Danny Amendola (hip) tore the adductor muscle; out 3-4 weeks

chasa said:

The panthers lost to the seahawks by 5, the seahawks that just blew out the 49's. Buffalo beat Carolina. those seahawks are a superbowl pick, and they had trouble putting the panthers down.

Click to expand...

Seattle went cross country to play the Panthers and had a lot of blown opportunities from the second quarter and into the third and early fourth or else that score wouldn't have looked nearly as close.

Tampa lost to the jets by 1 and the saints by 2. Lets say the jets are horrible, the saints are only 1 point better.

Click to expand...

Again, Tampa should have beaten the Jets if not for an iffy roughing call. Their secondary was good enough to keep the Saints in check. I would say that they're a better team than the Jets, but you've actually just made my point for me.

Its really getting obnoxious that some of you find things to complain about and twist the situation around to always make it look like the patriots are garbage. This is what rebuilding an offense looks like, And that rebuilding is 2 games above .500

Click to expand...

That's a pretty big load of B.S. This "rebuilding offense" could have had Welker or Lloyd along with Amendola while the rookies got used to the complicated playbook instead of being forced into action. You can rebuild on the fly while still remaining competitive and not relying soley on rookies to get wins on either side of the ball. For god's sake, this team did it on the defensive side of the ball from 2008-2012.

Again, if the roles had been reversed and the Broncos or Jets had gone 2-0 while struggling on one side of the ball as much as we have on offense the last two games, you would have no problem whatsoever picking them apart. But since it's the Pats, you're stretching and grasping at straws because you're totally lacking the ability to think critically when it comes to your favorite team.

KontradictioN said:

If the Pats hadn't played two rookie quarterbacks, they'd very likely be 0-2.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If Brady and Wendell doesn't muff the snap on the goalline against the Bills, the Pats might have won by two scores. If Ridley didn't strip himself of the ball that the Bills returned for 6, the Pats might have won by three scores. That game had a lot of plays where the Pats shot themselves in the foot. Against a different team, they might not have.

As for the Jets game, a different QB would have had a different defense and that defense might not have been able to shut down the Pats' running game like the Jets did (they shut down Doug Martin the week before).

Pettine and Ryan have had a lot of success in limiting Brady even with them on a seven game losing streak between the two. In most of the Pats' wins over the Jets, the offense has produced less than the average. People need to stop focusing in the opposing QB and look at the entire teams they faced.

The Pats' offense is the part of the game that has been struggling so far this season and to my knowledge, Brady and the rest of the offense have not played one snap with either Geno Smith or EJ Manuel on the field. The Pats' struggles are on offense and not defense and they faced two pretty good defenses so far.

Wes Welker is laughing at us.

KontradictioN said:

That's a pretty big load of B.S. This "rebuilding offense" could have had Welker or Lloyd

Click to expand...

You don't rebuild a team with players in their early to mid 30's, thats what you and the rest of the chicken little squad, can't seem to wrap your minds around.

Welker brought the team ZERO titles. Not a single one.
Lloyd brought the team ZERO titles. Not a single one.

In order for this team to move forward things HAVE to change, and that change comes in the form of 3 rookie Wide receivers. The defense is playing well, and soon as the rookies start catching passes, you guys will put your pink hats on again and start complaining about how BB will probably waste a 1st rounder on another Corner back.

Also For the love of all that is holy, Stop making excuses. "Oh well seatle only won by 5 because they had to fly cross country", "Tampa only lost because of a penalty", "the pats only won because of 1 player on each teams 53 man roster." "The patriots only beat tampa because the sun was in josh freemans eyes." "Edelman only has the most receptions because welker isn't here"

just stop, its getting old. You are what your record says you are, and until the patriots record looks bad, i'm going to keep being as positive as I can.

chasa said:

You don't rebuild a team with players in their early to mid 30's, thats what you and the rest of the chicken little squad, can't seem to wrap your minds around....

Click to expand...

The Bill Belichick Patriots have consistently rebuilt their team with players in their early to mid 30's.

Deus Irae said:

The Bill Belichick Patriots have consistently rebuilt their team with players in their early to mid 30's.

