Winning with this current receiver corp is not sustainable

[Deus Irae]

No they're not.

This is the first week we are missing both Amendola and Gronk. I said get used to both of them being out and you responded with a confused smiley.

No, that's not what you wrote. What you wrote was that this is not going to be "the first week we are missing both of them."

Now, I'm guessing that you meant to say "last", you mistakenly thought both were out last week, or you were, for some bizarre reason, talking about past seasons. The confusion smiley was a request for clarification. I don't have an exact timetable for Gronk's return, and we've had reports that Amendola may be out for more than just one week with this injury, so we may see another game with neither in the lineup as soon as next week, and I'd have no reason to think that's impossible.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There's nothing "correct" about his post. He's just needlessly derailing a thread due to lacking reading comprehension.

I think it has more to do with your confusion re: what the word 'first' means.

 

[JMC00]

This is Ridley's last chance. He will be trade bait or gone if he blows this one.

Oh look more lunacy over Ridley.

 

[BradyFTW!]

It is RARELY about the number - it is ALL about timing and outcome. Ridley has screwed us on both.

I know he knocked the F out in the playoffs last year, but EVERYTIME this guy coughs it up - we give up points.

With reasoning skills like that, I really hope that you aren't in charge of anything important in your day-to-day life.

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

No, that's not what you wrote. What you wrote was that this is not going to be "the first week we are missing both of them."

Now, I'm guessing that you meant to say "last", you mistakenly thought both were out last week, or you were, for some bizarre reason, talking about past seasons. The confusion smiley was a request for clarification. I don't have an exact timetable for Gronk's return, and we've had reports that Amendola may be out for more than just one week with this injury, so we may see another game with neither in the lineup as soon as next week, and I'd have no reason to think that's impossible.

Oh, you were just being a grammar nazi.

Carry on.

 

[Mack Herron]

For I don't know how many games over the years I've been saying, "this is the game we are going to commit to the run." I have not been right yet.

This time for sure.

 

[JackBauer]

Oh, you were just being a grammar nazi.

Carry on.

This may come as a shock, but words have meanings.

 

[Bhelmet]

Oh look more lunacy over Ridley.

No lunacy - just understanding how BB works - he will play a guy who may not be as effective over the one he CANNOT trust - how long you been a fan?

 

[Bhelmet]

With reasoning skills like that, I really hope that you aren't in charge of anything important in your day-to-day life.

Really? Show me/tell me the flaw(s) in my reasoning. Coaches (ALL of them) will remove the guy they cannot trust - BB no longer trusts Ridley. C'mon smart guy - show me my shortcomings in logic/reasoning.

 

[JackBauer]

BB no longer trusts Ridley.

You know this how?

 

[Bhelmet]

You know this how?

He was benched after his fumble Sunday in a game that was WAY TOO close. He was benched last year during games we NEEDED to win, despite being our go-to-guy on the ground. Everytime Ridley fumbles he disappears from the line-up. What other proof do you need? He is not injured, yet he does not play. He either sucks (not the case) or he is untrustworthy. Ridley is NOT the first guy to lose BB's trust and not play after HURTING the team. How do you NOT see it?

 

[ausbacker]

Really? Show me/tell me the flaw(s) in my reasoning. Coaches (ALL of them) will remove the guy they cannot trust - BB no longer trusts Ridley. C'mon smart guy - show me my shortcomings in logic/reasoning.

You realize in the past, Belichick has benched players for an entire game only to run them as a bell cow the following week? Using Ridley as an isolated case isn't the smartest to be proposing.

We'll see just how much distrust Belichick has tonight I suppose.

 

[JackBauer]

He was benched after his fumble Sunday in a game that was WAY TOO close. He was benched last year during games we NEEDED to win, despite being our go-to-guy on the ground. Everytime Ridley fumbles he disappears from the line-up. What other proof do you need? He is not injured, yet he does not play. He either sucks (not the case) or he is untrustworthy. Ridley is NOT the first guy to lose BB's trust and not play after HURTING the team. How do you NOT see it?

Players typically get benched for a time when they mess up. How you extrapolate that to conclude BB doesn't trust Ridley is beyond me.

 

[Bhelmet]

You realize in the past, Belichick has benched players for an entire game only to run them as a bell cow the following week?

We'll see just how much distrust Belichick has tonight I suppose.

Yes, we will. Sunday was not the first time Ridley was yanked for his butter fingers. He WILL play tonight b/c we have FEW other options, but ONE fumble - be ready for the Blount show. Am I the only one who has seen what has happened during Ridley's tenure. He has been HELD OUT of games where he was badly needed. Last Sunday being no different. He was held pout of PLAYOFF games for his lousy ball-control. C'mon, am I the only one who saw it?

 

[Bhelmet]

Players typically get benched for a time when they mess up. How you extrapolate that to conclude BB doesn't trust Ridley is beyond me.

How many playoff games did he miss b/c of his fumble issues? How many games did he miss, when needed, b/c the coach did not trust him? Really, have the last couple years eluded you? He was our ONLY runner at times and yet he did not see the field b/c the risk did not justify the reward. Blast me all you want, but I get it, I see it, and if it continues Ridley will be NO more.

 

[ausbacker]

Yes, we will. Sunday was not the first time Ridley was yanked for his butter fingers. He WILL play tonight b/c we have FEW other options, but ONE fumble - be ready for the Blount show. Am I the only one who has seen what has happened during Ridley's tenure. He has been HELD OUT of games where he was badly needed. Last Sunday being no different. He was held pout of PLAYOFF games for his lousy ball-control. C'mon, am I the only one who saw it?

It appears so given Belichick is treating Ridley the same as he treated players who fumbled in the past.

 

[Bhelmet]

It appears so given Belichick is treating Ridley the same as he treated players who fumbled in the past.

He would treat Ridley the same as he treated Ridley in the past if Vereen was healthy. I will not be surprised if Blount starts the game. If Ridley was not in the doghouse, why was he pulled last week with damn near a 6yd/rip average? I guess it was because BB wanted to see what Blount had to offer.

 

[Kontradiction]

Players typically get benched for a time when they mess up. How you extrapolate that to conclude BB doesn't trust Ridley is beyond me.

Coughlin must despise David Wilson. Not only did he bench him, but he brought back Brandon Jacobs!

 

[Deus Irae]

He would treat Ridley the same as he treated Ridley in the past if Vereen was healthy.

In the past, how many times has Ridley sat out the next game after a fumble?

 

[Bhelmet]

In the past, how many times has Ridley sat out the next game after a fumble?

I will do the research, but it has happened (playoffs included) and it will happen again. Ridley has missed more time due to fumbles than injuries. Does noone remember him fumbling then NOT being played in the playoffs. Was that too long ago?