We're not better without him.. but we could be

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

    We're not better without him.. but we could be

    They're loaded with picks to work a deal for some defensive help.  Honestly I love Randy, but he always reminded of me of the alcoholic Uncle Buck at the Christmas party.  Every great day, every great moment you always had this uneasy feeling . . . how's Randy doing.  Is he ok?  Game 1 post game felt like that outburst you always knew was coming, but Uncle Joey ushered him outside to cool off before fists started to fly.  With all that's going on with this team, Randy really just seemed like he was out of place.  How do you embrace a youth movement when you're a living legend?  He's is actually an absolutely perfect fit for the Vikes with a legend QB trying to make the same final push.  I really wish him all the best.
    For the Pats, this is not throwing in the towel.  We need a stabalizing presence in the secondary.  We're really missing Leigh.  They've got the ammo to get something, and the boys we've got are going to get better as the year goes on.  We're getting pressure, which was the biggest concern going in to the season.  Go get a decent corner and Lee Evans or Vincent Jackson and I'll take our chances against anyone.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from NY-PATS-FAN4. Show NY-PATS-FAN4's posts

    Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be

    In Response to We're not better without him.. but we could be:
    [QUOTE]

    You're right, cale, we COULD be. And if we made some of the trades you're suggesting, I could stomach this a little better.

    So, let's just wait and see...
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from caleblanc. Show caleblanc's posts

    Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be

    You got it.  In Bill we trust.  I still think he botched our chances last year by trading Seymour and Vrabel and I'm definitely not sold on the post-pioli decision making, but year in and year out this team is competitive and trending up.  For a team that is always at the top, trending up is hard to do.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be

    You know, I love watching how all of these new guys are developing.  We've had two tremendous drafts.  I'm going to sit back and continue to enjoy the Pats.  I was a fan long before Moss and I'll be a fan long after Moss.  I really liked Moss, but it's not like we were bad before he came to the team.  Brady has as many or even more weapons now than he ever had prior to Moss.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from HOFFBURGER. Show HOFFBURGER's posts

    Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be

    BB aint gonna trade away a malcontent wideout thats preoccupied with his next contract, just to trade for another malcontent wideout also preoccupied with his next contract (and off field problems). vincent jackson aint walkin thru that door. and we should all know with BB by now that being loaded with picks means jack, because more than likely half will simply get dealt to stockpile more future picks. it's so much fun constantly building for a future that never comes as far as draft picks.

    not trying to be a wisea$$...just playing devils advocate
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from NY-PATS-FAN4. Show NY-PATS-FAN4's posts

    Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be

    In Response to Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be:
    [QUOTE]BB aint gonna trade away a malcontent wideout thats preoccupied with his next contract, just to trade for another malcontent wideout also preoccupied with his next contract (and off field problems). vincent jackson aint walkin thru that door. and we should all know with BB by now that being loaded with picks means jack, because more than likely half will simply get dealt to stockpile more future picks. it's so much fun constantly building for a future that never comes as far as draft picks. not trying to be a wisea$$...just playing devils advocate
    Posted by HOFFBURGER[/QUOTE]

    True, Hoff, but I would love to get Lee Evans.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from memery26. Show memery26's posts

    Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be

    In Response to Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be:
    [QUOTE]BB aint gonna trade away a malcontent wideout thats preoccupied with his next contract, just to trade for another malcontent wideout also preoccupied with his next contract (and off field problems).[/QUOTE]

    I agree completely with this statement. Separately, I'd much rather see us use some of those draft pics to get a veteran corner than a replacement wide receiver.

    Spreading the ball around will result in fewer points, longer drives, more rest for our defense, and offensive balance.

    While I am probably rationalizing to a degree, I am more and more okay with this.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from HOFFBURGER. Show HOFFBURGER's posts

    Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be

    In Response to Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be : I agree completely with this statement. Separately, I'd much rather see us use some of those draft pics to get a veteran corner than a replacement wide receiver. Spreading the ball around will result in fewer points, longer drives, more rest for our defense, and offensive balance. While I am probably rationalizing to a degree, I am more and more okay with this.
    Posted by memery26[/QUOTE]

    i'm with you...starting to let it sink in and accept it. i would like to get a veteran wideout for depth purposes, someone we can potentially pair with tate on the outside, and not even cosidering taking wes outta the slot. and leaving edelman as a guy that can spell wes and be more of a role player considering his injury history. it dont gotta be a superstar guy, someone serviceable at an affordable cost.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from caleblanc. Show caleblanc's posts

    Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be

    Good points.  I threw in the WR just thinking no matter how we spin it, it's going to hurt giving less for defenses to focus on.  Your're right about Jackson, Hoff.  My bad.  This just feels like the Seymour trade.  I loved that guy but rationalized that maybe we could get along without him.  I still don't think we have.  Any time you get one guy taking the proverbial top off the defense it's hard to replace.  Tate's not going to garner that respect.  At the same time, i agree with carawaydj, you kind of have to like our chances with what looks to me like an army of Troy's.  Is it me or has the Pats WR core suddenly morphed into a gackle of Troy clones?  Shifty little balls of energy.  I cracked up last week watching one of the dolphins defenders trying to get low enough to hit Woody and just skimmed right over his back.  Who's an available corner? 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from GadisRKO. Show GadisRKO's posts

    Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be

    Im still not ok with this, we lost a really valuable peice to our offense in exchange for a late 3rd round pick.

    We have no legitimate deep threat, what is going to keep our opponents from placing 8 in the box on every play now? We have had trouble running with Moss, how are we going to move the rock on the ground now?

    Welker can't/won't be going deep, Tate has the potential to do so but as an unproven player, he won't be doubled like Moss. I think we went from having a beastly offense to a great offense.

    My only problem is that even with a great offense we won't be able to cover up the points allowed by this young defense. Lets hope BB has a big time plan in store for two 1st, two 2nd, two 3rd and two 4th round picks that we have in this upcoming draft.


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from memery26. Show memery26's posts

    Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be

    In Response to Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be:
    [QUOTE]Tate has the potential to do so but as an unproven player, he won't be doubled like Moss.[/QUOTE]

    Great, then we haven't lost the deep threat, have we? I mean, if teams don't respect him, and he has talent, we win. If teams do respect him, and double him, we win.


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

    Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be

    I hope Hoff is wrong, but he's probably right on target.  Our bevy of picks will turn into more future pics, and those that don't will become head scratching reaches that will have about a 50% chance of working out.

    Maybe Mankins was holding out cuz he didn't like Moss?  Then we get Asomugha from our farm team for some draft picks.  Then Lee Evans to replace the deep threat.  I know, I must be smokin some good stuff. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sully1965. Show Sully1965's posts

    Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be

    8 picks in first 4 rounds should allow the Patriots to get a Vince Jackson and move up to get Mark Ingram in the draft.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from caleblanc. Show caleblanc's posts

    Re: We're not better without him.. but we could be

    Does trading moss clear up cap room?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share