New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/)
-   Patriots Draft Talk (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/13/patriots-draft-talk.html)
-   -   Two Pats prospects of high character... (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/13/53730-two-pats-prospects-high-character.html)

Seneschal2 04-05-2007 07:52 PM
Two Pats prospects of high character...
 
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 04-05-2007 08:41 PM
Re: Two Pats prospects of high character...
 
Adam Schein has often shown himself to be a complete idiot.

Box_O_Rocks 04-06-2007 10:34 AM
Re: Two Pats prospects of high character...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seneschal2 (Post 394164)
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 04-06-2007 10:48 AM
Re: Two Pats prospects of high character...
 
The article talks about a WR, TE, CB, OG, GT. Take a wild guess...

Box_O_Rocks 04-06-2007 12:06 PM
Re: Two Pats prospects of high character...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VJCPatriot (Post 394532)
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 04-06-2007 12:13 PM
Re: Two Pats prospects of high character...
 
I'm going to guess TE.

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

VJCPatriot 04-06-2007 01:49 PM
Re: Two Pats prospects of high character...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Box_O_Rocks (Post 394602)
GT? Must be, I hadn't encountered that abbreviation before.
Guard/Tackle

Seneschal2 04-06-2007 07:49 PM
Re: Two Pats prospects of high character...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Box_O_Rocks (Post 394521)
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 04-06-2007 08:52 PM
Re: Two Pats prospects of high character...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seneschal2 (Post 394996)
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 04-06-2007 09:52 PM
Re: Two Pats prospects of high character...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seneschal2 (Post 394996)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

© Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.
The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our staff at PatsFans.com or USA Today.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.

This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563