12 wins, book it.

[Pats2000]

LOL..!! Really? That’s the standard you’re trying to set? They have to win *2* Super Bowls to prove that having a #1 WR is a good thing?? Lololololllll

The 4 teams in last year’s CCGs ALL had clear cut #1 receivers who finished in the top 7 in yardage. 6 of the top 8 WRs last year help lead their teams to the divisional round.

But you go ahead and cling to the completely moronic idea that we would be worse off adding a Deebo Samuel type to this team…. With you displaying that much idiocy, there’s no point in trying to logically show you how wrong you are.

Wtf planet are you living on where the Patriots didn’t have #1 receivers during the championship years?? Troy Brown caught 1,200 yards in 2001 - and this was a day where 1,200 yards put him in the top-10 in the League. Deion Branch, Julien Edelman, Rob Gronkowski are all legit #1’s receiving options and they’re all a helluva lot better than anyone catching passes in Foxboro today.

But yeah…. Keep telling us we’d have been better off without Edelman and Gronk….. It's such a stupid argument, I can't believe you remember to breathe throughout the day.

What team was clamoring to sign JE11 for big money? Gronk is the one hall of fame player they had, and he wasn't even a receiver. I'm not saying they would be worse adding Deebo Samuel, I'm simply saying the Patriots aren't in the business of paying one receiver huge money and would rather spread the ball around to 5 good players rather than one great player. And it's proven a better strategy for them over and over again. Every year we saw the "Dynasty" of the Chiefs or Colts put up gaudy numbers in the regular season and then fail when teams schemed away their offensive talent in the post season.

Deon Branch finished with a mediocre career, Troy Brown had one really amazing year and a couple of good years on either side of that. You're talking about guys that flashed for a few years, but never put together a stellar overall career. Basically proving my point. The Pats have done it by getting the most of good but not hall of fame WR's. I mean, you literally made my point better than I did. Great job, thank you for that.

Personally, I'll go with the strategy the greatest HC of all time has employed again and again to bring home championships. You can continue to cry about Deebo Samuels.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Oh P.S., nobody go to your favorite online bookie and put money down on this. I didn't realize that was the driving force of fanhood!

When we were in Vegas last year, I put $ down on the Pats to go all the way.

We may go back this year, or if you can do it on line I'll make it an annual thing.

It's always Super Bowl or Bust for me.

Since 1974.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Anything with "Book it" after it has a 99% failure rate

However, "Book 'em, Danno" has a 99% conviction rate

 

[XLIX]

What team was clamoring to sign JE11 for big money?

When was Julian Edleman ever on the free agency market..?

Seriously. You're making a fool of yourself here.

Gronk is the one hall of fame player they had, and he wasn't even a receiver.

He was a legit #1 target who received passes. One of the best of all time to do it at the TE position. So your argument that Brady didn't have any #1's to throw to during the championship years only shows you are either ignorant of NE history or just stupid (or both).

I'm not saying they would be worse adding Deebo Samuel, I'm simply saying the Patriots aren't in the business of paying one receiver huge money and would rather spread the ball around to 5 good players rather than one great player.

LOL!! Your problem is they don't have 5 good players catching the ball. And here's something else your feeble mind doesn't realize: Having a legit #1 makes the other receivers better.

And it's proven a better strategy for them over and over again. Every year we saw the "Dynasty" of the Chiefs or Colts put up gaudy numbers in the regular season and then fail when teams schemed away their offensive talent in the post season.

Funny how your 2 examples include teams who each won Super Bowls.... You are literally trying to prove that having a #1 WR is not a successful strategy by bringing up teams who won championships doing so.

Seriously. Take a step back and try to understand just how stupid you sound here.

Deon Branch finished with a mediocre career, Troy Brown had one really amazing year and a couple of good years on either side of that. You're talking about guys that flashed for a few years, but never put together a stellar overall career.

They were each legit #1's during NE championship seasons - and are each a lot better than anyone we have on the team today.

Thank you for proving my point. But no, seriously... tell us all again how this team would be worse off if we added a Deebo or a Davante type..... I enjoy a good laugh to kick off the work week....

 

[Pats2000]

When was Julian Edleman ever on the free agency market..?

Seriously. You're making a fool of yourself here.

He was a legit #1 target who received passes. One of the best of all time to do it at the TE position. So your argument that Brady didn't have any #1's to throw to during the championship years only shows you are either ignorant of NE history or just stupid (or both).

