Players earn snaps in practice and I have no idea if he has earned anything in practice. My point is that this is the worst OL the Pats will see this year and it is likely that the Pats will be missing significant DL depth. If he has improved his technique in practice, can you think of a better time to see if it translates to game play?
I hear you. All these games are critical and the thought of a guy going in there who has not done anything in games and practices to at least provide some optimism is concerning. He being put out there in short yardage/STs if he is active- which has only been a handful of times this year.
Agree 100% on the point that if hes showing improvement, you give him a shot to do something.
Well he isn't exactly in the role of a reporter in this case. His giving his opinion, so I don't see why it isn't fair game to question his credibility to give that opinion. These guys hold themselves out to be experts so they should be held to that standard. Maybe if they were, we would be subject to less sensationalism and conjecture.
I think they've had some tough games vs tough teams on the road this year. Bottomline is they lost, but let's not get carried away with the negativity here -- they lost to the undefeated Colts by 1, to the Dolphins by 1 and to the Broncos in OT by a FG. If Welker was healthy I'm sure they would have beaten the Jets in that game where they lost by a TD. Ultimate bottomline, the Pats have 8 wins and have a chance at a playoff spot. It doesn't matter what they've done up to this point and where as long as they win going forward. As far as this game is concerned, Pats will win by 10 pts.
Well he isn't exactly in the role of a reporter in this case. His giving his opinion, so I don't see why it isn't fair game to question his credibility to give that opinion. These guys hold themselves out to be experts so they should be held to that standard. Maybe if they were, we would be subject to less sensationalism and conjecture.
As soon as you name the "opinion" guy who's opinion is correct 100% of the time, this will have merit. Until then, though, it doesn't. It's one thing to point out that he's not perfect and point to one or two examples. It's another to completely dismiss someone on that same basis.
When it comes to this stuff, a success rate is far more important than a complete dismissal.
Not quite, final score might have you believe that but game was tied going into the 4th qtr and Bills were up 17-14 after a 56 yd FG w/2:24 left and Miami had turnovers late that made the final seem like a blowout.
As soon as you name the "opinion" guy who's opinion is correct 100% of the time, this will have merit. Until then, though, it doesn't. It's one thing to point out that he's not perfect and point to one or two examples. It's another to completely dismiss someone on that same basis.
When it comes to this stuff, a success rate is far more important than a complete dismissal.
Funny, that is exactly what the OP you quoted did.
That being said, it is nonsense that he can't dismiss an expert opinion based on any basis that the evaluator sees fit. John Tomasse might have the greatest success rate in the history of sports reporting but I'll be damned if I put any credibility to anything he writes.
Funny, that is exactly what the OP you quoted did.
That being said, it is nonsense that he can't dismiss an expert opinion based on any basis that the evaluator sees fit. John Tomasse might have the greatest success rate in the history of sports reporting but I'll be damned if I put any credibility to anything he writes.
Calling someone a "clown" on the basis of two examples in a sea of opinions/reports is not the same thing as pointing out that someone's not perfect. Every time someone is named on this board, it becomes a matter of bashing the messenger instead of looking at the message, and that's just stupid.
Calling someone a "clown" on the basis of two examples in a sea of opinions/reports is not the same thing as pointing out that someone's not perfect. Every time someone is named on this board, it becomes a matter of bashing the messenger instead of looking at the message, and that's just stupid.
The guy has like 15 posts on this board. I don't think it is fair to crucify him for the sins of this board. And maybe to him those two examples are enough to qualify him as a clown. Its the guy's opinion. It's fine to disagree with his opinion but you seem to have a problem with him just having one.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
