Two Pats prospects of high character...

[Seneschal2]

A very short article on 5 prospects with solid character, two of whom are serious Pats prospects, two more are OGs, and one we want nothing to do with.

 

[spacecrime]

Adam Schein has often shown himself to be a complete idiot.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

A very short article on 5 prospects with solid character, two of whom are serious Pats prospects, two more are OGs, and one we want nothing to do with.

Which is the one "we" want nothing to do with?

 

[VJCPatriot]

The article talks about a WR, TE, CB, OG, GT. Take a wild guess...

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

The article talks about a WR, TE, CB, OG, GT. Take a wild guess...

GT? Must be, I hadn't encountered that abbreviation before.

 

[c_nice_37]

I'm going to guess TE.

And of the 5, I'd take most at 28, maybe not Miller.

 

[VJCPatriot]

GT? Must be, I hadn't encountered that abbreviation before.

Guard/Tackle

 

[Seneschal2]

Which is the one "we" want nothing to do with?

Let me get this straight. You're more interested in my usage of "we" and the obvious first round, one-dimensional, pass-catching TE, than you are of the other four high character prospects, two of whom many here have endorsed as solid Pats prospects. Is this correct or do we need more commas?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Let me get this straight. You're more interested in my usage of "we" and the obvious first round, one-dimensional, pass-catching TE, than you are of the other four high character prospects, two of whom many here have endorsed as solid Pats prospects. Is this correct or do we need more commas?

Straight or curve ball, I frankly did not know which of the five prospects you found so unsuitable. I may not have any of them on my boards, but couldn't see what you found so objectionable about any of them - since "we" felt that way, I inquired.

 

[SamBamsFan]

Let me get this straight. You're more interested in my usage of "we" and the obvious first round, one-dimensional, pass-catching TE, than you are of the other four high character prospects, two of whom many here have endorsed as solid Pats prospects. Is this correct or do we need more commas?

Actually, there was also some noise about Grubb, not so much about Blalock, but I wouldn't find either of these objectionable in any way.

 

[sebman2112]

Straight or curve ball, I frankly did not know which of the five prospects you found so unsuitable. I may not have any of them on my boards, but couldn't see what you found so objectionable about any of them - since "we" felt that way, I inquired.

I agree with you, I was trying to figure out who he meant. I thought he was talking about Grubbs (had commitment question marks) for awhile. Even if none of us like it the Patriots have shown interest in Greg Olsen. This doesn't mean they'll draft him, though.


If they draft Greg Olsen............:bricks:

 

[Seneschal2]

Straight or curve ball, I frankly did not know which of the five prospects you found so unsuitable. I may not have any of them on my boards, but couldn't see what you found so objectionable about any of them - since "we" felt that way, I inquired.

I don't throw curve balls. The fact that english is not my first language is no excuse, but I never knew it would be this difficult -- so here's some arithmetic:

This:

A very short article on 5 prospects with solid character, two of whom are serious Pats prospects, two more are OGs, and one we want nothing to do with.

Translates to:

Two of whom are serious Pats prospects (2) + two more are OGs (2) + one we want nothing to do with (1) = 5

Now is it so difficult to figure out that "we" means the board majority, and "one we want nothing to do with" stems from the numerous anti-TE opinions expressed on this board. If you take exception to my usage of "we", and feel that no one has a right to speak for you Box -- then I have no more to say.

Starting a simple thread about a couple of character prospects whom many on this board really like (Gonzalez and Wilson) appears to be a wasted effort. On to the next new thread topic in due time...

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I don't throw curve balls. The fact that english is not my first language is no excuse, but I never knew it would be this difficult -- so here's some arithmetic:

This:



Translates to:

Two of whom are serious Pats prospects (2) + two more are OGs (2) + one we want nothing to do with (1) = 5

Now is it so difficult to figure out that "we" means the board majority, and "one we want nothing to do with" stems from the numerous anti-TE opinions expressed on this board. If you take exception to my usage of "we", and feel that no one has a right to speak for you Box -- then I have no more to say.

Starting a simple thread about a couple of character prospects whom many on this board really like (Gonzalez and Wilson) appears to be a wasted effort. On to the next new thread topic in due time...

Since your accent does not translate into the written word, and my warped humor doesn't either, "we" will just have to find other ways to snipe at each other. As for anti-TE opinions, there are frequent rants, often from the same people. I skim over them more often than not once the general trend of "I don't want..." gets communicated. I expect BB to consider TE in the draft despite the five on the roster, he has taken two TEs twice in his seven years of drafting, and has drafted 8 TEs over that period, hardly a position he'll be ignoring if he thinks he can upgrade his roster - recall he brought two to three TEs onto the Practice Squad at the end of the season and signed Brady right up front at the start of Free Agency, that just means he's removed the urgency.

