What should BB have done about the WR position.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to Getzo's comment:

    In response to RSPCB73's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Good observations.  The youth movement was long overdue.  Brady needed a dose of the new reality.  If he shows patience with the young core, nurturing them instead of berating them publicly, near the midpoint of the season, he will be throwing to Gronk, Amendola, Edelman and a confident group of the new X-men who will take us deep into the playoffs.

     



    We need more than 50 posts from you... keepem coming.  Thanks for posting.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    No we don't.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    There were many many options BB had to put us in a better position than we are in currently. I really am flabbergasted that these rookies have looked so incompetent. I trusted BB the coach to have enough sense to go into the season with new guys that at least weren't terrible. We are teetering on the brink of disaster if he doesn't either find help or somehow get these rookies to not stink to high heaven.

    In any case, we are long overdue for a better GM. The damage has been done, for the most part. We will be lucky indeed to see another Lombardi by the time Brady retires. And that buck stops right at BB.

    Keep fondly remembering the dynasty, because BB's incompetence has closed the window on anything like we enjoyed back when he inherited good players and got lucky finding Brady.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

     

    He should have stopped Gronk from getting hurt

     



    You mean like not playing him on XPs????? LMAO

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

     

    > How well did that receiving corp do in the superbowl, not very. They became the Manning > Colts, great regular season and fantasy football numbers but choke on the big stage.

    The Pats passing game got them into the superbowl.  Bad joke to blame the receiving corp or Brady for the loss.  How about never developing a running game that can get a 1st down when they need one.  Or a defense that can never stop an opponent when they really need to.  To blame Welker after the hits he's subjected himself to for the team, shameful.

     

    > Ah, we won't call BB out because he didn't diminish the team. He brought in more talented > rookies with greater upside to compliment TB for the rest of his career. Now comes the fun > part of watching them grow.

    Going from #1 to #24 is diminished. An objective measure.  I hope these guys do have huge upside. But that always takes time. Especially when BB/TB run a very complex system. It's irresponsible and not fair to the other players to assume these kids can thrive in that situation, especially when two of them are UDFA (read: nobody else wanted).

      

    > Yes amazing how that happened, three rookies beat out all the vets they let go. And > > those rookies are bigger and faster than the vets they replaced. And on top of that they are > better at stretching the field than the vets were. They also don't turn turtle as soon as they > catch the ball and get YAC!

    "Beating out all the vets" is a BB decision. What we're debating is the validity of his decisions.  You can't use the fact that he made a decision as a self reinforcing affirmation of it's correctness.   Sound like Bush, another decider.

     

    Almost forgot to mention how not going after big name receivers allowed the Pats to build one of the best D's in the league. I'm surprised an expert can't see all of that.

    > Don't see the connection. First, Pats have very close to the same defense they had last year.   No new major spend on defense that effects the cap.  Second, not suggesting they go after big name receivers.  Suggesting they keep or get experienced, affordable, receivers - and they have the money for that.   This is not a mutually exclusive option - they had and could have kept parts of a very successful receiving corp and could have phased in young talented guys.  Instead, roster spots went to 6 running backs.  

    What is needed is a real GM to provide checks & balances.  

     

     

    BTW are you really Ron Borges?

    [/QUOTE]


     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

    Count again,... Einstein, threw in Woody for good measure.  Replaced by and injured, Ir'd player who is not playing.  So who gets his catches?   BRANCH< LLOYD< WELKER< FELLS .  Who the hell gives you the right to just drop Branch?   He was a vet receiver for the NEP. 

    True or false?

    3 rookie receivers replaced 3 vet receivers.  Correct?

    1 rookie uda fa TE replaces a Vet TE.   TE's play catch too.   Correct?

    What part of this s hit don't you get?

     

     



    The top 5 receivers from last years team were Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, Lloyd and Woodhead.  Fells and Branch weren't even major contributors for this team and barely saw the field.  Of the top 5 guys that actually made up the passing offense we only chose to dump 3 of them and two were replaced with vets.  Lloyd is the only one that they were counting on the rookies to replace.  Vereen was supposed to replace Woodhead and Amendola/Edelman were supposed to replace Welker.  Last time I checked Edelman is still healthy and has 20 catches through 2 games so Welker hasn't been replaced with a rookie.  Sudfeld is replacing Hernandez not Gronk.  Hooman is replacing Gronk because he is the superior blocker.  Sudfeld wouldn't be playing if Hernandez was on the roster.

