Patriots vs Bengals Post-Game Thread

[Ivan]

Nowhere have I said that the defense was the problem yesterday.

You are bemoaning the Patriots signing Austin Collie when they really needed a DT, which is simply pure crap. It is the offense that is struggling, not the defense, and the kid they brought in to help with DL depth played really well, which you deliberately ignore. Basically deus you are the captain of the bandwagoneers, with borg as your sidekick, you scour the earth for anything negative you can criticize as though you could do better. It's actually pretty pathetic. They are 4-1 despite suffering major losses on both sides of the ball, and you are actually trying to criticize their roster construction when they are winning despite all the players they have lost, and the facts demonstrate that their depth is holding up remarkably well under extremely adverse circumstances. On the one hand you like to argue that winning is all that matters, yet on the other you try to tell us how bad they are despite their wins--go figure?Rather than give them the credit they deserve you try to use any setback as an opportunity to crap on Belichick for the way he puts the team together. They have been the most successful team in the league in this century in terms of winning and accomplishments yet Belichick doesn't know how to build a team, once again-go figure? Apparently winning isn't what matters but your opinion is-and for the last time-go figure?

Fortunately we have the greatest fans on earth to set Belichick straight.

 

[Deus Irae]

You are bemoaning the Patriots signing Austin Collie when they really needed a DT, which is simply pure crap. It is the offense that is struggling, not the defense, and the kid they brought in to help with DL depth played really well, which you deliberately ignore. Basically deus you are the captain of the bandwagoneers, with borg as your sidekick, you scour the earth for anything negative you can criticize as though you could do better. It's actually pretty pathetic. They are 4-1 despite suffering major losses on both sides of the ball, and you are actually trying to criticize their roster construction when they are winning despite all the players they have lost, and the facts demonstrate that their depth is holding up remarkably well under extremely adverse circumstances. On the one hand you like to argue that winning is all that matters, yet on the other you try to tell us how bad they are despite their wins--go figure?Rather than give them the credit they deserve you try to use any setback as an opportunity to crap on Belichick for the way he puts the team together. They have been the most successful team in the league in this century in terms of winning and accomplishments yet Belichick doesn't know how to build a team, once again-go figure? Apparently winning isn't what matters but your opinion is-and for the last time-go figure?

Fortunately we have the greatest fans on earth to set him straight.

Collie wasn't even active. The DT would have been an important body to help.

Your argument was not just a lie, since I never claimed the defense was the problem and that was your post, it was a really stupid lie.

 

[manxman2601]

Re: The current state of the 53 man roster…

Davis plays STs, does he not?

Which considering the importance of the field position battle yesterday was a fairly critical part of the game.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: The current state of the 53 man roster…

He called the 53 man roster "pitiful". There is nothing "solid" to that "premise". Actually, he suggested worse than pitiful.

It's pretty clear that there's plenty "solid" to the premise. Your dislike of his position doesn't make that untrue.

They were such examples. Re-read his post. They were names listed as part of the following premise.

I read it, more than once. The names, other than those I mentioned, are accurate.

That's all very well, but which DT could they have signed. Is there a supply of competent FA DTs out there that everyone is unaware of? Any FA list I've seen consists of the cast of The Walking Dead.

They signed Austin Collie, so the whole "who could they have signed?" argument went out the window with that.

Again you make this assertion without actually saying which DT could have made this team better. Until you do, the assertion means nothing. Who could have contributed more than Vellano or Jones?

Here you are breaking out the straw man. You're smart enough to understand depth, yet you're conveniently ignoring it.

I normally respect your views on the roster and acknowledge you are a realist and not a downer as others think. But you specifically pointed to the promotion of the two PS guys as being "bad roster building".

Because, in context, they were.

That's what I was arguing was short-term. Which it was so hardly a "lousy argument". There was nothing long-term or mid-range about questioning the signing of Collie or promoting two guys from the PS ahead of one particular game.

