    As for Gronk, I'd do that deal everyday. No crystal ball it was the right move. Hern, we all thought was a bit high but we saw potential he could be worth that amount too. The one issue I have is now that we know all the details of his past (something we didn't know before), I wouldn't have given him that much for that long. That is one contract I would have held out on simply because of the details of the past that the org knew about. Know yes no way to know he was going to kill someone but you can't read about the issues in Florida, that he couldn't get away from his old life and still, the issues early on in the locker room, and still feel good about the contract. BB rolled the dice on a kid with a bad history that sold him snake oil on getting away from it. To me that's the one time BB should have gone to the end of the rook contract because of his past and unfortunately this time it bite him.

    I understand 6 can in the last 3 rounds but 5 came in the first 3 too. Aren't you and others always touting how BB finds talent in the back of the rounds and in UDFA? So Why didn't he this time with 6 picks find 1 player? And why with 5 picks did none of them stick? It reminds me of the 09' draft. I'd take McCourty over anyone in that draft, same with Gronk but so much was made of how great that draft was and all we have left is Edelman who flashed this year and might not be back and Vollmer who is having issues staying on the field for whatever reason. It stinks but part of how you judge a draft also has to come from how many you retain. If you pick 12 and only 2 stay for longer than 4 yrs can you call it a successful draft in the end? I wouldn't call it horrible because we did get some good play from them I'd put it almost neutral. Nether good nor all that bad, but you do need to keep more than 2 of 12 in the end.



    Well, we did keep more then 2, we got 5, and yes BB finds talent in later rounds, but how many can we expect to keep. I just don't think people realize it is a 53 man roster and we have a 12-4 championship team in retention year after year, after year, after year.

    When you are keeping core players,  you must continually roatate the back half of the roster, especially with the rookie wage scale. Why keep a punter due a new contract when he is in his 4rth year of progressive earning, when you could get a rookie at half the cost, same thing applies to most positions.

    Re sign spikes to a new contract or draft new talent for 2/3rds of the cost? Sign bjge to a new contract or get ridley to give you the same thing plus some for 600k a year? This roster aside from the core players will always be a revolving door. This is what happens in the QB era when you have a top 5 QB who earns a large % of the cap every year.  

    Answer me this amigo, if we kept half of our draft picks for the last 6 years, who would they play over, how would we draft new players? How could we sign FA's? We've had 54 picks in the last 6 years. 9 per year on average. Throw in multiple undrafted free agents, veteran FA's, trades and extensions coupled with the best record in football over that time and it becomes veryyyyy difficult for longevity on this roster. As we see by many of our former players in the playoffs this year we know that it is more then just a talent issue, it is a necessity issue. We just don't need them all.

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    I had been getting a bad vibe from Spikes lately, some of the things he said to the press, didn't sound like he was committed to the Patriot Way.  Glad he's gone.

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    bumped

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     


    Well, we did keep more then 2, we got 5, and yes BB finds talent in later rounds, but how many can we expect to keep. I just don't think people realize it is a 53 man roster and we have a 12-4 championship team in retention year after year, after year, after year.

    When you are keeping core players,  you must continually roatate the back half of the roster, especially with the rookie wage scale. Why keep a punter due a new contract when he is in his 4rth year of progressive earning, when you could get a rookie at half the cost, same thing applies to most positions.

    Re sign spikes to a new contract or draft new talent for 2/3rds of the cost? Sign bjge to a new contract or get ridley to give you the same thing plus some for 600k a year? This roster aside from the core players will always be a revolving door. This is what happens in the QB era when you have a top 5 QB who earns a large % of the cap every year.  

    Answer me this amigo, if we kept half of our draft picks for the last 6 years, who would they play over, how would we draft new players? How could we sign FA's? We've had 54 picks in the last 6 years. 9 per year on average. Throw in multiple undrafted free agents, veteran FA's, trades and extensions coupled with the best record in football over that time and it becomes veryyyyy difficult for longevity on this roster. As we see by many of our former players in the playoffs this year we know that it is more then just a talent issue, it is a necessity issue. We just don't need them all.



    Well, it doesn't look like we will keep Spikes so which 5 are currently on the team and looks like they will be moving forward?

