With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     


    Well, it's funny because most teams had about 7-8 in dead money and even the sorry jest found a way to exploit that.

     

    Sorry but the dead money and loss of good draft picks was because of poor contracts for players who are no longer with the team and have to now be replaced, AGAIN, instead of playing out their 3 year contracts. 

    How many times does TB need to bail them out of that mess? 

     




     

    Why don't you explain how the Patriots would have had 45 million in cap space this year as you claimed in your original post?  Or how about the claim that Patriots defense was the worst in the league for the past 8 years (which you always scream about when you argue with Rusty) despite the fact that from 2006-2009 they ranked in the top 10 and sometimes top 5 in terms of points and yards allowed and from 2010-2012 they never ranked last in terms of points and yards and were twice ranked in the top 10 in terms of points.  Face it.  You know nothing about football and your incessant Belichick/Defense bashing is even more annoying than Rusty's Brady bashing.  Learn the game.

     




    Well if that Dead money hadn't occured, they could have carried it over OR , put it to better use which would have resulted in a number of players not having to be replaced this year and more cap this year for less needs.  In other and more simply put, words, they would have 23M this year to replace less players and could actually put some of that money into acquiring more talent instead of more of the same less talent and more quantity.

     

    Every thing they do carries over.  They had a huge amount of FA's to replace this year and there are more next year and the year after that.  Singing players to 3 year contracts and keeping them for 1 year OR less, has hurt the future.  Why not put a little more money into talent who are still participating and don't have to be replaced year after year after year?

    I think the Fins only had to replace 12 guys with their 45m, not 18 with 23M and 7M of that was because of TB and he did the same thing the year before, too.

    I said the D failed the team in the play-off since 2006, which they did.  They were the worst or near worst since 2010.  That's a long time for a defensive genius's team to be bottom of the barrel. 

    Don't you think they could have used better players and less DEAD money since then?

     



    The 2010 D started 4 rookies. It's not any fan's fault here that yoy didn't realize BB was rebuilding in 2010 with the lockout on the horizon. You're way out of your league with this. You're too dumb to realize that any team wildly spending in a bloated market in 2009 or 2010 are the crappy organizations.

     

     

     




    BB has been rebuilding since 2006.

     

    Maybe 4 rookies started in 2010 because the dopes they picked up in 2008-9 were failures.

    Would 4 rookies HAVE to start in 2010 if there was some talent acquired in the previous yrs?  Nope!

    No one is talking about spending wildly.  Just putting a little talent on the field instead of the same type of guys ( failed draft picks and FA's) that have to be replaced every year and creating more dead money than the total income of most 3rd world countries.

     




    He's been rebuilding "since 2006"? Why "since 2006"?  In what way was he rebuiding in 2006 0r 2007?!!

     

    Mayo was DROY in 2008. BB traded for Welker and Moss to improve the offense and to make at least 2 more, if not 3 more runs with the old guard (Seymour, Vrabel, Bruschi, Ty Warren, Seau, etc).

    Once it was clear Seymour was on his last legs in 2009 or 2010, BB got rid of him and committed to a rebuild in 2010.  His draft was outstanding in 2010, that's why 4 players ended up starting, dumbo!

    My god, are you pathetic or what?

    Brady totally choked in SB 42 all cocky going in and he failed again in SB 46. Has nothing to do with BB.

     

     




    BB's D choked in 2006, 2007, 2009,2010,2011,2012 and that has everything to do with BB

     

    and if the Offense did, that's on BB too.

    If the whole team did, I'd say there's a problem at the top.

    Or did the gints, ravens, Steelers, Saints, Packers, colts, all win with inferior teams?

     



    False.  Offense sucked in all those games/years you claim the D choked.

     

    It doesn't matter if it was the ones loaded with futuer HOFers or not.  That's where you lose in this debate. You just don't realize it.

    The shotgun spread base has been used more and more and more since 2005.