There's plenty longer term about it, given that Wilfork is out for the season, and not just one game. Why do you choose to ignore that when your argument FOR Collie was a one game need?

 

[Ivan]

Collie wasn't even active. The DT would have been an important body to help.

Your argument was not just a lie, since I never claimed the defense was the problem and that was your post, it was a really stupid lie.

Boo hoo hoo- you poor misunderstood thing. You want to cry about Belichick signing a WR for the week as though that's what really matters and ignore the fact that they are winning without many of their best players, when that is the true test for any roster construction.


Now name the DT they could have signed who would really helped them? Since seymour isn't coming here and the rest aren't wanted by any team in the league i can't wait to see who you come up with?

 

[Ivan]

Re: The current state of the 53 man roster…

Here you are breaking out the straw man. You're smart enough to understand depth, yet you're conveniently ignoring it.

Depth is the ability to keep winning despite losing numerous key players, period. So who is really ignoring the most important thing?

 

[JackBauer]

Re: The current state of the 53 man roster…

Depth is the ability to keep winning despite losing numerous key players, period. So who is really ignoring the most important thing?

I don't really get it either. If anything their depth players have been much better than in year's past. Let's see... Wilfork, Love, and Deaderick, or Wilfork, Kelly, Vellano, and Chris Jones?

 

[Deus Irae]

Boo hoo hoo- you poor misunderstood thing. You want to cry about Belichick signing a WR for the week as though that's what really matters and ignore the fact that they are winning without many of their best players, when that is the true test for any roster construction.


Now name the DT they could have signed who would really helped them? Since seymour isn't coming here and the rest aren't wanted by any team in the league i can't wait to see who you come up with?

I didn't claim to be misunderstood. I pointed out that you were lying. Had you just misunderstood me, it could have been clarified. Since you were outright lying, and are now continuing with the nonsense instead of retracting, you're worse than useless to talk to, so we're done on this thread.

 

[Ivan]

Re: The current state of the 53 man roster…

I don't really get it either. If anything their depth players have been much better than in year's past. Let's see... Wilfork, Love, and Deaderick, or Wilfork, Kelly, Vellano, and Chris Jones?

Yep. If they were 1-4 or 2-3 then these guys would have a leg to stand on with their "poor roster construction" argument, but when they manage to go 4-1 with the losses of key players across the roster they have suffered their argument holds no water whatsoever, and trying to point to the signing of a street WR when they have a number of injuries at the position shows just how desperate they are to try and make that argument. deus repeatedly invoked the "winning is all that matters " argument during the Tebow debates, but he disposes of it when it comes to Belichick and the Patriots because he knows that when that is the criteria all of his arguments go out the window. He wants to cherry pick and nitpick, but ignores the most important point, which is that under Belichick the Patriots are the most successful franchise of this era.

 

[Ivan]

I didn't claim to be misunderstood. I pointed out that you were lying. Had you just misunderstood me, it could have been clarified. Since you were outright lying, and are now continuing with the nonsense instead of retracting, you're worse than useless to talk to, so we're done on this thread.

Same old same old, when confronted with your hypcrisy you cry foul and run away. "winning is the only thing...." unless we are talking about Belichick then drafting Tavon wilson is the only thing. terrible roster construction, that's why they win about 80% of their games and more championships than any other team this century.


Your arguments hold no water or credibility, and that's what THE FACTS demonstrate.

 

[manxman2601]

Re: The current state of the 53 man roster…

It's pretty clear that there's plenty "solid" to the premise. Your dislike of his position doesn't make that untrue.

You really think it's reasonable to suggest that this roster is worse than pitiful? It's prepsterous.

I read it, more than once. The names, other than those I mentioned, are accurate.

Just so we're clear. You think Fletcher, Boyce and Beauharnais are disappointments waiting to happen but Mulligan (or Develin) aren't.

They signed Austin Collie, so the whole "who could they have signed?" argument went out the window with that.

