Rapoport: Edelman has a broken arm

[mgteich]

I have no clue what you are talking about. "We haven't" what?

Do you disagree with either of two "facts" below.

FACTS
Gaffney and Washington were not re-signed
Galloway and Lewis were both signed to compete for the #3 spot.
==================================================
I agree that our #3 receiver Edelman was injured and that our #4 is now the number 3. Galloway had BECOME irrelevant in the last three weeks and was #6 as you indicate.

No, we haven't.

Aiken had already passed Galloway on the depth chart, as had Slater. Part of that is their special teams play, but they were the guys being put in the 4 and 5 wide sets, or subbing out other guys, because they were actually active. We cut our #6 WR, and then our #3 got hurt.


I would expect Tate, if he plays in the next couple weeks, to be the #4, and only go in during 4-wide sets, as that only needs him to know a small subset of the playbook.

 

[Synovia]

Do you disagree with either of two "facts" below.

FACTS
Gaffney and Washington were not re-signed
Galloway and Lewis were both signed to compete for the #3 spot.

No, I don't. I disagree with your previous post, which because of either my failure in reading, or your failuer in clearly communicating, to me, insinuates that Galloway was still competing for the #3 spot. In my opinion, Galloway lost the competition for the #3 and #4 spot in week 2.

 

[Xplicit]

No, we haven't.

Aiken had already passed Galloway on the depth chart, as had Slater. Part of that is their special teams play, but they were the guys being put in the 4 and 5 wide sets, or subbing out other guys, because they were actually active. We cut our #6 WR, and then our #3 got hurt.


I would expect Tate, if he plays in the next couple weeks, to be the #4, and only go in during 4-wide sets, as that only needs him to know a small subset of the playbook.

Tate's had about 6 months to learn the playbook. He's had nothing but time, that's not going to be the inssue.

 

[shmessy]

Damn. On the brighter side, what are we probably looking at, 4-6 weeks? That time off might help him avoid hitting the rookie wall later in the season. This guy has "big play" written all over him.

On a lighter note, have you thought about dropping the final "Y" in your postername yet?

 

[spacecrime]

I have no clue what you are talking about. "We haven't" what?

You said we cut our #3 WR, and the guy said, "No we haven't," as in we didn't cut our #3 receiver. Galloway wasn't #3. He was last on the depth chart, behind everyone who was active each week.

You are a brave person. I would not dare start a post with, "I have no clue" because I can anticipate the responses I would get. Totally undeserved, of course.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Tough what happened to Edelman, and I'm certainly still rooting for the kid. However, I felt Nunn was impressive enough in the offseason and preseason to be a part of the active roster. Hopefully the weeks off didn't cause too much rust.

 

[mgteich]

I did NOT post that we cut our #3 receiver.

I posted that we have lost our #3 receiver for 4-6 weeks. The other poster indicated that we haven't done so.

Or, I posted that there were four other contenders for the #3 spot that Edeleman held until his injury. The other poster indicated that we haven't done so.

I also stated that Aiken was now our #3.

I asked the poster to clarify which statement the "we haven't" done so refers to. You andwered that it referred to the nonexistent statement that Galloway was the #3 WR when he was cut.
==============================================================
I did say that we have cut or not re-signed the other condenders for the #3 spot: Lewis, Galloway, Gaffney and Washington. If you all do not think that Galloway was even a CONTENDER for the #3 spot this year, then I strongly disagree.
================================================

THE REFERENCED POST
I said

"We are bummed out because we have lost our #3 receiver for 4-6 weeks. We have cut the other contenders for that position (Lewis and Galloway) after not re-signing Gaffney or Washington. Aiken is our #3."

You said we cut our #3 WR, and the guy said, "No we haven't," as in we didn't cut our #3 receiver. Galloway wasn't #3. He was last on the depth chart, behind everyone who was active each week.

You are a brave person. I would not dare start a post with, "I have no clue" because I can anticipate the responses I would get. Totally undeserved, of course.

 

[Synovia]

I did NOT post that we cut our #3 receiver.

Maybe your understanding of the english language and grammar is different then mine and the other poster's?

We are bummed out because we have lost our #3 receiver for 4-6 weeks. We have cut the other contenders for that position (Lewis and Galloway)

That clearly, to me atleast, says "We have cut the other contenders for that position", with that other position being [#3 receiver].


I stated, "no we havent", as Galloway and Lewis were not contenders for that position, and haven't been for months.

You were trying to indicate that cutting Galloway was a bad idea in light of this. So either, your post makes no sense, as Galloway wasn't relevant already, or you thought Galloway was relevant to the #3 position.

 

[mgteich]

What I don't understand is why you didn't correct me by stating that I thought that Lewis was a contender for the #3 spot this week. It is at least as relevant as your reference to Galloway who has been out of Belichick's plans for almost as long as Lewis. Washington and Gaffney ceased to be a contender for #3 when they were signed by other teams. Lewis ceased to be a contender when he was cut and not re-signed, since he was a contender for #3 at the time. Galloway was a contender for #3 until he was made inactive.

All FOUR contenders for the #3 WR positions have been cut or were not re-signed. You are certainly free to diagree with my analysis and grammar. "Live Free Or Die" is my state's motto (at least for another few days).

I agree that my understanding of the English language and grammar is likely to be different from your and the other poster's.

Maybe your understanding of the english language and grammar is different then mine and the other poster's?

 

[Patspsycho]

I preferred the rare triple negative.

Breaking news: AD has come up with his own triple negative in today's interview:

"Ain't nobody told me nothing."

 

[edelmansarmy]

On a lighter note, have you thought about dropping the final "Y" in your postername yet?

His arm is key.

This guy is a player.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

This guy is a player.

:agree: He'll be fine, he'll be back. He's Tough and he's good; he leaves nothing out there.

 

[captain stone]

Breaking news: AD has come up with his own triple negative in today's interview:

"Ain't nobody told me nothing."

So...does that mean that somebody has told him something, or that nobody has told him anything?

 

[Patjew]

So...does that mean that somebody has told him something, or that nobody has told him anything?

I think it means somebody told him nothing.

Actually, I'm somebody and I told him nothing. I wonder if he's talking about me.