LOL!! Your problem is they don't have 5 good players catching the ball. And here's something else your feeble mind doesn't realize: Having a legit #1 makes the other receivers better.

Funny how your 2 examples include teams who each won Super Bowls.... You are literally trying to prove that having a #1 WR is not a successful strategy by bringing up teams who won championships doing so.

Seriously. Take a step back and try to understand just how stupid you sound here.

They were each legit #1's during NE championship seasons - and are each a lot better than anyone we have on the team today.

Thank you for proving my point. But no, seriously... tell us all again how this team would be worse off if we added a Deebo or a Davante type..... I enjoy a good laugh to kick off the work week....

JE was a free agent in 2014. I guess Google is too hard for you.

My examples are of teams that people were proclaiming to be the next dynasty. Yet they continually failed in the Post season. I thought the standard was multiple superbowls here, because we are talking about the Pats and how they did it vs. everyone else. Sure, if you want to throw in a single SB win here and there, teams have built that way.

I guess you want the one off SB win vs building a team that can rip off multiple ones in a row. Got you.

No one is saying the team would be worse, I've already said that multiple times, I guess reading comprehension is tough for you. I'm saying that's not how the Pats have ever built their teams. But you prefer the way everyoen else is doing it.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I think 10 or 11 wins is doable if our added cb depth pans out (very hopeful on that) and these linebackers play well enough to not be a weakness ( somewhat hopeful). But honestly big questions up front right now to reallly predict.

I believe the team will be better than last year but the main concern is a potentially tougher schedule/ have we improved enough to keep up with the rest of the afc.

 

[XLIX]

JE was a free agent in 2014. I guess Google is too hard for you.

Yeah, and he drew interest from the 49ers, Bengals, Browns, Giants, Ravens and Panthers.

I guess google is too hard for you.

My examples are of teams that people were proclaiming to be the next dynasty. Yet they continually failed in the Post season.

Your examples are of teams who won Super Bowls. It takes a special type of moron to look at winning a Super Bowl as "continually failed."

I thought the standard was multiple superbowls here, because we are talking about the Pats and how they did it vs. everyone else.

LOL!! "Multiple Super Bowls"..?!? This post-Brady Patriots are a team that missed the playoffs then lost by 30 in the playoffs. Let's slow your roll and talk about how to improve that team before we start talking about "multiple Super Bowls."

Sure, if you want to throw in a single SB win here and there, teams have built that way.

The Patriots won multiple Super Bowls with legit #1's catching the ball.

I guess you want the one off SB win vs building a team that can rip off multiple ones in a row. Got you.

The Patriots won multiple Super Bowls with legit #1's catching the ball.

No one is saying the team would be worse,

Actually yeah you kinda really did.

I've already said that multiple times, I guess reading comprehension is tough for you. I'm saying that's not how the Pats have ever built their teams. But you prefer the way everyoen else is doing it.

The Patriots won multiple Super Bowls with legit #1's catching the ball.

I am done with you. You are the worst combination of idiotic and ignorant.

 

[archstanton543]

So...did the Patriots win multiple Super Bowls with legit #1's catching the ball?

 

[Hyped]

I'll have what @PatsFanInVa is smoking......

 

[Brotherblues]

I have 8 wins as the floor. Just don't see Bill going under that with a functioning qb.

And I have 12 wins as the ceiling. The defense has such a new look, basically a complete overhaul as far as how the 10 leading snap counts will go, that it's hard to see them not having a few meltdowns in the first half of the season.

 

[XLIX]

So...did the Patriots win multiple Super Bowls with legit #1's catching the ball?

Yes they did, despite the ignorance of those saying they didn't.

 

[Pats2000]

Yeah, and he drew interest from the 49ers, Bengals, Browns, Giants, Ravens and Panthers.

I guess google is too hard for you.

Your examples are of teams who won Super Bowls. It takes a special type of moron to look at winning a Super Bowl as "continually failed."

LOL!! "Multiple Super Bowls"..?!? This post-Brady Patriots are a team that missed the playoffs then lost by 30 in the playoffs. Let's slow your roll and talk about how to improve that team before we start talking about "multiple Super Bowls."

The Patriots won multiple Super Bowls with legit #1's catching the ball.

The Patriots won multiple Super Bowls with legit #1's catching the ball.

Actually yeah you kinda really did.

The Patriots won multiple Super Bowls with legit #1's catching the ball.

I am done with you. You are the worst combination of idiotic and ignorant.

lol, you literally said JE11 was never a free agent.