 

[Seneschal2]

Since your accent does not translate into the written word, and my warped humor doesn't either, "we" will just have to find other ways to snipe at each other.

How about from this point forward -- no more sniping. It takes the fun out of the draft process. Some of us are here because we share a common interest, namely the Pats and the draft. Let's try and keep it as light as possible, and enjoy what each poster has to offer.

I expect BB to consider TE in the draft despite the five on the roster, he has taken two TEs twice in his seven years of drafting, and has drafted 8 TEs over that period, hardly a position he'll be ignoring if he thinks he can upgrade his roster

I agree, but don't believe he'll grab one in the first, just as I believe that most on this board don't want one in round one either. That's all I meant by "one we want nothing to do with" (Zach Miller is ranked as a late first by some).

As proof that I believe BB will draft a TE, this is from the Wonderlic thread:

FWIW, don't be surprised to see 2. Anthony Pudewell, TE, Nevada (39) wearing a Pats uni.

Also, when looking at the top 2 rated TEs, I don't think they really fit the Pats, given the abilities of both Watson, Brady, and Thomas. But Brady's no spring chicken -- hence the possibility of adding more youth to the position. Of course, as always, BB could surprise us with a first round TE. But trying to apply some logic here, IMO he won't select one in the first but will later on with Pudewell, Milner, etc. as better value picks.

 

[sebman2112]

I don't throw curve balls. The fact that english is not my first language is no excuse, but I never knew it would be this difficult -- so here's some arithmetic:

This:



Translates to:

Two of whom are serious Pats prospects (2) + two more are OGs (2) + one we want nothing to do with (1) = 5

Now is it so difficult to figure out that "we" means the board majority, and "one we want nothing to do with" stems from the numerous anti-TE opinions expressed on this board. If you take exception to my usage of "we", and feel that no one has a right to speak for you Box -- then I have no more to say.

Starting a simple thread about a couple of character prospects whom many on this board really like (Gonzalez and Wilson) appears to be a wasted effort. On to the next new thread topic in due time...

When you said "We" I thought you meant the Patriots want nothing to do with him. Some fans think they are part of the team, or talk like they are.
Example: "I think we could get a first rounder for Asante Samuel". I would have worded that "I think NE can get a first rounder for Asante Samuel", but a lot of people would have chosen option one, and I thought you were among them.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

How about from this point forward -- no more sniping. It takes the fun out of the draft process. Some of us are here because we share a common interest, namely the Pats and the draft. Let's try and keep it as light as possible, and enjoy what each poster has to offer.
I fear my warped sense of humor is an everyday handicap, almost uncontrollable. Despite a reputation earned in recent flame wars, I rarely find it necessary to attack someone, though I don't mind a cordial if vigorous debate. I did not view "we" as anything more than the collective term you intended it to be, I did wonder how you had reached a collective conclusion and unfortunately for your peace of mind, allowed my perverse humor to phrase the inquiry - I do apologize for the misunderstanding and ask that in the future you consider that your being someone with an established record of thoughtful dialogue in this forum, you shake your head ruefully and mutter about out of work comedians when you encounter a remark of mine which may be confused with a personal attack.

I agree, but don't believe he'll grab one in the first, just as I believe that most on this board don't want one in round one either. That's all I meant by "one we want nothing to do with" (Zach Miller is ranked as a late first by some).
I understand your point now, and while I don't see Miller as a good value on the first day, I do expect him to be considered during the process.

As proof that I believe BB will draft a TE, this is from the Wonderlic thread:

Also, when looking at the top 2 rated TEs, I don't think they really fit the Pats, given the abilities of both Watson, Brady, and Thomas. But Brady's no spring chicken -- hence the possibility of adding more youth to the position. Of course, as always, BB could surprise us with a first round TE. But trying to apply some logic here, IMO he won't select one in the first but will later on with Pudewell, Milner, etc. as better value picks.

Pudewell was on my list to start the process due to his being described as an excellent blocker. He's slipped off since his inability to run under 5 seconds in the 40 came to light. He lacks 50 pounds of being an OT, which will slow him even more, so I've set my sights elsewhere for TE talent.

I agree with your point about Olsen and Miller, if my theory of mismatches on the line of scrimmage holds water, Olsen's blocking is a deal killer and Miller's too high priced for the value. My TE board starts in the third round with Chandler and Boss, the latter is really intriguing from what I saw at the Combine and read from Brandt's Pro-day summaries - the kid is smooth, I could see Mangurian and Scarnecchia turning that kid into a dependable TE in all phases. Many are raving about Allen from tiny Whitworth in Spokane, but I thought he was much too large a project. Like yourself I find the back end of the draft to be stronger in tight end value - what say you about Dan Murray from Connecticut?