And what was the "reason" in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010? There are always "reasons" for losing. But there were no reasons in 2001, 2003, and 2004. They didn't have any injuries in those 3 years. Oh no! Brady didn't play the '01 Superbowl on a gimpy knee. They didn't go through almost the entire playoffs in 2004 without the best DL in the NFL. No, those were not reasons for them to lose.
Are you kidding me with this crap?
2007: Brady all but immobile against the league's best pass rush
Neal lost in 2nd quarter
TEs injured and completely ineffective
despite that, it was a helmet catch from perfection. You have to be brainless to pin this loss on too much passing.
2008: Brady lost for season, 11-5 doesn't get team to playoffs
2009: Brady still coming back, but not himself. Welker lost for the game
As BB noted in the documentary, that team was Welker/Moss and no mas. Minos Welker, it becomes just Moss, and that's not enough to overcome the early onslaught.
2010: Brady throws stupid pick, Crumpler drops TD, Patriots can't beat man coverage on outside
2011: Gronk hurt, Welker/Hernandez/Branch with huge drops, Brady with bad INT, safety that probably shouldn't have been called
Those are reasons, not excuses. Brady was less injured in '01 than in '07, as any glance at the tape can show.
You're just talking out your ass at this point.
I'm sorry, I forgot that you're the unequivocal authority on the subject and that your word is the law. But you still haven't answered my question. Was Moss' quality of play and production from '08 to '10 worth $27 mil?
1.) He didn't cost the Patriots 27 mil
2.) His production in '08 and '09 was worth more than 9 mill each year
3.) '10 is a non-factor because of his moving about, etc...
The reality is that Moss had 152 catches for 2,272 yards and 25 touchdowns in '08 and '09, including 3rd in the NFL in receiving TDs in '08, first in the NFL in receiving TDs in '09, and 5th in the NFL in receiving yards in '09, despite not having a full strength Brady for either season. He clearly was not underpaid on his contract.
The irony of your "I forgot that you're the unequivocal authority on the subject and that your word is the law" is that you're arguing just as strongly from the other side, despite having offered no facts to back your position.
Yes, the money was there. They just decided to allocate it to other players.
And, thus, the argument falls
Actually, I'm referencing a very well-know self-proclaimed authority on the subject. His name is Deus Irae. And he said:
"He deserves to be paid accordingly. However, since he's not a 'true' WR, it's difficult to define 'accordingly' in context."
What I have done, is defined the "accordingly" just about as well as anyone else on this board.
You've done nothing of the sort. You pulled numbers out of your ass. There's a reason that we're getting information such as this from Schefter:
The New England Patriots are likely to place their franchise tag on wide receiver Wes Welker, according to a league source.
The two sides have been discussing a new deal, but if one cannot be reached, New England plans to use the $9.5 million franchise wide receiver tag. ...
Schefter on Welker negotiation - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston
and this item from the Herald:
Why not just let him test the market? I was told very strongly earlier in the week that the market for Welker would be incredibly active. That’s why Pats won’t let him be free agent. They can’t risk it.
BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet» Blog Archive » Patriots to franchise tag WR Wes Welker if the two sides can’t make a deal
That reason isn't because $6-$7 million is a great number and you've nailed "accordingly".
Now it's just "Deus being obtuse". Instead of making a point, you're arguing the semantics of your own argument. I addressed your point. And if you're not able to argue back about the actual item in question and instead feel like you need to qualify how ridiculous my point is, I'll just note that you have nothing more of value to add and end it with that.
No, you made a statement. It's irrefutable as a generality that any player can fall under:
there's a reasonable argument to be made that he can be replaced to a certain degree and the savings can be allocated towards improving the team in other areas.
Any player in NFL history falls into that category, which makes your 'point' a non-issue.
Then, you look to your statement as a specifically targeted spot for Welker, and you've come up with nothing to back your argument in terms of specifically replacing him.