    Did the D choke in the loss in Denver in 2005, did Brady's pick 6 change the momentum in that game?

    lol

     

     




    False simpleton.  The D choked in all those games and more

     

    2006 blew a huge lead and allowed 32 points in one half.

    2007.  missed ints and allowed Eli to take the lead with 35 seconds left after TB got the lead.

    2009.  Joke!  RR ran all over their azzes to put them in a huge hole to start the game.

    2010, also blew the lead and sent Sanchez to canton, which has since been retracted.

    2011 blew another lead, couldn't get off the field, scored zero's in every measurable.

    2012 not one single rz stop.  NOT ONE!  Just 50% would have won the game.  has there ever been a play-0ff team that failed to get even one rz stop?  Or Int?  Or 3 & out?

    Did I mention 2005?  Try to stay on track.  I know it's hard for someone with limited mental capacity.  But try!

     



    Please learn basic grammar, so your desperate outbursts don't come across like the 10 year old fat kid at camp out of Twinkies who doesn't know any better.

     

    Thanks.




    That's funny!  TFB12 just called you the fat little kid in school that everyone made fun of and you come up with this gem.  How ironic?

    Do you have an original thought in your tiny little brain, I mean, other than the warped and delusional ones?

    Do I need to dumb down that list further for you, simpleton?

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     


    Well, it's funny because most teams had about 7-8 in dead money and even the sorry jest found a way to exploit that.

     

    Sorry but the dead money and loss of good draft picks was because of poor contracts for players who are no longer with the team and have to now be replaced, AGAIN, instead of playing out their 3 year contracts. 

    How many times does TB need to bail them out of that mess? 

     




     

    Why don't you explain how the Patriots would have had 45 million in cap space this year as you claimed in your original post?  Or how about the claim that Patriots defense was the worst in the league for the past 8 years (which you always scream about when you argue with Rusty) despite the fact that from 2006-2009 they ranked in the top 10 and sometimes top 5 in terms of points and yards allowed and from 2010-2012 they never ranked last in terms of points and yards and were twice ranked in the top 10 in terms of points.  Face it.  You know nothing about football and your incessant Belichick/Defense bashing is even more annoying than Rusty's Brady bashing.  Learn the game.

     




    Well if that Dead money hadn't occured, they could have carried it over OR , put it to better use which would have resulted in a number of players not having to be replaced this year and more cap this year for less needs.  In other and more simply put, words, they would have 23M this year to replace less players and could actually put some of that money into acquiring more talent instead of more of the same less talent and more quantity.

     

    Every thing they do carries over.  They had a huge amount of FA's to replace this year and there are more next year and the year after that.  Singing players to 3 year contracts and keeping them for 1 year OR less, has hurt the future.  Why not put a little more money into talent who are still participating and don't have to be replaced year after year after year?

    I think the Fins only had to replace 12 guys with their 45m, not 18 with 23M and 7M of that was because of TB and he did the same thing the year before, too.

    I said the D failed the team in the play-off since 2006, which they did.  They were the worst or near worst since 2010.  That's a long time for a defensive genius's team to be bottom of the barrel. 

    Don't you think they could have used better players and less DEAD money since then?

     



    The 2010 D started 4 rookies. It's not any fan's fault here that yoy didn't realize BB was rebuilding in 2010 with the lockout on the horizon. You're way out of your league with this. You're too dumb to realize that any team wildly spending in a bloated market in 2009 or 2010 are the crappy organizations.

     

     

     




    BB has been rebuilding since 2006.

     

    Maybe 4 rookies started in 2010 because the dopes they picked up in 2008-9 were failures.

    Would 4 rookies HAVE to start in 2010 if there was some talent acquired in the previous yrs?  Nope!

    No one is talking about spending wildly.  Just putting a little talent on the field instead of the same type of guys ( failed draft picks and FA's) that have to be replaced every year and creating more dead money than the total income of most 3rd world countries.

     




    He's been rebuilding "since 2006"? Why "since 2006"?  In what way was he rebuiding in 2006 0r 2007?!!