     

     

    You keep blasting BB for dismantling the record setting offense and replacing them with rookies and then two of your examples were barely involved in the record setting offense.  Branch and Fells scored zero TDs and combined for under 250 yards receiving last season. The offense wouldn't be any better if those two guys were on the roster.  Of course this is all bs because your original premise was that BB is an idiot for using rookies when in fact he had vets lined up to replace 2 of the 3 the guys he actually dumped (Woodhead and Welker) and now you are shifiting the goalposts trying to include injured guys after I exposed you for the liar you are.




    My origional premise was rookies and injured players, big boy.  Been saying it all week.   No need to lie but you may want to improve your reading comprehension before you get squished like a bug again.

     

    Fact, 3 rookie recievers , replaced vets,

    Fact,  1 rookie  UDFA, TE replaced 3 vet TE's.   Injured Gronk out, (surprise) Fells gone, Hern gone

    Fact, and oft injured player replaced a seasoned vet  Welker>Amadola  Not playing  (surprise)means rookies are taking snaps, because that's all they have.

    Fact, an oft injured Vereen replaced a versatile and reliable Woody,, Not playing,(surprise) which means rookies are taking snaps, because that's all they have.

    1 Rookie UDfa TE  who was always injured is also injured leaving 1 TE and some guy from the rubbish heap.  Not playing, which means rookies are, because that's all they have .

    Do you understand because of BB, (Thank you BB), they are playing and they are not ready to be playing, because that's all they have?  Do you get it yet?

    #1, record setting O is a  now pile of dookie, and may not make the play-offs.

     

    I'm bashing BB because he was ill prepared for the inevitable ( injury prone players get injured) with no plan B or C or D.   NOTHING BUT ROOKIES.   Because that's all they have.

     DO YOU GET IT YET?

    I bash BB because he had a top 10 D  or better, for years and made them a bottom 5  or worse, after the talent left.  Do you get it yet?

    You questioned me when I said 9-7 for this team this off season. You still questioning it, or do you get it yet?

    Big, tough boy, with BB's face, photo shopped.  Huh?  Are ya?

     

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Count again,... Einstein, threw in Woody for good measure.  Replaced by and injured, Ir'd player who is not playing.  So who gets his catches?   BRANCH< LLOYD< WELKER< FELLS .  Who the hell gives you the right to just drop Branch?   He was a vet receiver for the NEP. 

    True or false?

    3 rookie receivers replaced 3 vet receivers.  Correct?

    1 rookie uda fa TE replaces a Vet TE.   TE's play catch too.   Correct?

    What part of this s hit don't you get?

     

     



    The top 5 receivers from last years team were Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, Lloyd and Woodhead.  Fells and Branch weren't even major contributors for this team and barely saw the field.  Of the top 5 guys that actually made up the passing offense we only chose to dump 3 of them and two were replaced with vets.  Lloyd is the only one that they were counting on the rookies to replace.  Vereen was supposed to replace Woodhead and Amendola/Edelman were supposed to replace Welker.  Last time I checked Edelman is still healthy and has 20 catches through 2 games so Welker hasn't been replaced with a rookie.  Sudfeld is replacing Hernandez not Gronk.  Hooman is replacing Gronk because he is the superior blocker.  Sudfeld wouldn't be playing if Hernandez was on the roster.

     

     

    You keep blasting BB for dismantling the record setting offense and replacing them with rookies and then two of your examples were barely involved in the record setting offense.  Branch and Fells scored zero TDs and combined for under 250 yards receiving last season. The offense wouldn't be any better if those two guys were on the roster.  Of course this is all bs because your original premise was that BB is an idiot for using rookies when in fact he had vets lined up to replace 2 of the 3 the guys he actually dumped (Woodhead and Welker) and now you are shifiting the goalposts trying to include injured guys after I exposed you for the liar you are.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    My origional premise was rookies and injured players, big boy.  Been saying it all week.   No need to lie but you may want to improve your reading comprehension before you get squished like a bug again.

     

    Fact, 3 rookie recievers , replaced vets,

    Fact,  1 rookie  UDFA, TE replaced 3 vet TE's.   Injured Gronk out, (surprise) Fells gone, Hern gone

    Fact, and oft injured player replaced a seasoned vet  Welker>Amadola  Not playing  (surprise)means rookies are taking snaps, because that's all they have.

    Fact and oft injured Vereen replaced a versatile and reliable Woody,, Not playing,(surprise) which means rookies are taking snaps, because that's all they have.

    1 Rookie UDfa TE  who was always injured is also injured leaving 1 TE and some guy from the rubbish heap.  Not playing, which means rookies are, because that's a they have .

    Do you understand because of BB, (Thank you BB), they are playing and they are not ready to be playing, because that's all they have?  Do you get it yet?