    As for replacing players with draft picks every 4 years. Lets put it this way. If you only keep say 4 core players on each side of the ball and replace the rest that's 14 starters to replace every 4 years (not including bench players). That means you need to hit on more than 3 starters every year. Even for the best drafter couldn't do that. now you can suppliment that with FA's but we haven't had the best luck with that either year in and year out, and then you still have to replace bench players! Lets just say what you suggest just isn't sustainable. Heck, BB only found 5 out of 12 and of those 5 only 3 lasted 4 yrs. If it takes 2-3 years for most players to find their roles and develop you need to get players that last past their rook contract otherwise you will be rebuilding every year. Doesn't work.

    Answer, if we kept half or draft picks it would mean they were better than the alternative's so you wouldn't need to supplement with FA's or as many UDFA's. It also means we wouldn't need to trade back and add even more picks. Lets say, they use just their 7 picks. So over 4 years, if they kept half that's 14 players. You are telling me you can't find room for 14 players that fit your system and perform well enough not to be replaced? 14 players you can't make room for? Because, they've replaced more than that over the last 2 yrs alone.

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    Are you seriously this stupid?  IRing a player due to disciplinary measures is against the rules because it can block the player from earning bonuses that may be built into the contract.

     

    Rapoport and current Herald beatwriter, the guy who replaced Rapoport are less trusting to you than Chris Mortensen?

    Your credibility is diminishing here, RallyC. Big time.

    Anyone trusting ESPN or the Glober here over NFLN and the Herald with Pats reporting is either new the anti-BB media game or a flippin moron.

     

     




    So, Russ, are you wrong yet??? Go ahead and apologize. Its ok to admit you were wrong. Brandon Spikes isn't any more hurt today than he was before he played in the Bills game and he doesn't even need surgery for his damaged PCL, not ACL. The MORT story has teeth now and it did when it broke just as I and others tried to convince you. Brandon is D-U-N, DONE! as a PAT. Why not cut him? That would show the PATS hand waaaay too soon with his people and could create backlash by Sikes, by being vindictive and sharing info with the opposition even if he didn't get picked up by one of them in the short term. Call it brownie points in getting them to pick him up next season. By IR-ing Brandon he still has hope alive that he could still be resigned by the PATS and doesn't take chances by burning the bridge with his present team. Brilliant, but very sneaky maneuver by the genius that is BB. Tricked you too, eh, Russ? Brandon Spikes was put on IR merely for disciplinary reasons and the strategy is to not show definitively that they don't want him until they absolutely have too to keep him honest. GOOD LUCK getting anyone in the PATS ORG to admit it though! LOL....RUS, ADMIT IT, you were/are "DEADWRONG" on this one, not "DEADAHEAD". Its all good! I forgive you, man!

     



    Fact: he was not on ir because he was late, it is because he was a liability amd would not have been active In the postseason anyway.

     

    sources:  jeff howe and ian rapoport

     




     

    Of corse, Russ. ITS ILLEGAL TO IR A PLAYER FOR DISCIPLINARY REASONS. As for this being anything but, you of all conspiracy theorists should know a real one when you see it. His knee was the PERFECT EXCUSE. Damn Russ, you are smarter than this, but I guess a little more stubborn in the end.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

     


    Well, we did keep more then 2, we got 5, and yes BB finds talent in later rounds, but how many can we expect to keep. I just don't think people realize it is a 53 man roster and we have a 12-4 championship team in retention year after year, after year, after year.

    When you are keeping core players,  you must continually roatate the back half of the roster, especially with the rookie wage scale. Why keep a punter due a new contract when he is in his 4rth year of progressive earning, when you could get a rookie at half the cost, same thing applies to most positions.

    Re sign spikes to a new contract or draft new talent for 2/3rds of the cost? Sign bjge to a new contract or get ridley to give you the same thing plus some for 600k a year? This roster aside from the core players will always be a revolving door. This is what happens in the QB era when you have a top 5 QB who earns a large % of the cap every year.  

    Answer me this amigo, if we kept half of our draft picks for the last 6 years, who would they play over, how would we draft new players? How could we sign FA's? We've had 54 picks in the last 6 years. 9 per year on average. Throw in multiple undrafted free agents, veteran FA's, trades and extensions coupled with the best record in football over that time and it becomes veryyyyy difficult for longevity on this roster. As we see by many of our former players in the playoffs this year we know that it is more then just a talent issue, it is a necessity issue. We just don't need them all.