Hardly. If you are going to quibble the Collie signing, you should at least say what the alternative should have been.

Here you are breaking out the straw man. You're smart enough to understand depth, yet you're conveniently ignoring it.

There is no straw man and you know it. You said we should have signed a DT. I said that wasn't necessary because there is no one good enough to have had an impact. Considering that our defense got through the game and only conceded 13 points I really don't see how adding a JAG DT would have made a difference.

There's plenty longer term about it, given that Wilfork is out for the season, and not just one game. Why do you choose to ignore that when your argument FOR Collie was a one game need?

So you think the PS promotion or Collie are enough to prevent the signing of a worthy DT should BB want to do so? I really don't see that from a coach that cuts and re-signs players at will. If there's a DT he thinks good enough for the roster, there was nothing in those moves which would prevent him from signing him. That he hasn't only tells me he hasn't seen anyone good enough for the roster yet.

 

[Ivan]

I guess the only thing that is "worse than pitiful" is 5-0, that is what really sucks.


Speaking of "worse than pitiful," imagine if the Patriots had allowed 48 points in one game?

That would be "poor roster construction..."

 

[Ivan]

wow, deus still hasn't named that all pro DT Belichick was supposed to sign over Austin Collie? Go figure, frigging Belichick

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: The current state of the 53 man roster…

You really think it's reasonable to suggest that this roster is worse than pitiful? It's prepsterous.

No, I think that was needless hyperbole, but that the general point is correct. The roster had major flaws even at the start of the season, and it's worse now with the injuries.

Just so we're clear. You think Fletcher, Boyce and Beauharnais are disappointments waiting to happen but Mulligan (or Develin) aren't.

Nowhere did I say, or imply, that.

Hardly. If you are going to quibble the Collie signing, you should at least say what the alternative should have been.

Hardly? Ok, now you're talking nonsense. And I've already noted an alternative. They needed a DT.

There is no straw man and you know it. You said we should have signed a DT. I said that wasn't necessary because there is no one good enough to have had an impact. Considering that our defense got through the game and only conceded 13 points I really don't see how adding a JAG DT would have made a difference.

No, it absolutely is a strawman, and you know it. The irony of your trying to defend the signing of an inactive player by trying to make an unproveable and unrefutable claim isn't lost on me though. Neither is the irony of you offering up the name of Josh Chapman in the "lardbutt" thread.

So you think the PS promotion or Collie are enough to prevent the signing of a worthy DT should BB want to do so? I really don't see that from a coach that cuts and re-signs players at will.

No, I think they demonstrate a poor job of roster building, which was the issue in Brady6's post.

If there's a DT he thinks good enough for the roster, there was nothing in those moves which would prevent him from signing him. That he hasn't only tells me he hasn't seen anyone good enough for the roster yet.

You've seen BB work a roster for too long to believe such an obvious untruth, as he disproves it all the time with his "cuts and re-signs".

 

[JackBauer]

Re: The current state of the 53 man roster…

No, I think they demonstrate a poor job of roster building, which was the issue in Brady6's post.

A top ten defense by virtue of poor roster building! Amazing how that works.

 

[manxman2601]

Re: The current state of the 53 man roster…

No, I think that was needless hyperbole, but that the general point is correct. The roster had major flaws even at the start of the season, and it's worse now with the injuries.

Every roster has flaws, I take issue with the fact that they're "major". I absolutely take issue with the fact they're pitiful.

Nowhere did I say, or imply, that.

Yes you did because that's what Brady6 said:

Expecting to be a great or even good team with your roster made up of players like thi]s[/B is a disappointment waiting to happen.

...

The healthy but contribute nothing:

• Jake Bequette
• Josh Boyce
• Duron Harmon
• Nate Ebner
• Dane Fletcher
• Steve Beauharnais

So Brady 6 said those players were a "disappointment waiting to happen" and you agreed ("There might be a name, or two, that's arguable, but he's got it dead on for the most part"). the "name or two", you later elaborated on were Harmon, Mulligan, Develin and Blount.

