Here to give Maroney props

[Deus Irae]

ok???.....Respect on a forum is irrelevant to me as long as I am principled.

Sticking to the "Maroney sucks! Morris is better! Bring on BJGE!" crap in the face of statistical evidence over the course of multiple seasons AND the coach pointing to the offensive line as the problem is not principled.

 

[The Dynasty]

Sticking to the "Maroney sucks! Morris is better! Bring on BJGE!" crap in the face of statistical evidence over the course of multiple seasons AND the coach pointing to the offensive line as the problem is not principled.

What's wrong with the OL? I thought they played extremely well yesterday even playing without 2 of their starters. Maroney ran very well yesterday. I think our running game as a whole will improve when we get Morris and Taylor back as well as Light and Neal. Maroney needs someone to compliment him, and BJGE is not that answer.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

A lot of you have pegged me a "Maroney-hater", and while I think "hate" is a really strong word, I have no problem owning up to the fact that I am not a big fan of this kid.

That said, if I am willing to come on this board and slam him whne he sucks, I will also man-up and come on and give him props when he plays well.

And yesterday, against a pretty good run defense, he played well. He ran hard, put his head down and crashed piles, and generally looked confident, even after his early fumble, which is a good sign.

He got his YPC up from 2.4 vs. the Colts to 3.5 vs. the Jets. And the TDs yesterday were sweet. My favorite run, though, was the 9-yard run when he almost scored just before his second TD. He busted through a linebacker and a couple of secondary players. Good, hard-nosed running!

I pray that we see more of this Laurence Maroney down the stretch because we're going to need him, especially since Fred Taylor & Sammy Morris can't really be counted on right now.

I am hoping those two will be ready for the playoffs. They're getting planty of rest and rehab time, that's for sure.

Finally, I just gotta say this:

WES FORKING WELKER!

All my buddies down in South Florida must be kicking themselves for letting that kid go! JEESUZ!

Respect for posting that. I know you've been a tough critic of his.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The end of the world must be at hand. :singing:

not so sure about that, but i did feel the earth wobble on its axis right around the time Armen posted that.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

So much for giving him props.. looks like the argument is starting up again.

this is pretty much where I stop reading these threads. enjoy!

 

[Batman]

In the last 3 years.
Maroney has played 26 games Morris has played 25
Maroney has got 12 TD's to Morris's 11
Maroney has 1383yards Morris has 1220
Both have fumbled twice
They both have career average of 4.2 yards a carry

Yet Maroney is nowhere near as good and made of glass but has played more in the last 3 years. If i was cutting a guy this year I know who I would cut. Have a think about it.

 

[Oceanviewer1]

This guy is nothing more than a less than average back who fits because the Pats don't need a big running game.

 

[Nikolai]

I gave up trying to figure him out a while ago. He's got talent, no doubt. Over the last few weeks, he's had a few really good downhill runs. He even had a strange tippy-toe, weaving, type of run that worked for him yesterday.

He does have a couple of different gears, and when he brings his game, he's actually quite good. There's a bit of a mental barrier in there somewhere, and I think he's even admitted this in the past.

So I don't like getting involved in the debate, and I'd just rather hope for him to prove the doubters wrong, because that means good things for the Pats.

 

[SEA_Pat]

What did y'all think about the comment by one of the announcers to the effect that Maroney seemed to be lining up deeper in the backfield and they were perhaps deliberately delaying the handoff to him so that there was more time for something to develop before he made his cut?

Seemed to me there was something to that. In other games, he is waiting for the hole to open ("dancing") and often ends up running into the back of blockers or having someone get a hand on him in the backfield. In this game, that wasn't happening and his delay prior to hitting the hole was allowing him to find seams. Once he found the seam, it almost seemed that he was looking for contact once he had some steam up (say that 10 times fast). Which was great.

 

[tobias funke]

Tobias is taking Belichick's comments and reading into them.

Belichick: One of the things we saw last year with (Matt) Cassel when we put him out there: … You put a guy in there who hasn’t played, the first couple of weeks you wonder if you made the right decision. And then, as they grow in the offense and they control it and it’s their offense and their team, sometimes those players go from here (holds his hand low) to here (holds his hand high) and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they just muddle along and they never grow. Cassel grew from the San Diego game last year to the Miami game to the San Francisco game. There were a few plays at first and then it was, “Hey, this guy is a legitimate starting NFL quarterback.” The funny thing is that happened after Cassel wasn’t really that great in preseason. He was OK, but nothing like what we saw in the season.

It changed when he took all the walkthroughs.

I think it's pretty clear that Belichick is admitting he wasn't positive that he made the right decision about Cassel at first, and wasn't impressed with his preseason performance.

