Which RFA would you prefer: Arian Foster or Mike Wallace?

[dex13]

Much harder to find a back like Foster. I would argue that Foster would help the passing game more than adding Wallace would.

 

[supafly]

Foster..all the way.

 

[Potstickas]

Foster. The last couple of years, the difference between them
winning and loosing a game was dependent on Brady having a really good day throwing or not. Brady having a slightly off day and our chances of winning drops significantly.

Getting Wallace doesn't change that, but Foster would be someone we can lean on and take some pressure off Brady when he is having an off day and still have a good chance winning.

When Brady is having a good day, Foster can still contribute very well as he is the most dynamic back available in the passing game.

With foster we can get rid of the RBBC and maybe free up a RB spot that we can allocate to the WR or TE position.

 

[Rich<3TheWoodhead]

In other words, you recognize you have been wrong all along?

Not at all those are just the voices in your head telling you that. Contact me when we win a SB with this philosophy. I'll be counting the SB rings of a philosophy that worked.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Much harder to find a back like Foster. I would argue that Foster would help the passing game more than adding Wallace would.

Bingo!! Amazing how many so called fantasy.....errrr football fans don't understand that. The running game helps the passing game. The running game also helps when the playoffs roll aound and the league allows real pass defense to be played. Then there'e the issue of helping out the 35 year old injury prone QB whose big game decision making and clutch play is waning.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Houston Chronicle reporter says five-year deal reached between Foster and Texans.

 

[Banjo]

ah well... get me some Super Mario instead!

 

[Ring 6]

Not at all those are just the voices in your head telling you that. Contact me when we win a SB with this philosophy. I'll be counting the SB rings of a philosophy that worked.

Again, you must resort to personal attacks.
Of course at least now you have admitted your original argument stinks so you are moving to a different one.

 

[Deus Irae]

Foster's off the board. This thread has become moot.

 

[Rich<3TheWoodhead]

Again, you must resort to personal attacks.
Of course at least now you have admitted your original argument stinks so you are moving to a different one.

Not true and not true on both accounts. Boy you either can't read or just love making stuff up. Original argument stands and is accurate.

 

[Ring 6]

Not true and not true on both accounts. Boy you either can't read or just love making stuff up. Original argument stands and is accurate.

Your original argument was the only way the Patriots could ever win a Sb is to drastically change their philosophy. I showed that playing better defense in the final 2 minutes would already have resulted in 2, so clearly that isn't the only way.
Thereby, you changed your argument to "they haven't".

Not at all those are just the voices in your head telling you that

I have come to the conclusion your mental capacity and maturity no longer deserve a response.

Dealing with children is time consuming and unfortunately Andy Johnson I don't have all day to make you realize how way off you are

The above are 3 examples of your personal attacks which started when your argument changed from THE ONLY WAY EVER to if they haven't done it yet thats proof they won't.

 

[Rich<3TheWoodhead]

Your original argument was the only way the Patriots could ever win a Sb is to drastically change their philosophy. I showed that playing better defense in the final 2 minutes would already have resulted in 2, so clearly that isn't the only way.
Thereby, you changed your argument to "they haven't".



The above are 3 examples of your personal attacks which started when your argument changed from THE ONLY WAY EVER to if they haven't done it yet thats proof they won't.

Unfortunately I do not have as much time as you to dig up the countless number of posts in which you attacked and called me names. And btw at first you said one play away and now again you flip flop and change your tune to "final
2 minutes". Just give it a rest... You're wrong.

 

[Deus Irae]

Unfortunately I do not have as much time as you to dig up the countless number of posts in which you attacked and called me names. And btw at first you said one play away and now again you flip flop and change your tune to "final
2 minutes". Just give it a rest... You're wrong.

It's a matter of seconds to pull up a person's posts within a thread. You just go to the number after the name of the last person who posted in the thread. In this case:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=901495

Then, you just click on the number underneath the word "posts" that corresponds to the person you're looking to find the posts of. As of now, for example, you have the most posts in this thread, at 15.

 

[Rich<3TheWoodhead]

It's a matter of seconds to pull up a person's posts within a thread. You just go to the number after the name of the last person who posted in the thread. In this case:

Who Posted? - New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard

Awesome! Thanks for the tip Deus, but then I still need to go through the 13 posts and quote from them. Still don't have the time to do that like Andy.

 

[Ring 6]

Unfortunately I do not have as much time as you to dig up the countless number of posts in which you attacked and called me names.

That is because there aren't any. I called your argument wrong and stupid. I never called you names. I see however that you wish to hide from you doing it by claiming I did it, but you just dont want to find them.
That is a key characteristic of a losing argument.

And btw at first you said one play away and now again you flip flop and change your tune to "final
2 minutes". Just give it a rest... You're wrong.

My argument never hinged on them being 1 play away. That was just an example.
My argument is that your comment that the only way they ever win a SB is to drastically change their philosophy is wrong.
One example is if Welker holds that ball.
Another is if they improve the defense to where they can stop 80+ yard drives in the last 2 minutes of a SB.
Another would be to put together an OL that is so good Brady never gets touched.
Another would be game breaking special teams to overcome the narrow margin between winning and losing 2 of the last 5 SBs.
And I could go on and on about numerous ways the team that has one strength, its passing game, and went to the SB and lost by the thiniest of margins could win a SB without eliminating their one strength.
But you stopped listening pages ago so I'm sure you won't really read any of that either

 

[IllegalContact]

back to the original point

I'd take wallace based on the pats offense along with their needs

foster does not buy as much and stands to not be the same guy here