Keegs

I swear im not being funny or a smartass when i ask this..

i just have no clue what you guys are talking about and was wondering if someone could explain it briefly.

BelichickFan

Keegs

Yeah that's the thread that was confusing me. It seems obvious that you are referring to our 4 starting Linebackers???? if not, help me out here.

I guess i just can't figure out what the hell you guys are talking about.

Flying Fungi

c-a-t spells cat

k-e-g spells keg

k-e-e-g spells.........?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BelichickFan

Read the thread, it's really not that hard. All I'm saying is that we lost McGinest and made no attempt, that we know of anyway, to legitimitely replace him. Which can mean only one thing - the coaching staff is comfortable with someone, presumably Beisel, as the 4th starting LB when we have 4 on the field. Last year they needed to replace Bruschi and signed to veteran FA - this year, nothing.

Keegs

very helpful.

BelichickFan

I'd love to join in here but . . . MUST . . . BE . . . NICE . . .

Keegs

wouldn't

3+1 = 4

make more sense?

just an idea.

pats1

Not really. It's just an example of the simple logic being used. Everyone knows 2+2=4.

With that in mind...

-The Patriots lost Willie McGinest.

-The Patriots haven't replaced Willie McGinest externally

-Therefore, the Patriots feel they have/will replace McGinest internally.

D-cleater

I'm with Keegs. If anything, it should be 5 -1 = 4. I dont see where we added to LB's to equal four. I can see that we're trying to be catchy, and not that I have anything better to offer in this regard, but.....

I think the math thing is more applicable to the offense .

2 skill players ( Dillon and Branch)

we add 2 more ( Maroney and Jax)

equaling 4 ??? sorry, I'm trying. guess I'll move on :-).