- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 43,460
- Reaction score
- 24,039
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.He did confess to having headed off the wrong route on the 72 yard play, but Rod Smith is like Troy Brown, you take one option away and he'll divert to another without breaking stride - Mangini was trying to take away the run leaving the DBs one-on-one, live and learn.flutie2phelan said:In those instances where mg and i disagree on personnel evaluation ... more often than not he has proven to be more right than i have been.
Before and during tc, AndyJohnson often termed Starks the best CB we had. (If he has changed his mind since then, i've missed that.)
Thus, two of the best roster mavens here extol Starks ... and Mark explains the deficiencies of his on-field performance.
For me, then, Duane is innocent until proven guilty.
Michael said:Misplaced smishplaced. He was put on IR Nov 10th. The Pats record with Starks 4-4. Without Starks 6-2. And that includes the gimme loss to Miami in last game of the reg season. Is it /was it all Starks fault? Of course not, but every time you see a hi-lite with him in it (including the last game against Denver) there he is 3-7 steps behind where he needed to be.
mgteich said:I suppose you guys prefer Gay, Poole, and Chad Scott who didn't play injured to Starks who risked the rest of his career to play injured. There is no question that Starks was very injured when he played. As I said at the time, I think we would have gone 2-6 or 3-5 without Starks. He played because he was the best we had, and the best available. Of course, we all are free to disagree with Mangini's, bb's and pioli's judgement on the matter. Starks was physically very limited in what he could do out there. IMHO, it is a credit to Mangini and to Starks that our defensive backs held together well enough to win those first four games.
Starks will come back. IF HE IS HEALTHY, I expect him to start, be cut, or perhaps negotiate a minimum contract to be a backup (seems unlikely).
BTW, if Starks isn't at least the nickel, I would suggest that we difinitely need to sign another corner.
I agree he won't be back at a cap number of 5.1M, the question is whether he is willing to renegotiate downward significantly. He is at a career crossroads and may see renegotiation to resurrect his career here as his best move. I don't think it's the most likely outcome, but it could happen.MoLewisrocks said:I greatly doubt he will be back. Cutting him will save $3.5M on the cap that can be better spent on another CB (and we need a few because I think they are done waiting for Poole too), or something else equally useful. I also think Duane probably dislikes playing for us almost as much as most of us dislike having to watch him play. And I got the sense his teamates are at best ambivalent about his future.
DaBruinz said:Yep. Lets just IGNORE the fact that he was playing with a severe shoulder injury.
Hmmm they don't seem to really be having that problem since he's been out. Hmmm I guess they just didn't like poor Duane.Lets also ignore the fact that the help he was supposed to have wasn't there.
Thank you for acknowledging it.Great thinking Michael.
I'm glad too. And since he is the great BB he put Starks on IR and they are 7-2 since his absence. Looks like the Patriots to me.I am so glad BB is the coach because with thinking like that, we'd be the Houston Texans.
DaBruinz said:Yep. Lets just IGNORE the fact that he was playing with a severe shoulder injury. Lets also ignore the fact that the help he was supposed to have wasn't there. Great thinking Michael. I am so glad BB is the coach because with thinking like that, we'd be the Houston Texans.
mgteich said:I suppose you guys prefer Gay, Poole, and Chad Scott who didn't play injured to Starks who risked the rest of his career to play injured. There is no question that Starks was very injured when he played. As I said at the time, I think we would have gone 2-6 or 3-5 without Starks. He played because he was the best we had, and the best available. Of course, we all are free to disagree with Mangini's, bb's and pioli's judgement on the matter. Starks was physically very limited in what he could do out there. IMHO, it is a credit to Mangini and to Starks that our defensive backs held together well enough to win those first four games.
Starks will come back. IF HE IS HEALTHY, I expect him to start, be cut, or perhaps negotiate a minimum contract to be a backup (seems unlikely).
BTW, if Starks isn't at least the nickel, I would suggest that we difinitely need to sign another corner.