I guess you don't have any idea what context is. Since you can't comprehend that, you aren't going to be able to really work through any type of actual reasoning when it comes to the last 2 years, and even the years before that. But you have the right to go away and stop talking, i'll even encourage it.

 

[Salsalife]

Defense can't get off the field. Contain Barrmore and Judon and it's a wrap for the pass rush. Can't catch up to Josh Allen or any mobile qb. Secondary has no #1 shutdown corner, parts, old pieces and hopefuls. Untested linebackers. I watch the playoff game this weekend, KC VS Buffalo and i tried to picture the current Patriots defense slowing down any fast teams. To have 12 wins you gotta have some 3 and outs late in the game. We got run over and had an inconsistent pass rush. For me i hope for a miracle which would be 12 wins.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Defense can't get off the field. Contain Barrmore and Judon and it's a wrap for the pass rush. Can't catch up to Josh Allen or any mobile qb. Secondary has no #1 shutdown corner, parts, old pieces and hopefuls. Untested linebackers. I watch the playoff game this weekend, KC VS Buffalo and i tried to picture the current Patriots defense slowing down any fast teams. To have 12 wins you gotta have some 3 and outs late in the game. We got run over and had an inconsistent pass rush. For me i hope for a miracle which would be 12 wins.

I agree the pass rush and run defense feels like it will be tough to watch, but BB knows that so maybe Uche and Perkins will flash while signing Flowers. I hope it works out in the secondary too.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I'll have what @PatsFanInVa is smoking......

I'm waiting for federal legalization because fml

 

[PlainOldEd]

Setting the enitre argument and any points made by either side aside LFGMac10 comes off sounding like a reasonable adult and XLIX like an arrogant petulant man-child.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Let's try to understand the logic of this argument. If Bill had a chance to take any WR in the NFL today, he wouldn't take some of the league's best because he'd rather have a lessor option to fool the defense?

I mean, he took a chance and landed the most dominant TE during his prime years in Gronk. In fact, Gronk commanded so much attention it frustrated teams enough to where they'd put their best defender on him which gave favorable matchups to Welker, Edelman, Hogan and Amendola. Even White got LB's with cement feet in coverage when teams put their best LB on Gronk.

If this theory that has been argued true, Bill would've shipped Gronk out while he was dominating because he's too good.

 

[PScottman]

The defense has such a new look, basically a complete overhaul as far as how the 10 leading snap counts will go, that it's hard to see them not having a few meltdowns in the first half of the season.

An excellent observation. Team defense is just as critical, and in some ways more so, then individual performances and stats. It's knowing the man beside you is going to do his job leaving you free to do yours.

Last year it was an offensive line that just couldn't gel through the first quarter of the year or more. Trust issues and trying to "make up for" someone else (whether needed or not) led to how many twists and stunts or extra rushers running free while doubling another guy? This year massive aspects of the entire defense are completely new. Sure, they'll have practiced together some, but in game experience...just isn't there.

Add in the now obligatory "extended pre-season" of basically the first three games of the year and that's a huge unknown where a ton of variables have to go the Patriots way on defense to not start in a hole in the win/loss column early.

Can the defense "come together" and be more than the sum of its parts? Absolutely, but it's far from a given.

 

[Pats2000]

Let's try to understand the logic of this argument. If Bill had a chance to take any WR in the NFL today, he wouldn't take some of the league's best because he'd rather have a lessor option to fool the defense?

I mean, he took a chance and landed the most dominant TE during his prime years in Gronk. In fact, Gronk commanded so much attention it frustrated teams enough to where they'd put their best defender on him which gave favorable matchups to Welker, Edelman, Hogan and Amendola. Even White got LB's with cement feet in coverage when teams put their best LB on Gronk.

If this theory that has been argued true, Bill would've shipped Gronk out while he was dominating because he's too good.

Because BB has been so good at drafting WR. He's not going to go out there and pay gobs of money for a #1. Obviously if he can get Randy Moss on the cheap, sure he'll take that deal. But the team has almost always been built around having more versatile guys and not a true #1.

I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. It's just the way the team has been doing things for 18 out of the last 21 years.

Just tell me again how the Pats focus has been on having a true #1 dominant WR and how that strategy brought then 6 SBs

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Setting the enitre argument and any points made by either side aside LFGMac10 comes off sounding like a reasonable adult and XLIX like an arrogant petulant man-child.

He always does