I'd list Harmon as one of those I said was arguable. Re-checking the list, I'd probably up the 'arguable' number to 3, by adding Mulligan (OR Develin) and Blount.

It's OK to admit it when you're wrong.

Hardly? Ok, now you're talking nonsense. And I've already noted an alternative. They needed a DT.

Just any DT? Come on, that's obvious but how about some specifics to make your point relevant. Which DT? Do you not think that if there was an ideal replacement to cover Wilfork's absence available that BB wouldn't have already signed him? That he hasn't suggests there wasn't. If you think otherwise, give us a name.

No, it absolutely is a strawman, and you know it. The irony of your trying to defend the signing of an incactive player by trying to make an unproveable and unrefutable claim isn't lost on my though. Neither is the irony of you offering up the name of Josh Chapman in the "lardbutt" thread.

As you neglect to point out, I also noted that the Colts have no reason to trade Josh Chapman to us so I'm not seeing the irony. I'm also amused at you calling my claims "unproveable and unrefutable" when you've never made any point that can be proven or refuted. At least I'm trying to make a point. you are merely saying "this roster sucks" and "we should have signed a DT" (to paraphrase). When you actually say something of substance, then perhaps we can determine whether you are saying anything that can be proven or refuted.

No, I think they demonstrate a poor job of roster building, which was the issue in Brady6's post.

My point is that they're not evidence of any type of roster building, they're short term acts to get us through one or two games.

You're not fool enough to believe this, because you've seen BB work a roster for too long to believe such an obvious untruth, as he disproves it all the time with his "cuts and re-signs".

Errr. That's my point. If there's a DT BB likes, neither Kanorris Davis or Austin Collie being on the roster is going to prevent BB signing him. If you are saying that we should have signed a fourth DT (for depth), well we didn't need it against the Bucs where only three DTs saw snaps or against the Jets (same), Bills (same). In fact, the only game in which we needed a fourth DT was the Falcons one, and even then only for 19 snaps. I think you're worrying at something that just isn't there.

 

[manxman2601]

@Deus

Your long-term roster building in action :

Patriots re-sign corner Marquice Cole, cut safety Kanorris Davis, linebacker Ja'Gared Davis:

https://twitter.com/RavensInsider/status/387325745191600128

Isn't this exactly what I said? A short-term roster move to cover one game and not roster building.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: The current state of the 53 man roster…

Every roster has flaws, I take issue with the fact that they're "major". I absolutely take issue with the fact they're pitiful.

Then you're just trying to argue a level of badness here. Not having better depth at DT, for example, was a poor decision, and it was one being discussed frequently on the board. At this point, debating "major v. pitiful v. significant" is pretty meaningless. As I said, Brady6's point was largely a solid one.

Yes you did because that's what Brady6 said:


So Brady 6 said those players were a "disappointment waiting to happen" and you agreed ("There might be a name, or two, that's arguable, but he's got it dead on for the most part"). the "name or two", you later elaborated on were Harmon, Mulligan, Develin and Blount.

No, you're misreading what he wrote. He didn't claim that the players themselves were disappointments waiting to happen.

It's OK to admit it when you're wrong.

Then you should do so.

Just any DT? Come on, that's obvious but how about some specifics to make your point relevant. Which DT? Do you not think that if there was an ideal replacement to cover Wilfork's absence available that BB wouldn't have already signed him? That he hasn't suggests there wasn't. If you think otherwise, give us a name.

If it's obvious, why are you arguing it? Well, other than BB having done otherwise, which is all you're really going with here.

As you neglect to point out, I also noted that the Colts have no reason to trade Josh Chapman to us so I'm not seeing the irony. I'm also amused at you calling my claims "unproveable and unrefutable" when you've never made any point that can be proven or refuted. At least I'm trying to make a point. you are merely saying "this roster sucks" and "we should have signed a DT" (to paraphrase). When you actually say something of substance, then perhaps we can determine whether you are saying anything that can be proven or refuted.