Just like the rest of us last year. Cassel surprised everybody, including his coach.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think it's pretty clear that Belichick is admitting he wasn't positive that he made the right decision about Cassel at first, and wasn't impressed with his preseason performance.

Just like the rest of us last year. Cassel surprised everybody, including his coach.

You're doing it again:

To be fair, there is a recent quote from Belichick about Matt Cassel that makes it sound like he was much closer to the chopping block than we would have believed. He was very clear that his performances in the preseason games were not good at all and did not make him comfortable about going through a season without Brady.

Belichick makes it seem like was honestly as surprised as the rest of us when Cassel managed to become a relatively good player.

The funny thing is that happened after Cassel wasn’t really that great in preseason. He was OK, but nothing like what we saw in the season.

Huge difference in what's being said and meant in the two quotes, though. In order to get from what Belichick said to what you said, you have to read a whole lot into his comment that's just not there.

 

[tobias funke]

You're attempting to obscure my point by suggesting I'm reading into what Belichick said. Of course I'm reading into what Belichick said, that's required if you want to glean any information at all from a Belichick interview/conference.

The point is still the same: there are almost zero people on this forum (or possibly in the fanbase) who really saw Cassel sticking with the team after the preseason, based on how he performed.

After Brady went down, everyone freaked out, and then Cassel started to perform decently, or at least get better every week, the conventional wisdom became "Belichick knew Cassel could do it all along and we just had no idea."

And that's exactly the point you attempted to make on the last page.

Except it's very clear that Belichick had 2nd thoughts about Cassel, just like everyone else following the team. It's pretty clear that he stuck with him because there was no better option, but he clearly wasn't excited about it. Maybe my post exaggerated that point slightly, but the gist is the same. You're nitpicking and you know it.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're attempting to obscure my point by suggesting I'm reading into what Belichick said. Of course I'm reading into what Belichick said, that's required if you want to glean any information at all from a Belichick interview/conference.

The point is still the same: there are almost zero people on this forum (or possibly in the fanbase) who really saw Cassel sticking with the team after the preseason, based on how he performed.

After Brady went down, everyone freaked out, and then Cassel started to perform decently, or at least get better every week, the conventional wisdom became "Belichick knew Cassel could do it all along and we just had no idea."

And that's exactly the point you attempted to make on the last page.

Except it's very clear that Belichick had 2nd thoughts about Cassel, just like everyone else following the team. It's pretty clear that he stuck with him because there was no better option, but he clearly wasn't excited about it. Maybe my post exaggerated that point slightly, but the gist is the same. You're nitpicking and you know it.

What you're claiming is clear is nothing of the sort. You're taking "He was OK, but nothing like what we saw in the season. " and claiming that it meant "not good at all".

Pointing out that doing so is really reading into Belichick isn't nitpicking, since I don't believe that he meant what you're claiming he meant.

As for the "Almost zero", I don't know what to tell you. This is well worn territory, as there were several of us trying to tell the mob that Cassel was likely to make the team and be the #2. Myself, Mo and others posted about it on numerous occasions.

 

[tobias funke]

It's telling that you leave out the "wasn't really that great" part of Belichick's quote, which is one of the most negative things you'll ever hear him say about a player of his.

What usually happens to players Belichick considers "not that great"?

And if Cassel didn't "turn it on" like Belichick said, and played similar to how he did in his first few starts, how long would that experiment have lasted?

I don't think it's a stretch to read into Belichick's comments when he says something that is pretty out of character, which he did a few times in that article. It's clear (maybe not to you, obviously) that he has been opening up more in general this season, in interviews and in conferences.

My real feeling about his comments is that they make it seem like Belichick wanted to cut Cassel after the preseason, but possibly listened to someone who made a plea to keep him (McD maybe?). This is further borne out by the fact that the Pats had 2 career backup QBs with visits planned in Foxboro before Brady was injured. These visits were cancelled, as Belichick has said, to let Cassel know that they believed in him (and obviously didn't want to ruin his confidence right off the bat).

Obviously I can't say any of this is fact, but the circumstances and quotes make it seem a lot more believable than the idea that Belichick was smitten with Matt Cassel and believed he was the 2nd coming of Matt Schaub from the get-go, and dreamed of franchise tags and multiple first round picks as soon as Brady went in for surgery.

I mean I get that you want people to be impressed that you liked Matt Cassel (for little to no reason) and thought he would stick, but Belichick's track record the past couple years doesn't really make that a stretch of the imagination anymore. Brian Hoyer is our top backup right now. Brian Hoyer.

Brian Hoyer.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's telling that you leave out the "wasn't really that great" part of Belichick's quote, which is one of the most negative things you'll ever hear him say about a player of his.