    #1, record setting O is a  now pile of dookie, and may not make the play-offs.

     

    I'm bashing BB because he was ill prepared for the inevitable ( injury prone players get injured) with no plan B or C or D.   NOTHING BUT ROOKIES.   Because that's all they have.

     DO YOU GET IT YET?

    I bash BB because he had a top 10 D  or better, for years and made them a bottom 5  or worse, after the talent left.  Do you get it yet?

    You questioned me when I said 9-7 for this team this off season. You still questioning it, or do you get it yet?

    Big, tough boy, with BB's face, photo shopped.  Huh?  Are ya?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Now that Rusty is ignored and disgraced, looks like this fellow is taking up his slack.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to FrankDooley's comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Count again,... Einstein, threw in Woody for good measure.  Replaced by and injured, Ir'd player who is not playing.  So who gets his catches?   BRANCH< LLOYD< WELKER< FELLS .  Who the hell gives you the right to just drop Branch?   He was a vet receiver for the NEP. 

    True or false?

    3 rookie receivers replaced 3 vet receivers.  Correct?

    1 rookie uda fa TE replaces a Vet TE.   TE's play catch too.   Correct?

    What part of this s hit don't you get?

     

     



    The top 5 receivers from last years team were Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, Lloyd and Woodhead.  Fells and Branch weren't even major contributors for this team and barely saw the field.  Of the top 5 guys that actually made up the passing offense we only chose to dump 3 of them and two were replaced with vets.  Lloyd is the only one that they were counting on the rookies to replace.  Vereen was supposed to replace Woodhead and Amendola/Edelman were supposed to replace Welker.  Last time I checked Edelman is still healthy and has 20 catches through 2 games so Welker hasn't been replaced with a rookie.  Sudfeld is replacing Hernandez not Gronk.  Hooman is replacing Gronk because he is the superior blocker.  Sudfeld wouldn't be playing if Hernandez was on the roster.

     

     

    You keep blasting BB for dismantling the record setting offense and replacing them with rookies and then two of your examples were barely involved in the record setting offense.  Branch and Fells scored zero TDs and combined for under 250 yards receiving last season. The offense wouldn't be any better if those two guys were on the roster.  Of course this is all bs because your original premise was that BB is an idiot for using rookies when in fact he had vets lined up to replace 2 of the 3 the guys he actually dumped (Woodhead and Welker) and now you are shifiting the goalposts trying to include injured guys after I exposed you for the liar you are.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good job, dude.

     

    Pezzy is a pathological liar, a phony and a hypocrite with an unhealthy Brady crush.

    He literally hates BB. He might even be Borges or someone like that. I've never seen such anger towards a successful coach or GM before.

    He and his ilk will do anything to shift or alter their arguments after they've been exposed.

     

     Let's take a poll and see who  the hypocrite, pathalogical liar, unheathy BB  lover and so much anger about the G.O.A.T, is.   You really are a sicko.

    Why do you always accuse others of what YOU are and do?  We've all noticed.  You're not fooling any one. 

    I have no reason to lie and no reason to discredit BB, the GM.  He's doing a fantastic job of  that,  himself.  People are shocked about this O just the way they were shocked about the Defensive geniuses D..

    SHOCKED!  Only the Sally Sunshines and the BBBW's are not. 

    Top D to bottom D and now, top O to bottom O is all you need to know......

    Time for a new GM.

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     If you want to turn over an O, you do it gradually, not the whole thing all at once.  You just don't dump 4 receivers at once and expect 4 rookies to take their place.  



    Yeah Pezz your original premise sure was rookies and injured players.  LMAO @ U.  Liar.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    Not screwing up the Samuels negotiation with a laughable half hearted effort would have been a good start. Too many rookies in an overly complex system not good. Taking chances on an injury prone slot guy while already struggling to get an injury prone tight end on the field not looking so smart either. 

    Vereen I think was flukey so that was a tough break. 

    I'm not down on letting Welker go, but I may be by the end of the season if Amendola can't get healthy. Talking optimistically about how he can contribute when he is likely to need surgery is fool-headed.

    However, I have said before if we're not going to sign true impact wide receivers I prefer rookies to over the hill/decent veterans (Ocho, Lloyd to some extent).

    I'm down on how this position was handled so far but I'm also prepared to change my view. I think it's ludicrous to judge this fully at this point in the year.

    My initial verdict is heavily critical but it's initial. If the rooks round into shape and Gronk/Vereen/Amendola are good Belichick could be vindicated on this by the end of the year. There is no reason not to give this a chance to play out. I'm keeping an open mind on this as I would much rather win and be wrong and see this group round into shape.  