I didn't neglect to point it out. I noted the irony of you giving a name during a discussion of the need for a DT in the first place, when you could just adamantly have stood your ground with the "Not needed! Short term!" argument. And, despite your claim, you're really not trying to make any point beyond "Nu uh".

My point is that they're not evidence of any type of roster building, they're short term acts to get us through one or two games.

And my point is that bringing up a practice squad player there didn't fix the problem at DT, which is not a short term problem, and that's a roster building error.

Errr. That's my point. If there's a DT BB likes, neither Kanorris Davis or Austin Collie being on the roster is going to prevent BB signing him. If you are saying that we should have signed a fourth DT (for depth), well we didn't need it against the Bucs where only three DTs saw snaps or against the Jets (same), Bills (same). In fact, the only game in which we needed a fourth DT was the Falcons one, and even then only for 19 snaps. I think you're worrying at something that just isn't there.

You should revisit your own post, because it undercuts your argument about whether guys are good enough to be on the roster when he's see sawing multiple players on and off the roster, since he would, essentially by definition, feel they were each good enough.

 

[manxman2601]

Re: The current state of the 53 man roster…

Then you're just trying to argue a level of badness here. Not having better depth at DT, for example, was a poor decision, and it was one being discussed frequently on the board. At this point, debating "major v. pitiful v. significant" is pretty meaningless. As I said, Brady6's point was largely a solid one.

No it isn't, it's preposterous



No, you're misreading what he wrote. He didn't claim that the players themselves were disappointments waiting to happen.

He said the presence of those players on the roster is a disappointment waiting to happen if you are expecting your team to be a good one. I'm not misreading, you're nitpicking.





If it's obvious, why are you arguing it? Well, other than BB having done otherwise, which is all you're really going with here.


And still no name.



I didn't neglect to point it out. I noted the irony of you giving a name during a discussion of the need for a DT in the first place, when you could just adamantly have stood your ground with the "Not needed! Short term!" argument. And, despite your claim, you're really not trying to make any point beyond "Nu uh".

At no point have I said that we don't need a DT. I'm saying we don't need one just for the sake of getting one. I'm fine with the right one, which I consider Chapman to be. There's no inconsistency on my part.



And my point is that bringing up a practice squad player there didn't fix the problem at DT, which is not a short term problem, and that's a roster building error.

The problem at DT is not one of lack of numbers (well it is if Kelly is out for any length of time). It's whether there's one better than Vellano or Jones. If we can get one, then fine lets do it but there wasn't a need to just add a 4th DT for the sake of it.






You should revisit your own post, because it undercuts your argument about whether guys are good enough to be on the roster when he's see sawing multiple players on and off the roster, since he would, essentially by definition, feel they were each good enough.

I have no need to revisit anything because I don't agree with your notion that just adding numbers at a position necessarily makes this team better.

See answers in red.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: Patriots vs Bengals Post-Game Thread

Brady6, I really liked your insightful posts the past couple of weeks, but you had as big an offday yesterday as the Patriots did.

The poster didn't write anything close to comparing Vereen to Marshall Faulk. he merely wrote "Missing Vereen hurts a lot, too."

He was 100% spot on - -Vereen would have been invaluable in that rainstorm taking dump offs from Brady.

Fair enough my friend, I was extremely disappointed in the team yesterday it skud my view.

For the record with a day to cool off I can agree I do think the loss of Vereen hurts significantly and he would of been invaluable in that particular situation because of the weather, but even with a good nights sleep and a few good meals I still do not think him being on the roster changes the overall scope of the roster.

I am proud of the team being 4-1 it shows will and heart, but that doesn't mean its a prime NFL roster, all the injuries, jail terms, and adversity has decimated this roster which added to the inexperience equates to us on Oct 7th not having a good 53 man roster, that's all I can really say that and I really hope that it improves and the team continues to do what it has to do to win games.