Click to expand...

the patriots have the 11th youngest team in the nfl.

Adding a short term player here and there in their 30's as a stopgap =! rebuilding.

Rob0729 said:

The Pats' offense is the part of the game that has been struggling so far this season and to my knowledge, Brady and the rest of the offense have not played one snap with either Geno Smith or EJ Manuel on the field. The Pats' struggles are on offense and not defense and they faced two pretty good defenses so far.

Click to expand...

The Bills defense was without a couple of their best players, and you said yourself prior to the Jets game that you were unsure of their capabilities within the secondary and were picking them apart as overrated (Cromartie), sucks (Wilson), looked really bad the week before (Milliner). Now that the game was close because the Pats offense couldn't get out of their own way, you're suddenly much higher on the Jets defense. I suspect you're doing this because you're having trouble coming to terms with the fact that the Pats simply haven't looked very good so far. The Pats offense has been struggling. If they faced teams with better offenses, they would be 0-2. But thanks to the favorable early schedule and facing two really bad teams, they're not.

They need to either hope that Gronk returns to full strength and that the rookies find their hands by Week 4, or they have to start looking at maybe opening up the communication barrier between themselves and Brandon Lloyd. It's sad that it would come to that, but that's what happens when you gamble on rookies and JAGs to replace what we had last season on top of the other half of our two TE set allegedly being a mass murderer.

chasa said:

the patriots have the 11th youngest team in the nfl.

Adding a short term player here and there in their 30's as a stopgap =! rebuilding.

Click to expand...

Why the f-ing hell should we be rebuilding? That is the whole damn problem. Pardon my french. Who cares what this roster looks like in 2018?

We are basically the Atlanta Braves, if anyone thinks we will have an extended run of greatness after Brady retires then please share what you are smoking.

Also I don't recall very many young rosters winning superbowls. I am too lazy and busy to look it up at this moment but at least for now I will assume I am right.

Ok, rant over, carry on, nice thread boys.

chasa said:

the patriots have the 11th youngest team in the nfl.

Adding a short term player here and there in their 30's as a stopgap =! rebuilding.

Click to expand...

Again, the Bill Belichick Patriots have consistently rebuilt with players in their early to mid 30s. Feel free to look it up if your fandom only started a year or two ago. Let me help a bit by giving you a couple of the earlier examples:

Otis Smith was 35
Roman Phifer was 33

cstjohn17 said:

Who cares what this roster looks like in 2018?

Click to expand...

Apparently Bill Belichick does.

Rob0729 said:

As I stated in another thread, Brady made this deal knowing full well that there was a realistic possibility that Welker was not going to be re-signed.

Click to expand...

I'm dying to know what else Tom Brady told you the last time you spoke with him. :rocker:

cstjohn17 said:

Why the f-ing hell should we be rebuilding? That is the whole damn problem. Pardon my french. Who cares what this roster looks like in 2018?

We are basically the Atlanta Braves, if anyone thinks we will have an extended run of greatness after Brady retires then please share what you are smoking.

Also I don't recall very many young rosters winning superbowls. I am too lazy and busy to look it up at this moment but at least for now I will assume I am right.

Ok, rant over, carry on, nice thread boys.

Click to expand...

That bolded part is something i would expect to hear from a jet fan, not a patriots fan. You dont mortgage the house in order to gamble at the casino.

The patriots are still a playoff caliber team, and when healthy amendola and gronk put us into potential superbowl level.

KontradictioN said:

The Bills defense was without a couple of their best players, and you said yourself prior to the Jets game that you were unsure of their capabilities within the secondary and were picking them apart as overrated (Cromartie), sucks (Wilson), looked really bad the week before (Milliner). Now that the game was close because the Pats offense couldn't get out of their own way, you're suddenly much higher on the Jets defense. I suspect you're doing this because you're having trouble coming to terms with the fact that the Pats simply haven't looked very good so far. The Pats offense has been struggling. If they faced teams with better offenses, they would be 0-2. But thanks to the favorable early schedule and facing two really bad teams, they're not.

