Ochocinco talking the talk on twitter

[Deus Irae]

What it is is people trying to show they are "objective fans" but what it shows is that they are "negative jackasses"

That would make sense if the homers weren't every bit as bad as the so-called "negative jackasses". Since the homers are as bad, though, we need to look elsewhere for the answer.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

What's not to like. A guy dedicating himself to prove a point and be productive that cost's us next to nothing and who we have zero expectations from. I don't see what harm at all could come of it.

Best case - He proves everyone wrong and is a productive member of the offense going forward.

Worst case - He continues to do nothing, gets cut at camp and offers no value as a receiver next year.

Either way. It's cost's next to nothing, and we are not depending on him to succeed like we hoped last year. Folks, we basically playing with house money as far as Chad is concerned.

Great potential upside, absolutely nil downside. We should all be routing for him to succeed ,because ultimately it's in our best interest. Don't count on it, but certainly hope for it.

 

[Ring 6]

OK, sorry your right. Well switch Holt with Stallworth the 13th pick in the 2002 draft..

When did Stallworth not get the system?

 

[Ring 6]

If he even makes it onto the field. Where is he going to fit in with this crew, Welker, assuming he signs, Lloyd, Stallworth, Branch, Edelman, Gonzalez, and as far as I am concerned, Slater and even Underwood and even Hernandez as an H back.. As of now, I put Ocho at the bottom of that list.

What basis are you using to put Stallworth, who hasn't produced in 4 years over 85 who hasn't produced for 1? Edelman who was behind him last year, and caught a total of 4 passes? Gonzalez who didn't catch a single one? Underwood or Slater who were also behind him?
You are letting you dislike of the person cloud your football evaluation.
I think there is a good chance he will not make the team, but your comments are ridiculous.

 

[Sivy]

That would make sense if the homers weren't every bit as bad as the so-called "negative jackasses". Since the homers are as bad, though, we need to look elsewhere for the answer.

I try to look at the positive side of things in everything not just football.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Yeah, we have some nice gems from Ocho:


"Gonna punch each one of you in the f-ing face when I see you.. @WesWelker @deionbranch84 @TiUnderwood @DonteStallworth @mrblloyd @Edelman11"

"I'm gonna whoop Toms ass 1st to set the tone in the lockeroom"

 

[BradyFTW!]

Brandon Spikes manages to find time between tweets to play football. Which is far more impressive.

I have never seen so many people cheering against a patriots player. It would clearly be in best interest of the team for Chad to be a solid player next year, but some are hoping for him to get cut, etc.

Ocho's been tweeting for many years, and was a Pro Bowl-caliber receiver in most of them. It has nothing to do with "finding time between tweets to play football". That's dumb on the face of it, and even dumber if you have any idea how small of a time commitment Twitter really is.

Reminds of when Paul Shirley had a blog, and suddenly people were wondering if it was taking up so much time that it impacted his commitment to basketball. His response, in essence, was that while his teammates were going out and getting drunk, he was sometimes sitting at home writing blog posts on his computer.

BTW, a ton of the top entrepreneurs and VCs in the world are insanely prolific tweeters- do you think that they're doing it at the expense of their real job too? Because their performance, pretty much across the board, would indicate otherwise.

 

[Deus Irae]

I try to look at the positive side of things in everything not just football.

And you think labeling some people as "negative jackasses" is a look at the positive side? Interesting application of theory....

 

[McGinley]

That's what I took from it, too. Everyone knew he stunk last year, including him. Publicly owning up to it says a lot about his commitment.

I think he's going to have a good year.

Exactly. The thing that's impressed me about him since we picked him up is how much he has, in my opinion, tried to commit to the Patriot way. He didn't get the stats we hoped (which wasn't his fault. no offseason for a new patriot wr? Yea, have fun), but he stopped with the antics, acted like a professional, and owned up to the fact that he just didn't get the system. Yea, I'll risk it and give the guy a second year.

How anyone can bash this guy who came to the Pats with no offseason to really learn our system (which by all accounts is HAM) is beyond me. I'd also like to see these same bashers go put on some pads and do better than Chad.

 

[Sivy]

And you think labeling some people as "negative jackasses" is a look at the positive side? Interesting application of theory....

Yes, I am positive they are negative Jackasses.

 

[Ivan]

He's going to have play lights out in camp because he won't make the roster as a 5th or 6th receiver, those spots will go to WR's who play ST's. The way things stand right now I don't see him making it, if he somehow comes in and plays like he did in his prime and is on exactly the same page as Brady then he has a shot, short of that..............

 

[supafly]

He's going to have play lights out in camp because he won't make the roster as a 5th or 6th receiver, those spots will go to WR's who play ST's.

Belichick still needs to fill out a WR positional core, and there will likely be 6 on that core.

To assume that guys like Gonzalez, Stallworth, T.Underwood etc are going to automatically beat out Chad Johnson is wishful thinking in my opinion.

Johnson isn't battling for the WR5 or WR6 slots (Edelman + player X), he's battling for the WR3 or WR4 slots. It's that or nothing.

