Which RFA would you prefer: Arian Foster or Mike Wallace? - Page 5 - New England Patriots Forums

***AndyJohnson*** · 03-03-2012, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich<3TheWoodhead

Thanks for showing your maturity with that response Andy Johnson. Now go back to your moms basement and possibly try and come up with a valid argument instead of name calling.

I didn't call you a name. Your argument is in fact stupid and wrong.
You are arguing that the only way a team who came one play from winning this years SB will ever win a SB is to make philopsophical changes. What else do you want me to call that statement?
They just proved that one way is to do exactly what they did this year, and make one more routine play. How can the only way they ever win be to make dramatic changes?

Rich<3TheWoodhead · 03-03-2012, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

I didn't call you a name. Your argument is in fact stupid and wrong.
You are arguing that the only way a team who came one play from winning this years SB will ever win a SB is to make philopsophical changes. What else do you want me to call that statement?
They just proved that one way is to do exactly what they did this year, and make one more routine play. How can the only way they ever win be to make dramatic changes?

You are wrong to think we were one play away. You cannot predict what would have happened after even if welker or gronkowski made the play. You want to make yourself feel better by believing we were one play away. Reality check we lost and we haven't won a SB since our philosophy has been pass first with mediocre defense. Your argument is average at best and borderlines on what your mind wants to believe.

***AndyJohnson*** · 03-03-2012, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich<3TheWoodhead

You are wrong to think we were one play away. You cannot predict what would have happened after even if welker or gronkowski made the play. You want to make yourself feel better by believing we were one play away. Reality check we lost and we haven't won a SB since our philosophy has been pass first with mediocre defense. Your argument is average at best and borderlines on what your mind wants to believe.

If welker holds the ball, the Patriots run out the clock and win the game.
They also win by making a play on defense.
Regardless of whether it is one play or not, they proved they were capable of winning the SB just by making a few plays they normally make.
You certainly are welcome to argue that changes could make them better. But that is not what you said. It sounds like you are beginning to realize your comment was way off the mark. If so, good for you.

Rich<3TheWoodhead · 03-03-2012, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

If welker holds the ball, the Patriots run out the clock and win the game.
They also win by making a play on defense.
Regardless of whether it is one play or not, they proved they were capable of winning the SB just by making a few plays they normally make.
You certainly are welcome to argue that changes could make them better. But that is not what you said. It sounds like you are beginning to realize your comment was way off the mark. If so, good for you.

So now you are changing your tune from one play to " by just making a few plays they normally make" throw me a bone you are the one realizing your comments were off the mark. My stance from post #1 is that the patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since going to this current gameplay philosophy. And I'm 100% correct because that's the facts. And you sir are wrong. /thread

alvinnf · 03-03-2012, 07:36 PM

Mike Wallace would make a bigger impact, based on the fact that this is a passing team. Now put a backup qb in there and I'll take my chances with Foster. Although watching Foster run against nickel d would be fun to watch. Alright get me both.

Modest · 03-03-2012, 07:47 PM

How is this even a serious question? Foster all the way.

VJCPatriot · 03-03-2012, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

A month after being one routine catch (or a defensive stop with 88 yards of field behind them) away from winning a SB how can you possibly think THE ONLY WAY THE PATRIOTS EVER WIN ANOTHER SB is to change thier philosophy?
Do you think at all before you post?

Didn't the Pats win superbowl titles with Antowain Smith and Corey Dillon pounding the football? What about having a premiere RB and a credible running game changes the winning philosophy?

Foster vs Wallace. I'd say Foster is the bigger impact player. Wallace is still a really good player. But if we can get a guy like VJax from free agency, why would we cough up a draft pick for Wallace?

Rich<3TheWoodhead · 03-03-2012, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VJCPatriot

Didn't the Pats win superbowl titles with Antowain Smith and Corey Dillon pounding the football? What about having a premiere RB and a credible running game changes the winning philosophy?

Foster vs Wallace. I'd say Foster is the bigger impact player. Wallace is still a really good player. But if we can get a guy like VJax from free agency, why would we cough up a draft pick for Wallace?

Thank you. Andy Johnson likes to block out the reasons why we actually won those SB's. Of course our defense was credible. That helps!

***Deus Irae*** · 03-03-2012, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VJCPatriot

Didn't the Pats win superbowl titles with Antowain Smith and Corey Dillon pounding the football? What about having a premiere RB and a credible running game changes the winning philosophy?

Foster vs Wallace. I'd say Foster is the bigger impact player. Wallace is still a really good player. But if we can get a guy like VJax from free agency, why would we cough up a draft pick for Wallace?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich<3TheWoodhead

Thank you. Andy Johnson likes to block out the reasons why we actually won those SB's. Of course our defense was credible. That helps!

The Patriots of the early 2000s was a team with a tremendous defense. The Patriots have not had a tremendous defense in a lot of years. The NFL has also changed, as running game + defense no longer equals SB wins. The vast majority of recent Super Bowl winners have been passing teams.

The notion that it's about the running game isn't as outdated as the 8-track, but it's still outdated.

Rich<3TheWoodhead · 03-03-2012, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

The Patriots of the early 2000s was a team with a tremendous defense. The Patriots have not had a tremendous defense in a lot of years. The NFL has also changed, as running game + defense no longer equals SB wins. The vast majority of recent Super Bowl winners have been passing teams.

The notion that it's about the running game isn't as outdated as the 8-track, but it's still outdated.

Great points Deus. The NFL has changed however The basic principles remain. Great defense with excellent clock control. We need to take some of the pressure off him. One of the main points people bring up is that when we won SB we were more balanced and Brady wasn't forced to put the entire game on his shoulders ( what he does now). If we had a runner like Arian Foster BB would utilize him accordingly.