They need to either hope that Gronk returns to full strength and that the rookies find their hands by Week 4, or they have to start looking at maybe opening up the communication barrier between themselves and Brandon Lloyd. It's sad that it would come to that, but that's what happens when you gamble on rookies and JAGs to replace what we had last season on top of the other half of our two TE set allegedly being a mass murderer.

Click to expand...

The Pats defense allowed 12.5 points a game. They are winning on defense. Unless you had a top tier QB, I don't think you can say definitely that they would be 0-2 against a better QB. Take away the two fumbles (caused by the Pats and not the Bills) in week 1 and the Pats played well enough to beat most teams in the league. I would say other than maybe 5 to 8 teams in the league, the Pats played well enough to beat any team in the league week one. Not that they would have, but they were good enough to win.

Look at what the Bills did on offense yesterday on the road. They had 24 points and 436 yards while converting 42.8% of their first downs. The Bills offense isn't crap. I know the Panthers aren't great, but they did hold the Seahawks to 12 points.

Deus Irae said:

Again, the Bill Belichick Patriots have consistently rebuilt with players in their early to mid 30s. Feel free to look it up if your fandom only started a year or two ago. Let me help a bit by giving you a couple of the earlier examples:

Otis Smith was 35
Roman Phifer was 33

Click to expand...

So your suggestion is add a player who for all intents and purposes is retired(lloyd) and a player who didn't want to be here (welker, left for 500k before incentives)

Maybe you should look to the history yourself, the patriots are not going to break their way of business to cater to a single player who doesnt want to be here:

Branch,
Law,
Samuel,

If 500k is enough to make you want to leave, then clearly wes was not part of the solution. And hes dropping passes at a higher level then even last year so no huge loss, the patriots will get better and the broncos have already peaked.

Rob0729 said:

The Bills offense is crap. I know the Panthers aren't great, but they did hold the Seahawks to 12 points.

Click to expand...

Hes just going to come up with some sort of excuse like the panthers only lost to the bills because cam newton ate a fig newton before the game and was gassy, and that the seahawks won by only 5 was because russell wilson over slept and someone took his eggo waffle.

chasa said:

That bolded part is something i would expect to hear from a jet fan, not a patriots fan. You dont mortgage the house in order to gamble at the casino.

The patriots are still a playoff caliber team, and when healthy amendola and gronk put us into potential superbowl level.

Click to expand...

I hope you are right.

But I am serious, I would trade it all for one more Superbowl with Brady. The history of sports says to enjoy it well you can, when it is gone, it is really gone.

cstjohn17 said:

I hope you are right.

But I am serious, I would trade it all for one more Superbowl with Brady. The history of sports says to enjoy it well you can, when it is gone, it is really gone.

Click to expand...

We've had 5, i think going younger at WR sets us up for at least a couple of more(and wins this time) before Brady is done.

chasa said:

Welker brought the team ZERO titles. Not a single one.
Lloyd brought the team ZERO titles. Not a single one.

Click to expand...

Neither have Mayo, Gronkowski, Mankins, or Ninkovich. They're all garbage and need to be replaced STAT.

Vince has only "brought" us one title (mainly from his seat on the bench). And he's been totally slacking since 2005.

For the love of God please just stop.

chasa said:

So your suggestion is add a player who for all intents and purposes is retired(lloyd) and a player who didn't want to be here (welker, left for 500k before incentives)

Click to expand...

No. My suggestion, as you put it, is that your claim was wrong. It's really that simple. BTW, since you ignored the point of my posts, it was those old players (early to mid 30's) who were heavily involved in the Patriots winning the SBs, and plenty of old players when the Patriots went 16-0, as well.

Also, Brady's the oldest player on the team, and is well into his 30's.

In other words, your point was nonsense.

cstjohn17 said:

I hope you are right.

But I am serious, I would trade it all for one more Superbowl with Brady. The history of sports says to enjoy it well you can, when it is gone, it is really gone.

Click to expand...

Didn't 2007 teach you anything? You can't buy superbowls, it's a business designed around parity. You stay competitive year-in and year-out and you will get your superbowls. The Pats will be competitive over the long haul, even when that sad day comes when Brady is gone. There *are* other good QBs, it's not just Brady and Manning.