Because they are the same people that act like every move made by the FO is great,
Well that isn't true.
What is consistent is that you take exaggerated opinions on everything, almost always negatively, and are widely disagreed with. It isn't any faction of people that always disagree with you, its that almost everything you say is disagreed with by many. The disagreers are wide and varied.
that its ok that we have no competent outside receiver still 3 years down the road, that not having a competent secondary in 4 years is ok, and that having no pass rush is fine too because Bill is trying really hard by signing over the hill guys.
See above. No one has made those comments. You will get disagreed with on this because, well, you are wrong. Then you will call anyone who disagrees a homer.
Why is it that you get offended that I call you homers, yet it is ok for your group to call me a ****, douche, moron, and claim that my point is poorly supported.
This one is somewhat self-explanatory.
The only support you guys offer to counter the fact that these over the hill scrubs usually don't work out are moves made more than 10 years ago or Andre Carter
It's great support when 40 other people are banging the BB we trust drum even if it isn't factually true.
Again, a wild exaggeration.
What kind of support do you want for my argument that these over the hill guys haven't helped us the last few years?
We have consistently used veterans as part of the team building method and have consistently won. Your support that a plan is bad would need to include a lack of success, would it not?
2011: Good old guys: Waters and Carter. Carter was not there to help this team in the playoffs he got hurt, which is a problem that most here refuse to acknowledge with these older players they are more injury prone due to age.
Older players are also better. Would you rather have a healthy young guy that can't play?
Bad old guys: Haynesworth, Stinko, Shaun Ellis, all those jags that played safety and corner for us that year I cannot even begin to name (Brown, Moulden)
They were role players. Every team has them. Brown was not a veteran. Moulden was a waiver wire pickup not a FA.
2012: Good old guys: Lloyd (Up in the air since half the homer brigade hates him for not catching 1600 yards like they predicted
)
See above, this is an example of what is self-explanatory.
Bad old guys : Daniel Fells, Shiancoe, Trevor Scott, Gallery, Will Allen
So guys who were brought in to compete for a backup job are your definition of poor signings
My point is not that they shouldn't sign these guys its that when these types of players are some of the only moves made to bolster holes that have existed for years it isn't going to cut it
What position have 'holes existed for years' that they are doing nothing but signing over the hill players for? That is a ludicrous statement.
and the "support" for that is the fact that they lost in 2010 because they had no pass rush, no corners, and no outside receiver. They lost in 2011 because they had no pass rush, no corners. 2012 they lost because they had no pass rush, no corners, no outside receiver, and no viable back up tight ends. 3 problems that keep hitting you in the face every January and you fill the needs mostly with JAGs and old guys.
So your argument is that you choose why they lost (in 3 seasons where they were 39-9 a 1,1 and 2 seed, and went to a SB and AFCCG) in order to support your argument so therefore they lost for that reason?
They drafted Jones, Bequette, Cunningham. They signed Carter, Anderson, Fanene and Armstead.
At corner they drafted McCourty, Dowling, Dennard and traded for then signed Talib.
They do not value outside receivers, so they signed Amendola, drafted Gronk and Hernandez, and continue to fill in the outside receiver spot cheaply because they do not value it. Pretty simple actually.
I applaud them for keeping Talib and drafting Jones that's a real start to fixing the problem, but more needs to be done otherwise the team won't win another Super Bowl any time soon.
And much more than you give credit for has been done and continues to be done which is why they contend and in fact were one play away from winning a SB a year ago.
Either way this all started because I said this guy was a meh signing and a bum given his play last year in Oakland. Sorry if that is too pessimistic for you, but its better than the people acting like he's going to make a huge difference when recent history has shown these guys usually get hurt, don't make the team, or are just JAG players.
Better why?
He hasn't missed a game in 5 years. What are 'these kind of players'? I wasn't aware Kelly was part of a race of players.
Posters here take umbrage with anyone that goes against BB or isn't happy anytime a new signing is made.
A lame, and untrue excuse. Many people dislike many moves, and some agree and some disagree, most often different people each time.
You take one side every time, and find some disagreeing with you then decide it must be the same people in order to pretend your take doesn't stink.
Your takes stink, and the majority is against almost all of your opinions.
That is a you issue, not a them issue.
If BB signed a turd he crapped out 2 years ago people would be saying what a great value signing and that the turd was all-toilet bowl caliber 2 years ago.
See above. Self explanatory.
That stance is fine, but I'm going to voice my opinion whether you like it or not. Just because you want to think its poorly supported doesn't mean it isn't true. The proof is in the pudding. 3 years, 3 number 1 or 2 seeds, 0 rings.
3 1 or 2 seeds is certainly a condemnation of the personell decisions around here, they should be embarrassed.
Edit* This is just going through the 53 man rosters, I do not even remember all the Jags that were signed to fill positions of dire need. How about getting some real players to fill these holes.
Yes, this team just lacks 'real players'. Amazing they can win 4 games a year.
Again, self explanatory.