     

    Mayo was DROY in 2008. BB traded for Welker and Moss to improve the offense and to make at least 2 more, if not 3 more runs with the old guard (Seymour, Vrabel, Bruschi, Ty Warren, Seau, etc).

    Once it was clear Seymour was on his last legs in 2009 or 2010, BB got rid of him and committed to a rebuild in 2010.  His draft was outstanding in 2010, that's why 4 players ended up starting, dumbo!

    My god, are you pathetic or what?

    Brady totally choked in SB 42 all cocky going in and he failed again in SB 46. Has nothing to do with BB.

     

     




    BB's D choked in 2006, 2007, 2009,2010,2011,2012 and that has everything to do with BB

     

    and if the Offense did, that's on BB too.

    If the whole team did, I'd say there's a problem at the top.

    Or did the gints, ravens, Steelers, Saints, Packers, colts, all win with inferior teams?

     



    False.  Offense sucked in all those games/years you claim the D choked.

     

    It doesn't matter if it was the ones loaded with futuer HOFers or not.  That's where you lose in this debate. You just don't realize it.

    The shotgun spread base has been used more and more and more since 2005.

    Did the D choke in the loss in Denver in 2005, did Brady's pick 6 change the momentum in that game?

    lol

     

     




    False simpleton.  The D choked in all those games and more

     

    2006 blew a huge lead and allowed 32 points in one half.

    2007.  missed ints and allowed Eli to take the lead with 35 seconds left after TB got the lead.

    2009.  Joke!  RR ran all over their azzes to put them in a huge hole to start the game.

    2010, also blew the lead and sent Sanchez to canton, which has since been retracted.

    2011 blew another lead, couldn't get off the field, scored zero's in every measurable.

    2012 not one single rz stop.  NOT ONE!  Just 50% would have won the game.  has there ever been a play-0ff team that failed to get even one rz stop?  Or Int?  Or 3 & out?

    Did I mention 2005?  Try to stay on track.  I know it's hard for someone with limited mental capacity.  But try!

     



    Please learn basic grammar, so your desperate outbursts don't come across like the 10 year old fat kid at camp out of Twinkies who doesn't know any better.

     

    Thanks.

     




    That's funny!  TFB12 just called you the fat little kid in school that everyone made fun of and you come up with this gem.  How ironic?

     

    Do you have an original thought in your tiny little brain, I mean, other than the warped and delusional ones?

    Do I need to dumb down that list further for you, simpleton?

     



    Like I said. Learn grammar. Are you asking me a question with it being ironic or making a statement? lol

     

    Don't dumb anything down. Just lube up your Brady doll. Hey, maybe there is a 2 for 1 Brady and Welker doll exchange program you two can start?

    lmao

     

     




    Well, it was a question. as in, "how ironic is that?"

     

    Like I said, dumb'd down, just for you.

    Guess I need to go even dumber so that you can comprehend.

    No need for the dolls.  I have a wife who I'll be joining in about 5 minutes.  And you?  Boyfriend?

    Too bad they don't even make BB dolls.  What a sight that would be!

    Much worse than the fat pictures of you, posted earlier.

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

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    Abraham and Freeney are still on the market and there is still the ability to tender Sanders... until all 3 of those possibilities are gone then I won't be worried about our lack of 4th-6th rd picks... I always prefer to use them to add 2nd/3rd rd picks the next year or trade up anyhow.



    ". I always prefer to use them to add 2nd/3rd rd picks "

    as usual, thinking alike.

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

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    I'm sorry but I simply don't get some of this stuff; I really don't.  You can find fault with every organization out there if you wish to try.  

    Kraft wants the team run in a certain way and BB is running it that way.  A perfect GM and coach?  Hardly; but show me someone who is.   The team has been in contention every year that BB has been the head coach/GM; every year.  I still think he's tops and if that makes me a koolaid drinker, make mine grape thanks.

