- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 37,794
- Reaction score
- 16,603
The logic is indeed the same. So you are comparing Lloyd, Edelman and Salas to Barrett, Brown and Ihedigbo?
Are you suggesting that Belichick has made as bad a judgment on these three as on the three safeties last year?
We had four positions at safety going into 2011. We have four positions at wide receiver going into 2012.
===================
Are you objecting to the decision to carry only 4 WR's and only 2 QB's in order to have better TE depth (4 TE's) and be able to better emphasize the TE's in our offense?
I suspect that you simply don't like Belichick's choices of Edelman and Salas over Branch and Gaffney.
===============
It is not my logic that is at issue. It is the legitimate questioning of the quality of the quality of Edelman and Salas as receivers
===================
BOTTOM LINE
I would also to refer see a 5th inactive receiver (in addition to the 4th being inactive) as being more valuable than having THREE front defensive kids being inactive as part of a 16 man front.
BTW, I do NOT think that the issue is whether we should carry 5 RB/FBs. Perhaps we have made the wrong choices. If either of the bottom RB's go, I would expect us to sign another. We carry 5 running backs, with 4 active. This seems right if are going to run more.
Are you suggesting that Belichick has made as bad a judgment on these three as on the three safeties last year?
We had four positions at safety going into 2011. We have four positions at wide receiver going into 2012.
===================
Are you objecting to the decision to carry only 4 WR's and only 2 QB's in order to have better TE depth (4 TE's) and be able to better emphasize the TE's in our offense?
I suspect that you simply don't like Belichick's choices of Edelman and Salas over Branch and Gaffney.
===============
It is not my logic that is at issue. It is the legitimate questioning of the quality of the quality of Edelman and Salas as receivers
===================
BOTTOM LINE
I would also to refer see a 5th inactive receiver (in addition to the 4th being inactive) as being more valuable than having THREE front defensive kids being inactive as part of a 16 man front.
BTW, I do NOT think that the issue is whether we should carry 5 RB/FBs. Perhaps we have made the wrong choices. If either of the bottom RB's go, I would expect us to sign another. We carry 5 running backs, with 4 active. This seems right if are going to run more.
By your logic here, Sanders and Meriweather couldn't beat out Sergio Brown so there should have been no angst about the safety position last year.
Last edited: