brady2brown

Oh, chill out and quit being so melodramtic. It was a joke paralleling discussions here. "Completely cheapened the discussion." Don't be silly. Completely? I'd say the discussions were cheapened only about 30%. 40 tops.

Facts? You can't stand the facts.

I'm not rooting against Faulk! I never said that at all, and it isn't true. I said he is more of a hindrance than a help to the Patriots, and chokes in pressure situations. That is not rooting against him. That is observing and reporting. I never rooted against anyone wearing a Patriots uniform. I am a staunch supporter of the Pats and hope they win every game they play. That's why I don't want Faulk on the team. I want them to win more games. But I never rooted against him and never said I did.

You've completely cheapened this discussion by lying about me. Well, you've cheapened it by at least 66.7% Certainly more than I cheapened it by! Plus my cheapening was funny. Yours wasn't.

pats1

Can't you just discuss Kevin Faulk without making annoying and worthless "jokes?"

You want the facts? He gave them to you in a clear, year-by-year format.

The best you could do was "I think I remember that that play went sort of like that."

Blatant lie. That foolish thread you made yesterday proved it. Don't even try to defend the obvious fact you have some type of agenda against Faulk.

And you supported that argument with nothing but fluff.

It's rooting against him when you don't present a valid case, and instead dance around the facts, make moronic "jokes," and create a half-satirical poll on "Which way he'll screw up the next game," which, of course, got no response and is now sinking quickly down the second page.

Again, don't even try to say you're not rooting against him. Don't even say you're observing, because it's obvious you've blatantly ignored 99% of what Faulk has done and is doing.

Murphys has done nothing but present a clear and concise arugment around every corner, asking you to provide evidence that you simply can't produce. So you resort to "funny" name-calling. That's cheapening the discussion. That's a mark of defeat.

BJ_McWild

The way I see it -- as Faulk goes, so goes the Patriots' offense.

When he is on, we are basically invincible, especially in the two-minute offense. He has demonstrated great hands, elusiveness, speed, and picks up yardage in critical times.

When he is off, things go bad quickly.

PaulNEPats

Not a fair comparison. Faulk handles the ball much less than Brady. If Brady had the same TO ratio as faulk, then things wouldn't have been too pretty over the years.

pats1

I'm not fighting the fact that Faulk's fumble rate is high.

What I am arguing is that Faulk's fumble was the big shift in the Denver game, or more generally, that his fumbles have caused losses in the past.

Clonamery

You aren't funny at all but don't take that personally, I'm just observing and reporting.