What is hilarious upstarter is that you didn't actually read what was said. I never said I didn't speculate. I do. We ALL speculate. However, what I DID say is that I try NOT to speculate on who the Pats will take until closer to draft time. Sorry that you don't understand the difference.
This is veering off from the original conversation. You took exception to my speculating about our needs without Samuel on the team. An either/or propisition. compared to the crap that's thrown on the wall daily on this board, that was one of the most conservative attempts at speculation, especially given the fact that it's a 50/50 proposition. Frankly, I have no idea why it bothered you that I was talking about our needs assuming Samuel was signed. I wasn't even participating in a mock draf, which, by the way, if I had, it seems to be one of the favorite pastimes around here.
As for the Samuel issue, if he's gone, CB becomes the #2 issue behind LB and ahead of WR. If Samuel stays, then going into free agency and the draft, CB is much less of an issue.
Don't you think this is ironic? I mean, how does this differ from what I was doing? This is the exact same thing. You're engaging in speculation abot the team's needs with Samuel on or off the team. I really don't understand what your point is.
How is it that the WRs are hurting this team MORE when we score MORE this year than we did during any Charlie Weis era team other than 2004?
There's a whole other thread on this. I pretty much explained it. I'm also not a stat whore. I prefer to watch the games. If we're winning 20-10, that's just fine with me. The main problem is that teams this year just didn't respect our offense, and they put their safeties up at the line, daring us to throw it on them. Brady's crappy year just seemed to coincide with the loss of our two starting receivers. Everything else was in place, RBs, FB, TEs, OL.
Sorry, but I disgreed with your assessment and claims of 9 in the box and I think you're over-reacting now as well.
It's not my assessment. It' a fact. I have the game on DVR. All but the CBs were in the box. Watch it.
Really? It was reported by all the Boston Papers? Then why didn't you provide a link? The only link you provided was one that implicated BB and Pioli. Not a teammate.
You're misunderstanding what I wrote. The bB accusation was reported in the Boston papers. The teammate thing was reported here and on Patriots Planet. I searched for the post here with a few well chosen terms, but I came back with 1000s of post. I searched at Patriots Planet and there was a thread there that mentioned exactly what I'm saying. I'm sure people around here remember well, if anyone cares to chime in.
I know there was much speculation on this board that one of Branch's teammates should tell him to fire his agent, but it was mainly speculation on this board.
It came from one of the blogs, one of the daily reporters had said it. I forget which one. Regardless, it's irrelevant sincee I was only trying to make the point that, in the end, the Patriots called Branch and agreed to pay him his money. That was m,y main point. I can really care less otherwise. Just to end this inane irrelevant argument about who telephoned who, you're right and I'm wrong (even though I'm right
).
In 2004, Branch was the defacto #1 with teams putting their #1 CB on him. But Miami was stacking the box and bringing their pass rush the way they usually do. Its why the Pats lost that Monday night debacle.
Yes, I'm sure that aggressive defense will work against us a lot of the time. But not each and every week!! The Steelers tried it and look what happened to them.