     

     



    I don't think that makes you a kool-aid drinker at all. But, just as they ask of themselves I think the fans have the right to ask for the team to constantly improve. If they want to run it a certain way that's fine but you have to find the faults and improve them. When we see the same mistakes being made and the same holes not being fixed it's time to take a look at those areas an improve on them. If you don't learn from your mistakes you're only going to repeat them

     



    i have said the same thing in response to those who get upset about my finding weaknesses 

    in strategy, personnell, etc. (and hwo to improve them to make it more likely for us to win a sb).

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

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    I guess it's probably a good idea to specify that when I pose a question about a post in here that doesn't mean I'm upset.  Like most Pats fans in here I'm passionate about the team but simply because someone calls BB a dufus I don't run the risk of bursting a blood vessel. 

    I must confess I do get annoyed with cerain posts that consistently indict or second guess the way the team is being managed.  The team has been competitive since Kraft first purchased it and even moreso since BB took the reins in the football operation.  That's not a matter of opinion; it's demonstrable fact.  

    Criticism of a particular player, draft choice, coach's decision, whatever is what being a fan is about.  Dumping on the HC/GM at every opportunity and actively searching for the negative on the other hand raises the queston in my mind as to why the poster is on here to begin with.

    And I guess my final point would be if a Pats fan doesn't like the way the team is being run then that fan has a serious problem.  The Kraft family is going to continue to take the same approach to running the team that has made the team successful over the years.  Ownership ain't changing any time soon.

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

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    ATJ, I think everyone recognizes that the Pats have done a fabulous job keeping the team highly competitive for a long time.  If there's a debate about management style, I believe it comes down to this: Is the kind of value strategy the Pats pursue capable of producing consistently good teams, but not great teams?  I think there's a very legitimate question here, because the Pats, while extremely competitive season after season, have struggled in the postseason and seem to have some rather significant and lingering gaps in talent that take years to fill.  Those talent gaps seem to arise either because of (1) the value approach, which eschews expensive players in favour of cheaper ones, or maybe (2) inconsistent talent evaluation.  It can be argued that, if the goal is winning a championship, it may be better to risk some salary cap issues by investing in more top talent.  It may result in a year or two where the team performs badly because some expensive players will need to be cut for salary reasons and the team rebuilt--but maybe that kind of "binge and purge" approach works better if the goal is not so much consistency from season to season but the creation of a team with enough talent to dominate in the postseason. 

    I actually am quite on the fence on this issue, but I enjoy the debate exactly because I'm not 100% sure which side is right.  I think the majority of "binge and purge" teams actually end up in bad situations, like the Jets, where they spend a lot, don't win, and then have to rebuild.  However, the Ravens, the Steelers, the Packers, the Saints, the 49ers, the Colts, and the Giants all present alternative styles of management to the Pats' style --  and since those alternative styles have also been quite successful in their own ways, debating which is best is certainly legitimate.  

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    There are no great teams. Just the hot, healthy teams that were fortunate to make the playoffs.

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

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    Health plays a big role, but teams also need to have the depth of talent to overcome injuries. The Pats' secondary was just too thin in talent and the offense short of talented receiving options.  The beat down in the SF game was a sign of where the Pats really were against talented teams.  We were deceived by their performance against an overrated Texans team (which had been struggling against poor teams toward the end of the season). SF was a wake-up call--the Ravens game just confirmed what we had already seen in the SF game.   

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

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    ATJ, I think everyone recognizes that the Pats have done a fabulous job keeping the team highly competitive for a long time.  If there's a debate about management style, I believe it comes down to this: Is the kind of value strategy the Pats pursue capable of producing consistently good teams, but not great teams?  I think there's a very legitimate question here, because the Pats, while extremely competitive season after season, have struggled in the postseason and seem to have some rather significant and lingering gaps in talent that take years to fill.  Those talent gaps seem to arise either because of (1) the value approach, which eschews expensive players in favour of cheaper ones, or maybe (2) inconsistent talent evaluation.  It can be argued that, if the goal is winning a championship, it may be better to risk some salary cap issues by investing in more top talent.  It may result in a year or two where the team performs badly because some expensive players will need to be cut for salary reasons and the team rebuilt--but maybe that kind of "binge and purge" approach works better if the goal is not so much consistency from season to season but the creation of a team with enough talent to dominate in the postseason. 

