Nice to see that you still have only "it was the Pats front office that decided to make/not make the move... so they must be right!" as a way to back-up your argument.
You were never called out specifically, you responded to a statement about a general group of people. Most != All, and therefore you made an improper logical jump. Let's leave it at that, or you can go ahead and take the last word on this.
Sure I was, albeit indirectly. You lumped me in with the "objective non-homer fan crowd" and then proceeded to try to lecture me on what that crowd believe as Cassel was putting up a stinker of a preseason. I responded with what I believed then and let it go. I don't like to waste time on random red herrings, personally.
Way to avoid the point and harp on the word choice, definitely makes the discussion fun. PS: Knowing infinitely more does not mean being perfect, it's a figure of speech.
Actually, I confronted your assertion head-on and gave an example as to why the FO does not know "infinitely more" than I do. If you'd like, I could present you with more examples. But I have a feeling that you'll just continue the "see no evil, hear no evil" act that you've been pulling ever since you resumed posting on a regular basis.
You think the Burgess move was bad, so I'm assuming you hated it the day it was made and will continue to hate it even if Burgess starts performing after learning the system more. Or are you basing your judgement of a move based on end-result which can't be known at the time of said decision?
I thought the Burgess move was bad because we gave up two draft picks for a guy that hadn't played in a 3-4 as a pro and didn't show the previous season that he could still rush the passer like he used to. I continue to think the Burgess trade was a bad move because of his production, or lack thereof, on the field last year. However, I am not a doucher that will wish the team or it's players ill will just so I can harp on a message board about how right I was and always have been. I thoroughly hope that, should Burgess not get cut over the course of the offseason, he proves me very wrong. I'll be the first one to eat crow. However, I highly doubt that will be the case. As I said, I evaluate every move this organization makes on a move by move basis. Some are good, others aren't. To this day, at this point, this move was not a good one and, a year later, it inhibited our ability to pick up the best WR2 available in free agency.
I don't expect you to know what I am talking about because as a determined objective poster you are unwilling to concede the fact or unable to recognize the fact that we do NOT know everything about any situation. We don't have the information of BB's scouting department on Boldin, Tate, the draft, other WR, Welker etc... That's just the beginning. We also don't have any facts regarding the hard budget, the percentage allotment for each position, etc... Maybe part of their budget dictates they not have $20M locked up in 2 receivers.
First of all, your continuous appeal to authority is not only fallacious, but it's an incredibly weak argument. Secondly, I love how you continue to fault me for speculating (which is not what I have been doing) and then continue to speculate yourself. Third of all, as I said before, if there was some reason other than money that kept the Pats away from Boldin, it would have kept the Ravens away from Boldin to and would have been made known to the press and to the average fan. Fourth of all, they would only have that money allotted to two receivers for one year: this season, which just so happens to be uncapped. Fifth of all, Moss even said that he can't see himself as a Patriot after 2010. If he is, he is probably going to have to take a paycut in which two things can happen: The first is that he turns down the offer and Boldin becomes the highest paid receiver on the team (at $7M per). The second is that he takes the offer and we still have Boldin and Moss on the same team with Brady throwing them the ball but at a significantly lower cost.
You not understanding that we don't have all the facts is the basis for all of the "objective" issues. You call others homers for recognizing that there is a lot more than meets the eye that goes into building an entire roster and there are many factors that go into each decision not just isolated money for that specific case.
Is there an argument anywhere here, or is this just your way of saying "The FO has to be right on this one... just because they are" over and over and over again? You see, this is why I call you a homer. You don't really have anything outside of this to back you up. It's just basically blind faith in the organization making the right moves even though there are numerous instances in which they HAVEN'T made the right move when presented with the opportunity to do so.
Yeah I lack the ability to think freely. Yet I'm the one that is willing to incorporate ALL facts, while you want to harp on only the facts you want to make your case with.
Wait, you used facts somewhere in this thread? Because all I've seen is "the FO knows more than you so there!" on top numerous attacks which haven't been at all about my point, but about me as a person/poster.
So tell me again how you know just as much as the FO.
Well, let's see what I have seen with my own two eyes this past season alone...
1. Front office makes a trade of two draft picks for Derrick Burgess, an experiment that has been a failure to this day.
2. Front office decides to let possibly the best defensive lineman on the team (Richard Seymour) go to Oakland mere days before the start of the season. It's assumed by the fans (who are giving the FO the benefit of the doubt) that there are people behind him (like Green, Pryor, or Wright) than can replace his production, take up two men at the point of attack on a consistent basis, and be a force in the pass rush. We found out that wasn't the case, unless you have some proof that Jarvis Green was effective in all three of these phases in spite of the fact that teams were ripping off runs to his side of the defensive line all season long.
3. Front office brings in a 37 year old Joey Galloway to become the team's WR3 then gives up on him after Week 3 of the regular season after making it so that the old dog had to learn new tricks and were immediately disappointed when he had trouble with it. The same front office basically ignored bringing in any other depth to ensure that we wouldn't be in a hole in case Galloway had the problems he did leaving the team to use a career special teamer as the WR3, and experiment which backfired on the front office and cost the team games as the offense stalled out in the second half all season long.
4. Bill decides that it's best to play the starters in a Week 16 game which was essentially meaningless to our playoff positioning (even moreso after the Bengals got blown out by the Jets later on that evening). The result was not only a defeat which seemed to deflate the team afterward, but also the loss of the offense's second most important piece in Wes Welker to what appeared to be a devestating knee injury for a WR that plays like he plays (relying on making hard, aggressive cuts. Because of this, the team may be without Welker to start the season and it'll probably take a full season before Welker is playing at anywhere near the same level as he and we are accustomed to.
These are just four instances in which the front office dropped the ball. And yet people like you see this and STILL don't know why people like me aren't as quick to give the FO the benefit of the doubt on every single occasion. You see, my homer friend, there is a difference between realizing that the FO isn't perfect and believing you know more than the front office. I'm the former.
Being objective also REQUIRES you to acknowledge there are other factors that may alter whether a decision is "right" or not. These factors will never be known and those that you accuse of being a "homer" are simply understanding of that fact.
Disagree. To me, being objective requires you to use the facts placed in front of you and make a decision based on those facts. As of right now, we have well placed media sources saying that the Boldin trade was about the money. I'm more likely to believe them over a guy on the internet named "emoney" who repeatedly states that there was probably some external reason for not signing Boldin that we as fans do not know about, and yet does not have a shred of evidence to back up that belief.
For example, the Hobbs trade does not make sense to me given the limited facts I have. At the same time I am perfectly willing to concede that the FO has more facts that MIGHT make the decision make more sense.
Well, we have something in common. The Hobbs trade didn't make sense to me either as I think a Bodden, Hobbs, Butler backfield would have been good for us. However, once again, I have to think that if there was an external reason for us letting Hobbs go, the Eagles would have probably been less willing to make that trade and thus it would have probably been made known to the media.