When you consider that the top 4 targets are Gronk, Welker, Hernandez, and Llyod, we're talking about still needing guys on the team who are going to be WR3, WR4, WR5, and WR6.

 

[fnordcircle]

And you think labeling some people as "negative jackasses" is a look at the positive side? Interesting application of theory....

Trying to be positive != going through life with blinders on.

A big part of leading a positive life is identifying people with toxic attitudes and avoiding them.

 

[captain stone]

What's not to like. A guy dedicating himself to prove a point and be productive that cost's us next to nothing and who we have zero expectations from. I don't see what harm at all could come of it.

Best case - He proves everyone wrong and is a productive member of the offense going forward.

Worst case - He continues to do nothing, gets cut at camp and offers no value as a receiver next year.

Either way. It's cost's next to nothing, and we are not depending on him to succeed like we hoped last year. Folks, we basically playing with house money as far as Chad is concerned.

Great potential upside, absolutely nil downside. We should all be routing for him to succeed ,because ultimately it's in our best interest. Don't count on it, but certainly hope for it.

Unfortunately, Stinko hasn't cost us next to nothing.
He cost us $6M last season.
He took a spot on last season's roster over somebody - anybody - who maybe could have
actually contributed something.
He'll cost us 2 draft picks over 2 years.
And he'll cost us almost $2M this season if he makes the 53.

Stinko has been a complete and predictable waste of money, roster space & energy.
The sooner this metal-mouthed attention whore is gone, the better for the franchise.

 

[supafly]

Unfortunately, Stinko hasn't cost us next to nothing.
He cost us $6M last season.
He took a spot on last season's roster over somebody - anybody - who maybe could have actually contributed something.
He'll cost us 2 draft picks over 2 years.
And he'll cost us almost $2M this season if he makes the 53.

Stinko has been a complete and predictable waste of money, roster space & energy.
The sooner this metal-mouthed attention whore is gone, the better for the franchise.

I totally agree about his negative impact on the team as a whole, and last yr was pathetic.

I think at this point though, looking at the present and future is what should be done. There's no crying over spilled (spilt?) milk, no use looking backwards. The money's spent, the draft picks are gone.

There will be 3 WR spots to fill after Lloyd, Welker, and Edelman (if Edelman plays on offense and is counted there), so the potential for him to make the team with 3 out of Johnson, Branch, Gonzalez, Underwood, and Stallworth (and maybe Slater depending upon him you'd consider him) should not be all that hard.

Put it this way---if he shows that he has learned the system and is able to catch 25 balls this year, wouldn't you still want him over a guy like Underwood? He still has obvious talent, and his work ethic has been great, but he does need to prove that he has learned the system.

I hated him last yr, but I will give him a chance now that it's a new game. We can't recover the picks, and can't recover the money, so it really comes down to risking a small affordable salary for a chance at a possible contribution.

I'm not sure that there are too many in the potential list of 3 remaining WR's who have more talent than him.

 

[Garbanza]

Belichick still needs to fill out a WR positional core, and there will likely be 6 on that core.

To assume that guys like Gonzalez, Stallworth, T.Underwood etc are going to automatically beat out Chad Johnson is wishful thinking in my opinion.

Johnson isn't battling for the WR5 or WR6 slots (Edelman + player X), he's battling for the WR3 or WR4 slots. It's that or nothing.

When you consider that the top 4 targets are Gronk, Welker, Hernandez, and Llyod, we're talking about still needing guys on the team who are going to be WR3, WR4, WR5, and WR6.

If he's battling for WR3 or WR4 spot, Chad is as good as gone. Welker, Lloyd, Edleman and Branch are better than Ocho and I suspect that Stallworth may end up being better too. Buh-bye, Chad!

 

[Deus Irae]

If he's battling for WR3 or WR4 spot, Chad is as good as gone. Welker, Lloyd, Edleman and Branch are better than Ocho and I suspect that Stallworth may end up being better too. Buh-bye, Chad!

Edelman is better than Johnson?



You've really got to start thinking before you post.

 

[JackBauer]

The next rational post she makes re: Ocho will be the first.

 

[supafly]

If he's battling for WR3 or WR4 spot, Chad is as good as gone. Welker, Lloyd, Edleman and Branch are better than Ocho and I suspect that Stallworth may end up being better too. Buh-bye, Chad!

We just got through stating that the 5th and 6th WR positions will be used for depth and special teams. Last time I checked Chad Johnson certainly doesn't play ST here.

That's just one of many reasons why Edelman will be taking up one of those slots. There are several, more obvious reasons besides that like overall talent, a terrific NFL resume, route running ability, experience, and potential to stretch the field a bit more.

Edelman is a great story, and I am a fan--but he doesn't even come close to offering those kinds of abilities vs. Chad Johnson, at least not as a WR.

 

[neuronet]

When you consider that the top 4 targets are Gronk, Welker, Hernandez, and Llyod, we're talking about still needing guys on the team who are going to be WR3, WR4, WR5, and WR6.

What a great quandary to be in. We are going to put up mega-offensive numbers next year.

Question is, will we have a running game?