What usually happens to players Belichick considers "not that great"?

And if Cassel didn't "turn it on" like Belichick said, and played similar to how he did in his first few starts, how long would that experiment have lasted?

I don't think it's a stretch to read into Belichick's comments when he says something that is pretty out of character, which he did a few times in that article. It's clear (maybe not to you, obviously) that he has been opening up more in general this season, in interviews and in conferences.

My real feeling about his comments is that they make it seem like Belichick wanted to cut Cassel after the preseason, but possibly listened to someone who made a plea to keep him (McD maybe?). This is further borne out by the fact that the Pats had 2 career backup QBs with visits planned in Foxboro before Brady was injured. These visits were cancelled, as Belichick has said, to let Cassel know that they believed in him (and obviously didn't want to ruin his confidence right off the bat).

Obviously I can't say any of this is fact, but the circumstances and quotes make it seem a lot more believable than the idea that Belichick was smitten with Matt Cassel and believed he was the 2nd coming of Matt Schaub from the get-go, and dreamed of franchise tags and multiple first round picks during the preseason.

It's not telling at all, particularly because of the context of the discussion Belichick was having. It's an enormous stretch to go from "He was ok" to your position. Also, could you post a link to Belichick saying that the canceled visits were to let Cassel know they believed in him?

 

[Deus Irae]

I mean I get that you want people to be impressed that you liked Matt Cassel (for little to no reason) and thought he would stick, but Belichick's track record the past couple years doesn't really make that a stretch of the imagination anymore. Brian Hoyer is our top backup right now. Brian Hoyer.

Brian Hoyer.

Why would I give a damn if people are impressed? The point isn't about me, it's about the general stupidity of large groups. And Belichick's track record makes it an enormous stretch of the imagination. Perhaps you missed how quickly he got rid of the 3rd round draft pick QB that he decided wasn't going to get it done in the system. Cassel, on the other hand, stuck around for his entire contract.

 

[tobias funke]

It's not telling at all, particularly because of the context of the discussion Belichick was having. It's an enormous stretch to go from "He was ok" to your position.

At least you made a convincing argument that related to any of the points I made...?

lol

Also, could you post a link to Belichick saying that the canceled visits were to let Cassel know they believed in him?

Timeline = visits are scheduled, Brady gets injured, Cassel is named the starter, visits are canceled.

First of all, what would you call it? Feel free to mention another possible reason for canceling the visits in that situation, when signing another QB actual makes sense roster-wise.

Second of all, I remember reading it in an article that referenced it to either Belichick or someone else with the team, possibly even in a 'close to the team' manner. If I find it, I'll post it, but it shouldn't even be necessary. Anyone with half a brain could figure that one out, and from what I remember, the media seemed to accept that as the explanation early on.

 

[Deus Irae]

At least you made a convincing argument that related to any of the points I made...?

lol

I already dealt with your 'points'. You're just rehashing the same claims again and again. You're taking "Ok" and making it something far more sinister, with no evidence to back up that maneuver.

Timeline = visits are scheduled, Brady gets injured, Cassel is named the starter, visits are canceled.

First of all, what would you call it? Feel free to mention another possible reason for canceling the visits in that situation, when signing another QB actual makes sense roster-wise.

Second of all, I remember reading it in an article that referenced it to either Belichick or someone else with the team, possibly even in a 'close to the team' manner. If I find it, I'll post it, but it shouldn't even be necessary. Anyone with half a brain could figure that one out, and from what I remember, the media seemed to accept that as the explanation early on.

What I would call it is irrelevant. You claimed Belichick 'called it' something. I'd like to see that.

I love the "anyone with a brain" nonsense, though, since "anyone with a brain" apparently thought Cassel was a goner in the exhibition season. Also, the media "accepted" that Cassel was gone.

And you still don't see the problem with your assertions?

 

[tobias funke]

Why would I give a damn if people are impressed? The point isn't about me, it's about the general stupidity of large groups.

Sorry, but that's a pretty stupid point to latch onto. Large groups can be right just as often as they are wrong. People look at the evidence and make a decision based on it. Anyone who showed confidence in Matt Cassel after the 2008 preseason wasn't doing anything beyond 'in Belichick we trust', because there really wasn't anything to go on with the guy except a bunch of ****ty throws against vanilla defenses with a patchwork O-line.

Sometimes people are right about a guy based on what they've seen, and sometimes that guy just hasn't shown it yet.

Who gets to be "right" and who gets to be "wrong" when it comes to guys on the edge like Maroney just comes down to when Belichick eventually decides to let them move on, or resign them.

 

[tobias funke]

And you still don't see the problem with your assertions?

Nope.

(Consider your points dealt with).