A more varied offense, better without Faulk?

[pdangle]

Offense better without Faulk?

Probably not, but at least we'll end up with fewer plays from the shotgun. Who knows, it might even force BB to use a couple new formations from time to time on long yardage situations.

Adjustments Coming Article

 

[reflexblue]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

Offense better without Faulk?

Probably not, but at least we'll end up with fewer plays from the shotgun. Who knows, it might even force BB to use a couple new formations from time to time on long yardage situations.

Adjustments Coming Article

No question, you don't have to be Norman Einstien to see that

 

[blackglass3]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

We should have benchef Brady.

 

[reflexblue]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

We should have benchef Brady.

That too...

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

We should have benchef Brady

Thats the title of the next thread Im waiting for

God, I hope we blow out Buffalo this week, this board will become unreadable if we lose this game.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

The crazy thing is that this isn't even today's dumbest thread.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

PatsFans better without pdangle?

 

[LuthierJr]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

The crazy thing is that this isn't even today's dumbest thread.

QFT....

But it's close.

 

[pdangle]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

Yeah it's a silver lining reaction thing I guess. But if I'm playing D and the Pats keep the status quo on 3rd in 8, I'd be happy knowing i've already seen it a thousand times on film. Only this time it will most likely be performed less effectviely.

Might as well try something different. Something that better suits the tried and tested personnel you have on the roster. But I'm sure BB will just plug someone in and keep going.

-----

PatsFans better without pdangle?

Or... KmonotonouS maybe $%^@ my *#!%? Would the world then be a better place? Maybe nuzzle it and fall asleep as you dream of your next enlightening post. Such as OT: Boise State vs. Virginia Tech. Well done :woohoo:

Also have any of you faulkers ever heard of an attention grabbing headline? Sheesh, calm the faulk down. Y'all even more grumpy than me, and I might of beat my GF with a sneaker last night, as far as I recall.

Let me rephrase the title to "Is it possible that the offense's expected changes due to the fact Faulk is injured, lead to some unexpected success?"

Does that make it all better for you muttonheads? If not, $%^# it! :enranged:

 

[blackglass3]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

These threads are making me laugh during class. Thanks guys!

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

Yeah it's a silver lining reaction thing I guess. But if I'm playing D and the Pats keep the status quo on 3rd in 8, I'd be happy knowing i've already seen it a thousand times on film. Only this time it will most likely be performed less effectviely.

Might as well try something different. Something that better suits the tried and tested personnel you have on the roster. But I'm sure BB will just plug someone in and keep going.

Faulk, is, was, and has been, the biggest beast on this team not named Wes Welker on third downs for us throughout the vast majority of his career here. He's great at blocking, great at getting open, great at catching the ball in tight spots, and great at getting his toes in bounds. He can also take handoffs in draw play situations and get the yardage for first down. ON TOP OF ALL OF THAT, he's one of the biggest locker room leaders on this entire team.

Is the offense better without Faulk? No, it's not. Time to close this thread down now.

 

[reflexblue]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

These threads are making me laugh during class. Thanks guys!

Your suppose to be paying attention, not F ing off on pats fans. When you graduate and get a job Then you can do that.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

The crazy thing is that this isn't even today's dumbest thread.

It's still early.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

Bench Brady, Offense is better without Faulk. I can't wait to see what you lunatics are gonna say next

 

[blackglass3]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

Your suppose to be paying attention, not F ing off on pats fans. When you graduate and get a job Then you can do that.

Nah, it's just a week long "Implementing Network Security" class. Sort of a beefed up Security+.

Graduate and get a job? Pffft. I joined the Air Force 14 years ago to avoid college.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

It's still early.

No kidding; by the time the day's over this might not even be in the top 5

 

[pdangle]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

So all you lemmings are just ready to concede that it isn't possible that the offense's expected changes due to the fact Faulk is injured, might lead to some unexpected success?

Of course, it's not better overall this week or next probably. But maybe we surprise ourselves. But I guess not. You're all right again. Boy K and everyone here is taking the loss of K. Faulk pretty hard. Too soon?

And please, stop saying "Trade Brady" fools.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

Someday I'll not be a moderator and then I can contribute my true thoughts on some of these threads. Until then,

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

So all you lemmings are just ready to concede that it isn't possible that the offense's expected changes due to the fact Faulk is injured, might lead to some unexpected success?

Of course, it's not better overall this week or next probably. But maybe we surprise ourselves. But I guess not. You're all right again. Boy K and everyone here is taking the loss of K. Faulk pretty hard. Too soon?

And please, stop saying "Trade Brady" fools.

Even with your efforts to move the goalposts, the answer's still no. Keep backtracking, though; you might eventually find your way to some common sense.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Re: Offense better without Faulk?

No kidding; by the time the day's over this might not even be in the top 5

This might explain things:

* Full moon calendar 2010 *

I'm tempted to start a thread with a poll on the craziest thread of the day.

Also -- wasn't there once a requirement that members have 100 posts to start a thread?