    I actually am quite on the fence on this issue, but I enjoy the debate exactly because I'm not 100% sure which side is right.  I think the majority of "binge and purge" teams actually end up in bad situations, like the Jets, where they spend a lot, don't win, and then have to rebuild.  However, the Ravens, the Steelers, the Packers, the Saints, the 49ers, the Colts, and the Giants all present alternative styles of management to the Pats' style --  and since those alternative styles have also been quite successful in their own ways, debating which is best is certainly legitimate.  



    +1

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

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    ATJ, I think everyone recognizes that the Pats have done a fabulous job keeping the team highly competitive for a long time.  If there's a debate about management style, I believe it comes down to this: Is the kind of value strategy the Pats pursue capable of producing consistently good teams, but not great teams?  I think there's a very legitimate question here, because the Pats, while extremely competitive season after season, have struggled in the postseason and seem to have some rather significant and lingering gaps in talent that take years to fill.  Those talent gaps seem to arise either because of (1) the value approach, which eschews expensive players in favour of cheaper ones, or maybe (2) inconsistent talent evaluation.  It can be argued that, if the goal is winning a championship, it may be better to risk some salary cap issues by investing in more top talent.  It may result in a year or two where the team performs badly because some expensive players will need to be cut for salary reasons and the team rebuilt--but maybe that kind of "binge and purge" approach works better if the goal is not so much consistency from season to season but the creation of a team with enough talent to dominate in the postseason. 

    I actually am quite on the fence on this issue, but I enjoy the debate exactly because I'm not 100% sure which side is right.  I think the majority of "binge and purge" teams actually end up in bad situations, like the Jets, where they spend a lot, don't win, and then have to rebuild.  However, the Ravens, the Steelers, the Packers, the Saints, the 49ers, the Colts, and the Giants all present alternative styles of management to the Pats' style --  and since those alternative styles have also been quite successful in their own ways, debating which is best is certainly legitimate.  

     



    And I fully understand the apparent merits of both sides of this discussion.  I confess to having occasional doubts about the approach that is taken in Foxboro but not to the extent that I'm ready to bolt for the 'go for it now' camp.  And I'll not go into a repetitious recounting of how close the Pats have come in recent years 'if only. . . . '.  It's undeniable that it's been a few years since a Pats team has hoisted a Lombardi.  Why another championship has alluded them in recent years remains open to debate.  That said, I remain convinced that the approach that Kraft and BB are taking is as good as any and better than most.  I have no issue with those who disagree; it's what being a fan is all about.  It's the unrelenting negativity regardless the action taken or not taken that is what I find annoying.

     

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

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    We should spend every last dime so we have no money left to sign the rookies...

    ..really guys, if you can't do the math in your head use your fingers.  Abraham is still unsigned right?  We don't need another high priced corner, we need people that can back up Talib, Dennard and Arrington.  Remember without Sterling Moore, you don't even go to the Super Bowl in 2011.

     



    Wozzy they still have tons of cap space. Last count they have somewhere between $12-15mil left. With their currently alloted picks they only need ~$3.5mil to sign them. Even if they carry their average $5mil into camp like they usually do they still have $4-7mil left to play with. 

    Last time I checked training camp wasn't even close, in fact the draft is coming up so I don't know why everybody is clamoring for a finished product right now?

    You and I don't where this money is allotted, some of it might already be spent extending our existing players so they don't walk next off season in a free agency year.  

    Also you go into camp with a slush fund, you say 5 Million, ok but we still have a few positions left to fill.  After the draft there will be a bunch of teams that will cut vets to make way for the rookies, these teams are mortgaged to the hilt, for all the people saying BB is a poor GM just know he'd never have to cut a player to make room for another, he builds his team using or discarding who he likes because he has that freedom from logical cap use not by going on a spending spree.

