Re: Reiss:An ominous sign ?
Using this logic, you can excuse everything ever done in football.
Look back at the post you referenced. It contained facts or my opinions (which I don't believe are controversial). No weird logic, difficult to apply to other situations and it excuses nothing. For so few words, you went really far off the rails.
Practice squad. Let's not play games here.
No games. My quote was "still with the team". Unless he doesn't show up for practice this week, that is a fact. My point was that judging Ohrnberger's eventual value to the Pats at this point is difficult since he is still with the team. Just like Connolly, a past PS player that has turned out to be pretty useful right about now.
Yes, bringing up the O-line players that got cut because they weren't good enough is unfair of me when I'm talking about offensive line woes. :bricks:
Didn't say it was unfair. Said I can't believe you are using those particular names (Bussey, Welch, Ghiacius, Simmons and Stapleton) as evidence of anything besides the fact that more OL candidates are invited to camp that can possibly make the squad. If those 5 players made the team, 5 others would have to go and you could make the same point.
Is the current OL the best in the league? I don't think so. However, saying there are "woes" without anything to back it up does seem unfair. What do they need to do to not be woeful? Put something quantifiable down and then be man enough to stand by it.
Sucks. Was going to get cut. Patriots are in so much trouble on the line that this guy actually has become a part of the team to date.
What do you know about him to be able to declare he sucks? He doesn't count against the roster at this point and if it turns out that he does suck, he goes away. He certainly isn't a starter and would have to pass LeVoir to even be a gameday active. How does he stack up against the 4th tackle/5th guard on other teams?
No problem with conversion projects on the practice squad. However, when you're claiming him for the 53, that's a different issue.
Didn't know Maneri existed until today. Again, he is currently positioned as a gameday inactive. I highly doubt his presence alters the Pats positively or negatively this year. And if injuries start to mount, he may lose his spot. Do you really think he lines up at tackle for the Pats this year? And who do you expect to be occupying the bottom of the roster now? Vets and high draft picks that like to practice but hate the hassle of dressing for games?
You have no idea what happened, so the "next move" comment has no basis. The Patriots did something to piss off Mankins when they didn't have to. Right or wrong is irrelevant at this point, since we're talking about the present situation.
I feel pretty confident that if Mankins doesn't call the Pats, they aren't calling him. That is the basis for my comment. Feel free to disagree but someone is going to have to initiate contact...and if you think the Pats are going to do it, I'm not sure if you will find may people agreeing with you.
As for the Pats doing something to piss Mankins off, what is your basis for that comment? That Mankins is pissed off? Of course he is. He isn't getting what he wants. So what did the Pats do to piss him off? Make him an offer he didn't like? So if the Pats don't pay a player what he wants, they unnecessarily piss them off? Not sure how you would know what the Pats did besides make Mankins an offer he didn't like.
I'd like him to be back tomorrow. The reality is that he's recovering from surgery.
Had surgery about 3 weeks ago. Don't know exactly what it was for (heard back pain for a bulging disc) but recovery time for back surgery is wildly variable. Do you know exactly what he had done and what the expected recovery time is?
It demonstrates the disaster that is the current offensive line. It's 4.5 players deep, and that's it.
At least now you are looking at the players that are likely to be active. The line is pretty thin with unknowns outside the top 7 (unless/until Kaczur returns). Connolly and LeVoir have filled in well in the past so I'm not sure why you only get .5 between the two of them. Not a big Wendell fan but I'm assuming they are keeping him around for a reason. I do agree that the Pats better hope the OL stays relatively healthy...but I bet you could say that for every team (unless you know of a team sitting on 3-4 All-Pro backups).
What does that have to do with the problems of the offensive line?
What problems specifically? The fact that you don't like them?
Lets break down my post and see which part amuses you...
"With Warren, Bodden and McGowan on IR, the defense will have to grow up fast." - Is that funny?
"If they don't, the Pats will have some struggles this year." - Laughing yet?
"Take 3 comparable players off any defense and you will likely be saying the same thing." - Give it a try chuckles, it should be fun.
"If they do play to their potential, the Pats should be favored in every game they play." - Obviously this tickled your funny bone.
If the youngsters on defense play to their potential, I can't see the Pats as an underdog at home (actually can't see them as an underdog at home regardless). The only road games in question are the Jets, Fins, Steelers and Bolts. The Jets won't have Holmes and Pace and may not have Revis. The Fins have as may questions on defense and not nearly the offensive firepower. The Steelers are a mess and may never recover from Roethlisberger being out. The Chargers are the one game where I will walk back from my statement. Can't see the Pats favored unless the Bolts melt down and don't think that will happen with their schedule. So I'll amend:
"If they do play to their potential, the Pats should be favored in 93.75% of the games they play."
It is probably less comedic for you, which is unfortunate given all the laughs your insight has brought to the board over the years.