     



    Well, it doesn't look like we will keep Spikes so which 5 are currently on the team and looks like they will be moving forward?

     

    As for replacing players with draft picks every 4 years. Lets put it this way. If you only keep say 4 core players on each side of the ball and replace the rest that's 14 starters to replace every 4 years (not including bench players). That means you need to hit on more than 3 starters every year. Even for the best drafter couldn't do that. now you can suppliment that with FA's but we haven't had the best luck with that either year in and year out, and then you still have to replace bench players! Lets just say what you suggest just isn't sustainable. Heck, BB only found 5 out of 12 and of those 5 only 3 lasted 4 yrs. If it takes 2-3 years for most players to find their roles and develop you need to get players that last past their rook contract otherwise you will be rebuilding every year. Doesn't work.

    Answer, if we kept half or draft picks it would mean they were better than the alternative's so you wouldn't need to supplement with FA's or as many UDFA's. It also means we wouldn't need to trade back and add even more picks. Lets say, they use just their 7 picks. So over 4 years, if they kept half that's 14 players. You are telling me you can't find room for 14 players that fit your system and perform well enough not to be replaced? 14 players you can't make room for? Because, they've replaced more than that over the last 2 yrs alone.



    So your answer is, they wouldn't need undrafted players or FA's? What team doesn't rely on or need those type players? None, so what you are saying doesn't happen to any team. Bb values a guy he brings in off the street as much as a 1st round pick. The best man will win the job. This is not so with teams who are under pressure to win right away, so again, the strategy fits our system. We keep rotating players because it is more economical.

    If we find studs(which only happens to every team once or twice a year, then we pay them and make them core players. Brady, vw, mankins, volmer, solder(will probably be a corner stone LT for years) mayo, Gronk, Hernandez, Nink, and Arrington have all received core contracts the last 4 years. A few more probably will, the next 2 years, Solder, Chandler, Hightower, either Rid, Blount or vareen hopefully and I would guess Cannon will be long term eventually.

    Plenty of good to great players. The rest of the roster can be rotated every few years.....actually will be rotated every few years in order to stay under the cap and still allow us to find players who are hungry to win and fit the BB team first profile.

    Suggesting BB should have just drafted in all his spots and not made moves to acquire more picks insinuates that the players he chose in that spot would have been hits, which is impossible to know....again, without hindsight.

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    Are you seriously this stupid?  IRing a player due to disciplinary measures is against the rules because it can block the player from earning bonuses that may be built into the contract.

     

    Rapoport and current Herald beatwriter, the guy who replaced Rapoport are less trusting to you than Chris Mortensen?

    Your credibility is diminishing here, RallyC. Big time.

    Anyone trusting ESPN or the Glober here over NFLN and the Herald with Pats reporting is either new the anti-BB media game or a flippin moron.

     

     




    So, Russ, are you wrong yet??? Go ahead and apologize. Its ok to admit you were wrong. Brandon Spikes isn't any more hurt today than he was before he played in the Bills game and he doesn't even need surgery for his damaged PCL, not ACL. The MORT story has teeth now and it did when it broke just as I and others tried to convince you. Brandon is D-U-N, DONE! as a PAT. Why not cut him? That would show the PATS hand waaaay too soon with his people and could create backlash by Sikes, by being vindictive and sharing info with the opposition even if he didn't get picked up by one of them in the short term. Call it brownie points in getting them to pick him up next season. By IR-ing Brandon he still has hope alive that he could still be resigned by the PATS and doesn't take chances by burning the bridge with his present team. Brilliant, but very sneaky maneuver by the genius that is BB. Tricked you too, eh, Russ? Brandon Spikes was put on IR merely for disciplinary reasons and the strategy is to not show definitively that they don't want him until they absolutely have too to keep him honest. GOOD LUCK getting anyone in the PATS ORG to admit it though! LOL....RUS, ADMIT IT, you were/are "DEADWRONG" on this one, not "DEADAHEAD". Its all good! I forgive you, man!

     



    Fact: he was not on ir because he was late, it is because he was a liability amd would not have been active In the postseason anyway.

     

    sources:  jeff howe and ian rapoport

     




     

    Of corse, Russ. ITS ILLEGAL TO IR A PLAYER FOR DISCIPLINARY REASONS. As for this being anything but, you of all conspiracy theorists should know a real one when you see it. His knee was the PERFECT EXCUSE. Damn Russ, you are smarter than this, but I guess a little more stubborn in the end.



