Greg Bedard "All he got for Christmas is two hours with two morons" listening thread

Jackson 2 said:

My God that sounds like it should have come from the mouth of either Squeaky or the Douche...

Click to expand...

Thats what I was thinking. Almost asked who said it

Three Up

1. Jamie Collins - Very good, not spectacular. Did well in run game. Generated a little pressure. Got the INT created by Chandler Jones
2. Chandler Jones - 2 1/2 QB pressures, biggest play of the game

EDIT: Missed the 3rd up and the first two downs.

Rob0729 said:

Three Up

1. Jamie Collins - Very good, not spectacular. Did well in run game. Generated a little pressure. Got the INT created by Chandler Jones
2. Chandler Jones - 2 1/2 QB pressures, biggest play of the game

Click to expand...

3. Wendell

AndyJohnson said:

No, just no.
Who did they sit in order to suck?

Click to expand...

Honestly It's not smart but this is Bill we are talking about. He isn't always conventional. I could see him testing the team with a little adversity.

I agree it's stupid, but it is bb after all.

Chung was Bedard's third down. Missed the first two.

Archeryaddict12 said:

Honestly It's not smart but this is Bill we are talking about. He isn't always conventional. I could see him testing the team with a little adversity.

I agree it's stupid, but it is bb after all.

Click to expand...

Are you implying that stupid decisions with respect to his team winning is a Belichick standard?

Rob0729 said:

Chung was Bedard's third down. Missed the first two.

Click to expand...

1. Kline/Fleming (rotated same position) says Kline wasn't all that bad and wasn't sure why he was pulled but Fleming was atrocious

2.Solder (says he has regressed badly)

AndyJohnson said:

No, just no.
Who did they sit in order to suck?

Click to expand...

I never said they sat anyone to suck, but I think they decided to sit Arrington, Blount, Connolly, and/or Edelman (although Edelman may not have been cleared to play) because of the competition. And if they were facing a better team or needed to win the game more, one or more might have played.

The Pats didn't do anything in order to suck, but they may have decided not to put their best effort there by opening up the play book or play players less than 100% for thinking about the playoffs over winning this particular game. It wouldn't be the first time they have done stuff like this. You are making a bigger deal than it is.

Squeaky's duds are the whole offensive line and Belichick for messy with the O-line. 'Why not put Stork at Tackle while you're at it."

Squeaky had Amendola and Lafell as "up"

Rob0729 said:

Chung was Bedard's third down. Missed the first two.

Click to expand...

Chung was terrible. The Jets put a bullseye between the 2 and 3 on his jersey and targeted him early and often.

Bedard phrased it as "take their medicine" about the 1st half.

I mean if you look how the jests defense outside of a gifted INT did nothing in the 2nd half to stop the Pats from moving the ball and that the Pats D has been a shutdown unit in the 2nd half of games it kind of backs his assement of it.

Rob0729 said:

I never said they sat anyone to suck, but I think they decided to site Arrington, Blount, Connolly, and Edelman (although Edelman may not have been cleared to play) because of the competition. And if they were facing a better team or needed to win the game more, one or more might have played.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly 100% disagree. BB has never sat players based upon looking past a weak opponent. He would not do it with a team he spent all week saying always plays us tough.
Those players were injured. There is no conspiracy theory here.

The Pats didn't do anything in order to suck, but they may have decided not to put their best effort there by opening up the play book or play players less than 100% for thinking about the playoffs over winning this particular game. It wouldn't be the first time they have done stuff like this. You are making a bigger deal than it is.

Click to expand...

It absolutely would be the first time. This team is and has always been about one game at a time and NEVER taking any opponent lightly. Your 'insight' suggests you know nothing about BB and the way he runs the team.

Rob0729 said:

Chung was Bedard's third down. Missed the first two.

Click to expand...

KontradictioN said:

Chung was terrible. The Jets put a bullseye between the 2 and 3 on his jersey and targeted him early and often.

Click to expand...

Chung has used the season to return to Patriots form for the playoffs!

Oh, wait...

AndyJohnson said:

Are you implying that stupid decisions with respect to his team winning is a Belichick standard?

Click to expand...

Negative, but I can see bb not putting all effort to win this game decisively. The Patriots could of won by a lot more, but they didn't. Why, that's what we are talkin about.

Tooling on Pats for comparing Rob Kraft (fastest to 250 wins) with Halas in tweet since Halas was an icon that played and owned the team at the same time ans was a pioneer of the NFL.

Archeryaddict12 said:

Negative, but I can see bb not putting all effort to win this game decisively. The Patriots could of won by a lot more, but they didn't. Why, that's what we are talkin about.

Click to expand...

Because there was another team trying to win the game that made plays.
Lets not be like Jets fans and say we could have blown them out but they suck so bad we decided we didn't even need to try.

I cannot believe that BB would risk HFA and let a game be within a cheap FG by not putting the effort in or playing cute games with the lineup.

Resting substantively injured players, and insisting "next man up" yes.

AndyJohnson said:

Are you implying that stupid decisions with respect to his team winning is a Belichick standard?

Click to expand...

A good idea is to review the 2012 in Jacksonville week 16. That game was much closer than it should have been with many players sitting out.

Was Sunday a lot closer than BB probably wanted? Probably but being prepared for the playoffs is always a calculated risk.

Besides, a one point and a 50 point margin still hang the same number in the "W" column.

AndyJohnson said:

I wholeheartedly 100% disagree. BB has never sat players based upon looking past a weak opponent. He would not do it with a team he spent all week saying always plays us tough.
Those players were injured. There is no conspiracy theory here.


It absolutely would be the first time. This team is and has always been about one game at a time and NEVER taking any opponent lightly. Your 'insight' suggests you know nothing about BB and the way he runs the team.

Click to expand...

Belichick has frequently rested less than 100% players who are injured close to the playoffs. In fact, during the season I firmly believe he will sit out players who probably could play in order for them to heal looking long term rather than for one particular game. Belichick may have an one game at time philosophy for his players but he makes strategic decisions all year long that put the entire season ahead of an individual game. Just look at the o-line the first four weeks and how Belichick always starts the year being more conservative on defense and opening up the playbook.

If you don't think that Belichick has ever rested players who could play an individual game for the benefit for the rest of the season or the playoffs, you are not paying attention.

AndyJohnson said:

Because there was another team trying to win the game that made plays.
Lets not be like Jets fans and say we could have blown them out but they suck so bad we decided we didn't even need to try.

Click to expand...

It would be stupid but man, stranger things have happened. I would hope bb didn't do what some think by risking losing the game, but I wouldn't be shocked either if he did something near that nature.