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

patsfanincleveland said:

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.

Click to expand...

So we had a somewhat close game against a bad team with players injured. That does not mean BB looks at the opponent, says they suck, and sits players. He just does not do it.

PatsWickedPissah said:

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.

Click to expand...

That isn't what anyone is saying. If Connolly per sea has been nursing a chronic injury, it might be better to sacrifice losing him for this game where the Pats could win without him rather than him continue to play less than 100% into the playoffs. It happens.

Felger thinks the Manning ball washing is unsufferable

AzorianPats said:

Felger thinks the Manning ball washing is unsufferable

Click to expand...

lays into Gruden for protecting Manning. good stuff

Says Manning is the greatest regular season QB ever and "That is as far as I go".

Rob0729 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Of course he does. That is not what you said. You said he held players out because the opponent sucks. That does not happen.

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.

Click to expand...

Again, nothing here supporting your claim.

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.

Click to expand...

Clearly you are not paying attention. The distinction is you thinking he held players back because it was the Jets that would have played if it were Indy, Denver or Pittsburgh.

Archeryaddict12 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you are saying BB is apt to do stupid things that can cost him games. Don't agree.

AzorianPats said:

Felger thinks the Manning ball washing is unsufferable

Click to expand...

AndyJohnson said:

Of course he does. That is not what you said. You said he held players out because the opponent sucks. That does not happen.


Again, nothing here supporting your claim.


Clearly you are not paying attention. The distinction is you thinking he held players back because it was the Jets that would have played if it were Indy, Denver or Pittsburgh.

Click to expand...

I said they held them out because the opponent suck to rest them for the playoffs.

And yes, he considers match ups to make this decision. For example, I 100% think Blount was held out because it was the Jets. Why? Because the Jets' defense doesn't usually let backs like Blount run wild. I think they may have let Edelman sit because they knew the Jets' offense sucked and they didn't need to score a lot of points to win and it was better to rest him that trying to score 40 points vs. the Jets.

Rob0729 said:

That isn't what anyone is saying. If Connolly per sea has been nursing a chronic injury, it might be better to sacrifice losing him for this game where the Pats could win without him rather than him continue to play less than 100% into the playoffs. It happens.

Click to expand...

That is not what you said. This is:

I think they sat a lot players who they would have players they probably would have played if the Jets were a good team. I think he has a point.

AndyJohnson said:

So we had a somewhat close game against a bad team with players injured. That does not mean BB looks at the opponent, says they suck, and sits players. He just does not do it.

Click to expand...

Since when did 3-11 NY count towards a good team?

Last time I checked, Belichick wasn't a fantasy football guy.

Do I think he would throw an important game because of booboo's? no

Do I think he would sacrifice margin of victory week 16 for the longer term goals (and potential for greater success in the playoffs)...yup.... he did it Week 16 2012 Jacksonville.

What's fascinating about this is it's like completely forgotten that the Patriots kinda like actually won the game Sunday and we have full participation this week at practice.

Rob0729 said:

That isn't what anyone is saying. If Connolly per sea has been nursing a chronic injury, it might be better to sacrifice losing him for this game where the Pats could win without him rather than him continue to play less than 100% into the playoffs. It happens.

Click to expand...

No that's what folks here were saying whether they meant to say that or not.
Nobody has been arguing here that Connolly should have played and BB should have played him. As far as we know he was too injured to be effective or insufficiently recovered to be non-fragile.

AndyJohnson said:

Sounds like you are saying BB is apt to do stupid things that can cost him games. Don't agree.

Click to expand...

I don't say he is, but let's throw a different angle on this, what if bill did not think it was stupid? We honestly have no clue what goes on in bbs head and his reasoning on a lot of things. We can only go on prior history and inference.

AndyJohnson said:

That is not what you said. This is:

I think they sat a lot players who they would have players they probably would have played if the Jets were a good team. I think he has a point.

Click to expand...

I am posting on the fly at work. I meant what I what I described in my previous post. I apologize for not expanding on it to make my point clear.

Raiola is a very different player.

Felger does not know the draft order. Has Titans 1st. Going to be Bucs

Bedard - Titans will trade for Cutler

Miguel said:

Raiola is a very different player.

Click to expand...

Huh?

Miguel said:

Felger does not know the draft order. Has Titans 1st. Going to be Bucs

Click to expand...

He said if the season ended today. I think the SOS changes with the week 17 games.

Has the Jets taking Shane Ray

Rob0729 said:

I said they held them out because the opponent suck to rest them for the playoffs.

Click to expand...

No you said they sat out players who would have played if the Jets were a good team.

And yes, he considers match ups to make this decision.

Click to expand...

Not the point. We aren't talking about choosing the 45 we are talking about sitting your best players because the opponent sucks so why give 100%.

For example, I 100% think Blount was held out because it was the Jets. Why? Because the Jets' defense doesn't usually let backs like Blount run wild.

Click to expand...

First, that is ludicrous because we activated Steve Maneri instead.
Second, why activate Gray then?

I think they may have let Edelman sit because they knew the Jets' offense sucked and they didn't need to score a lot of points to win and it was better to rest him that trying to score 40 points vs. the Jets.

Click to expand...

This is exactly why I think you are miles off on this. If Edelman could play, and a bye and potential first seed is at stake, on the road against in a rivalry game, he is out there.