- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 35,632
- Reaction score
- 27,760
He took a year off to clear his head and the steng of the 9ers off him...he's clean now.Dude's a headcase.
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 took a year off to clear his head and the steng of the 9ers off him...he's clean now.Dude's a headcase.
Last year’s theme: “We all we got, we all we need.”
He took a year off to clear his head and the steng of the 9ers off him...he's clean now.
You're better than Aiyuk when he goes on walkabout and no one knows where he is.So we currently have better than Aiyuk?? Get your head examined if you think we do.
But you still haven't told anyone what they should do instead. If the asking price for Brown stays too high, what alternative do you suggest?No. But I didn't make that argument either.
They get AJ like I expect for them to do then none of this matters.
But if they go into next season expecting for Doubs to be their number 1 then ya, they failed.
But you still haven't told anyone what they should do instead. If the asking price for Brown stays too high, what alternative do you suggest?
I thought you weren’t making tomorrow’s argument today?Brown is going to be a Patriot.
I thought you weren’t making tomorrow’s argument today?
You’re all over the map.
It’s not a gotcha, I honestly don’t even know what your argument is.I bet you thought this was a gotcha.
It was over when you acknowledged he isn't a 1.
It’s not a gotcha, I honestly don’t even know what your argument is.
He was signed as a #2.
So your argument is that if he is by default our current off-season #1 until we acquire Brown, (which u say we will), that it’s a bad signing because he is at the top of the depth chart on May 11, but ultimately won’t be our #1 by seasons start?
So if I got this right, you shouldn’t sign a number 2 before you sign/acquire draft a #1. That is effectively what you are saying.
That would be the argument lol!Because he ran a slow 40
It doesn’t matter what number you assign. Prior to the Doubs signing we did not have a chain mover, middle of the field guy to replace Diggs.My argument was we have a 2. We need a 1.
Is that not clear for you? Is that too convolted? You can make an argument that we have three or four number twos.
It doesn’t matter what number you assign. Prior to the Doubs signing we did not have a chain mover, middle of the field guy to replace Diggs.
Boutte excels in the deep 3rd, Hollins is a good blocker who makes some plays at the 2nd and 3rd level. KW is a wildcard, we’re not sure what he will be yet.
Doubs fills a role that needed filling, and he got a contract that is commensurate with his skill set and production.
If we were to acquire Brown as you think, that makes the Doubs signing even better.
I wasn’t implying anything. Never in a million years would I equate Doubs with Rice. You’re inventing something that I didn’t say nor mean. But whatever, I was making a joke so it’s not worth creating an argument over it.When you specifically invoke Jerry Rice's name, you are implying that Doubs is Jerry Rice and posters are not happy here because he's not Jerry Rice. Pretty simple. You can't avoid your own words.
I just said Doubs looks like a #2 WR and you agree that he's a #2 so where was I wrong in asserting that? Again, you haven't done anything to refute that.
Does every team in the league have a “#1 receiver”? I don’t think so.So you admit. He's our 1. Got it.
Yes, the team has decided that they prefer Doubs over the next 2-3 years to Diggs.
Of course, potential legal issues may be part of their decision-making.
You are confusing a WR1 with the patriots no1 WR. If we hadn't signed Doubs Boutte would be our best WR but he wouldn't ever be considered a WR1 and Doubs is being paid as a WR2Who's the Patriots number one, bud?
It's like you're purposely distorting the facts.
When I discussed this with you you said Boutte was the same player as Doubs. Even though Doubs has better stats.My argument was we have a 2. We need a 1.
Is that not clear for you? Is that too convolted? You can make an argument that we have three or four number twos.
| 59 | 3K |
| 7 | 546 |
| 112 | 5K |
| 118 | 6K |
From our archive - this week all-time:
April 5 - April 20 (Through 26yrs)