    The roster won't be finished until camp ends, we won't have a full compliment of players until camp starts and there are still many players available and that will become available.  Grimes blows, Talib is head and shoulders better than him, sorry new guy but that's the truth.  Abraham is still unsigned and probably won't sign until he finds the best team with the most money right before camp starts or even ends... how much you want to bet it's the Patriots?

     

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

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    Last time I checked training camp wasn't even close, in fact the draft is coming up so I don't know why everybody is clamoring for a finished product right now?

    You and I don't where this money is allotted, some of it might already be spent extending our existing players so they don't walk next off season in a free agency year.  

    Also you go into camp with a slush fund, you say 5 Million, ok but we still have a few positions left to fill.  After the draft there will be a bunch of teams that will cut vets to make way for the rookies, these teams are mortgaged to the hilt, for all the people saying BB is a poor GM just know he'd never have to cut a player to make room for another, he builds his team using or discarding who he likes because he has that freedom from logical cap use not by going on a spending spree.

    The roster won't be finished until camp ends, we won't have a full compliment of players until camp starts and there are still many players available and that will become available.  Grimes blows, Talib is head and shoulders better than him, sorry new guy but that's the truth.  Abraham is still unsigned and probably won't sign until he finds the best team with the most money right before camp starts or even ends... how much you want to bet it's the Patriots?

     



    Again Wozzy they still have plenty of money to sign players now, after the draft, extend players, and for the drafted players. They have more money right now then the vast majority of teams.

    Everyone knows the market to sign talent is now not after the draft. The secondary market is full of players past their prime or never really lived up to their talent level. When was the last time you heard of someone coming in from the secondary market and making an impact? Don't say Carter or Waters because there was no secondary market that year because of the lockout. The talent level in the secondary market is usually subpar because teams dump the players they no longer want, not because of cap concerns. You are generally looking at the Ellis's, Galloways', Springs's,  Taylors', and Gallerys' of the world. The players dumped for cap concerns happen in the weeks surrounding the initial FA market.

    I don't think everyone is claming for a finished product just one when we go into the draft there aren't more holes on the team then high round draft picks and if you are really counting on hitting on 7th round draft picks then your ruby glasses must be 2 miles thick. BB does better then anyone finding good role players in the late and UDFA rounds but even he misses on more of those players then he makes. His average is below 1 out of every 4 players (as sub players) actually which is still leaps and bounds higher then most but still not a great chance if you are counting on them to give you production

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    In response to alfred-e-bob-neumier's comment:

    I'm glad I'm old and used...



    But it's so much more pleasing to the ear when we say seasoned and experienced.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    We should spend every last dime so we have no money left to sign the rookies...

    ..really guys, if you can't do the math in your head use your fingers.  Abraham is still unsigned right?  We don't need another high priced corner, we need people that can back up Talib, Dennard and Arrington.  Remember without Sterling Moore, you don't even go to the Super Bowl in 2011.

     



    You have that a little wrong. Without Sterling Moore Lee Evans is not open

     

     




    When has not being open that stopped Flacco from throwing to that reciever? (See all of Bolden's career catches.)

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    In response to digger0862's comment:

     

    There are no great teams. Just the hot, healthy teams that were fortunate to make the playoffs.

     




    Think it is the smashmouth teams do better in the playoff than  the regular season.

     

    1.More nerves: + for defesnes / - for finess offenses

    2.Refs instructed to NOT take over games: + for physical teams, -for well coached less penalized teams.

     

    Of course Ravens were a hot team with a tendency to be physical.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: With only 3 picks, Not signing cb grimes (at 5.5 mil) and de abraham looks a mistake.

    The Patriots' way of doing business works. Last year they were a little off but not by much. They did finish 4th afterall. The 2007 and 2011 super bowls were decided by two plays. There are plenty to choose from but I'll choose two passes, the Tyree catch and the Welker non-catch. Reverse those outcomes and the Patriots probably have 5 super bowl wins.

     

Share