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    Pezz you really are a complete fraud.  You go on about BB dismantling the top rated offense and replacing them with rookies.  One player from the top rated offense was replaced with rookies.  2 were replaced with vets.  One is injured and will return shortly and was replaced by a vet.  The other that has been replaced by a rookie wasn't dumped from the team, he was incarcerated.  Learn the game.  Are you really complaining that rookies beat out old man Branch and Daniel "I didn't see the field" Fells.  Learn the game.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Fact, an oft injured Vereen replaced a versatile and reliable Woody,, Not playing,(surprise) which means rookies are taking snaps, because that's all they have.

    Why don't you go here and tell me which rookies took Woody's snaps.  I can't seem to find them amongst the names Ridley, Washington and Blount.  You really do like to make shyte up.

     

    [QUOTE]

    Big, tough boy, with BB's face, photo shopped.  Huh?  Are ya? 

    [/QUOTE]


    You're real tough aren't you.  Talking internet smack with no facts to back you up so make some lame joke about my avatar.  LMAO @ U.

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     If you want to turn over an O, you do it gradually, not the whole thing all at once.  You just don't dump 4 receivers at once and expect 4 rookies to take their place.  

     



    Yeah Pezz your original premise sure was rookies and injured players.  LMAO @ U.  Liar.

    Read again, been saying it all week.  Injured players means unfinished  and unready, rookies starting.   The rebuilt should have started 4 years ago not all at once! THAT IS MY PREMISE!  Sorry, you have a problem with it but it's not going to change for you or any body.  It's my and apparently a growing nations, opinion.  Saying it isn't so, won't change it.

      It just makes you look like a dlck.

    These rookies wouldn't be starting and thrown into the fire without some foresight, and a plan.

    We, with eyes wide open, all knew it.  Why didnt you, your crusty and your idol?

    POOR ROSTER MANAGEMENT by your photo shopped face.  LMAO @ U

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Fact, an oft injured Vereen replaced a versatile and reliable Woody,, Not playing,(surprise) which means rookies are taking snaps, because that's all they have.

     

     

    Why don't you go here and tell me which rookies took Woody's snaps.  I can't seem to find them amongst the names Ridley, Washington and Blount.  You really do like to make shyte up.

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Big, tough boy, with BB's face, photo shopped.  Huh?  Are ya? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

     


    You're real tough aren't you.  Talking internet smack with no facts to back you up so make some lame joke about my avatar.  LMAO @ U.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Stealing all my stuff I see. LMAO

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    We have over $10mil in space right now. There's room for everyone he listed and still have enough cap for in season signings

     


    People keep quoting this number.  Some people even quote higher numbers like 13 or 14 million.  I have never seen a source with either of those numbers. 

     

    The NFLPA has the Pats at 7.4 million.

     

     http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-england-patriots/cap-hit/

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    Pezz you really are a complete fraud.  You go on about BB dismantling the top rated offense and replacing them with rookies.  One player from the top rated offense was replaced with rookies.  2 were replaced with vets.  One is injured and will return shortly and was replaced by a vet.  The other that has been replaced by a rookie wasn't dumped from the team, he was incarcerated.  Learn the game.  Are you really complaining that rookies beat out old man Branch and Daniel "I didn't see the field" Fells.  Learn the game.




    WELKER, LLoyd, Branch,  Woody and (3 TE's replaced with one rookie FA)  They had 4 TE's last year.  All gone except hooman and the injured Gronk.  Is Sudfeld , an UDFA ROOKIE, a suitable replacement for all that loss?    For 3 missing TE vets?   pfft  Think man!  Who is replacing the receivers and their catches and the 3 missing TE's and their catches and the woodhead an his catches,.   SNAP!   ROOKIES!

    3 injury prone players replaced with...... wait for it.....ROOKIES!  4 rookie receivers don't make a team unless they replace SOME ONE.  But they shouldn't be relied on to START!!!

    And what happens when one of them is injured?  Like Sudfeld leaving only one TE with his booboo.  1 TE, 3 or 4 rooks and edelman (till he's gone)?  Wonder how that Rutgers D is gonna help then?  What position did stevie B play, oh snap.  Maybe he can fill in.

     As of right now, those rookies have replaced  and are taking snaps in place of.....Welker gone, Hern gone, Fells gone, Woody gone, Branch gone,    BECAUSE... Amadola Injured,   Gronk injured,  Vereen injured.  Waiting on Edelman, who I love, but let's face it, accident waiting to happen.  Boyce replaces him.  ugh. and a big, W T F

    Is this not understandable to you?  Learn the game!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share