    They're doing him a favor.  By IRing him instead of releasing him, I believe he qualifies for the roster bonuses a postseason on the roster player would earn.

    Again, BB does not believe a further injured Spikes who needs help off the field, isn't worthy of a roster spot or a back up, where a spot may be needed elsewhere.

    Him being late for a meeting is not the reason for the IR. THat was reported by Jeff Howe and Ian Rappoport.

    There's more to it than "he was IRd as a way to keep his discipline on the down low" which is what Mortensen reported.

    Jeff Howe ‏@jeffphowe 11 Jan

    Notion that Brandon Spikes was placed on IR due to tardiness 'absolutely untrue and unfounded' and other thoughts http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2014/01/notion_that_brandon_spikes_was_placed_on_ir_due_to_tardiness 

    [/QUOTE

    amazing, falling victim to the "media machine" you damned in this same thread. Cant havee it both ways, Russ. You know the truth. ]


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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    Dear rust,

    Bawahahahahahahaaaaaah!!!!

    Once again, Spikes did not workout here in the offseason...Belichick didn't like that. Spikes showed up out of shape...Belichick didn't like that. Spikes went to the media and actually told them about the "knee injury" poor Spikes was playing through...Belichick sure the hell didn't like that one. Spikes was late to practice despite driving a Escalade...Belichick not a happy man.

    I don't care who you think is a "source" in this story - fact is where there is smoke there is fire, that first story didn't come out by accident. The pats may try to distance themselves from this because of league rules regarding the IR, especially in light of Spike's camp coming out and saying he didn't want to go on the IR (doesn't help that he doesn't need surgery and would of had the bye to get better, either).

    I must admit I didn't think you could look more like a fool than you do today, but then again I should know better. Stick to spell checking....it's all you can cotribute:(

    Still think Spikes is a hero and Mankins is a phony? Well? LOL!

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    just admit Mort was right would ya already

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    just admit Mort was right would ya already



    Mort was not right. Whether or not he was late or not, he was going to IR. PLain and simple. His premise was that the main reason to go to IR was that he was late.

    That's not true.

    I know you have a serious learning disability, but don't make that the board's problem.



    he went to the IR because BB was sick and tired of him...rather than cut him, they IR'd so he couldnt sign with another team

    Mort had the scoop

    you were wrong to call him a liar

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

     

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    just admit Mort was right would ya already

     



    Mort was not right. Whether or not he was late or not, he was going to IR. PLain and simple. His premise was that the main reason to go to IR was that he was late.

     

    That's not true.

    I know you have a serious learning disability, but don't make that the board's problem.

    [/QUOTE


    Nonsense. His agent insists they didnt want IR and he doesnt need surgery. You cant possibly think that the PATS are SIMPLY protecting a player who they have no plans in keeping??? Who's dense??? If Spikes attitude was right they'd have him on the team for at the very least, rostrr depth. Nevermind the fact that 3-weeks break before the Super Bowl couls work winders. IR makes no sense for his condition. You cant be serious. Collins has been ready. Spikes screwed up. PERIOD. NOW PLEASE, stop being so rediculously feeble with these rebuttals.  

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    Spikes definitely didn't look right. Didn't surprise me he went on IR. The big question is whether or not he'll need offseason surgery. 

    His agent might be priming his client for the UFA market. Oh he's okay, BB just hates his guts, yada yada yada...

    With Collins and Hightower rising in status and Mayo under contract, Spikes is likely a goner. He played his heart out on the field and despite what's been said and done, he will be missed.

     

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    He russ, why not just admit you're wrong for once? Give it a shot. I mean you praised Spikes just days ago...and now this?

    And he wasn't "heading to IR". He had weeks to heal up his knee. He doesn't need knee surgery. He is our starting middle linebacker, for god's sake Belichick is keeping Dobson around in hope he'll be able to make it back this week or the Super Bowl, if Spikes wasn't such a bozo he'd wait for him too. In fact I think Spike's injury wouldn't of even kept him out last Saturday.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Spikes put on IR due to being late to meetings

    chapter 15 in the the meltdown book of Russ.

    wow. He is seriously starting to get tripped up in all his conflicting opinions, beliefs, statements,proclamations etc. just wow.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share