How worried are you about not having Mankins?

[mgteich]

I agree. If Mankins is gone, and Kaczur on PUP or IR, I expect us to start the season with TWO veteran free agent interior linemen on the 53. Mawae would be interesting.

I have even greater concerns about depth. I actually think that Connelly could be a Russ Hochstein like stop gap at Guard, but with Mankins and Kaczur both gone, any injuries from here on in and its "Katie bar the door".

 

[Ring 6]

Perhaps Brady will ask the boss how he can be expected to win with Connolly as his protector aolong with Koppen and Light.

Thats a joke right?
You expect Tom Brady, the Tom Brady who has been our QB since 2001, based on everything you know about him to walk into BBs office as a whiny biyatch and throw one of his players under the bus saying "How do you, oh pissant of a HC, expect the great me to win if after one player holds out and another gets injured, I have to disgrace myself by being on the same field as a guy who only played 1/3 of the snaps last season. I am Tom Brady, goddamn it, so go get me 52 players with HOF credientials or I'm staying in the whirlpool"
Oh, brother?

 

[mgteich]

I understand your position. Tom Brady is just a hired hand and should have no interest in the quality of his offensive line. He is getting paid what he contracted for and who plays at OL is the business of the Front Office and he should have no input. No one deserves any input, not even one of the best quarterbacks who has every played and one who has recently played entire season injured, and re-injured and re-injured.

I am very glad that Kraft has a much different opinion of Tom Brady than you do. If you think that Tom Brady has no influence on who plays on the offense, then I strongly disagree with your position.

The bottom line is that Connolly is fine backup (as Hochstein was) and is likely to be needed to share a position with Neal as he did last year. I do NOT think that it is out of line for Tom brady to express concerns to the boss.

Thats a joke right?
You expect Tom Brady, the Tom Brady who has been our QB since 2001, based on everything you know about him to walk into BBs office as a whiny biyatch and throw one of his players under the bus saying "How do you, oh pissant of a HC, expect the great me to win if after one player holds out and another gets injured, I have to disgrace myself by being on the same field as a guy who only played 1/3 of the snaps last season. I am Tom Brady, goddamn it, so go get me 52 players with HOF credientials or I'm staying in the whirlpool"
Oh, brother?

 

[crowell33]

I agree. If Mankins is gone, and Kaczur on PUP or IR, I expect us to start the season with TWO veteran free agent interior linemen on the 53. Mawae would be interesting.

Agreed. If Mawae wasn't the head ( one of the heads ? ) of the players association, would we have signed him already?

 

[mgteich]

If the patriots would not sign a player because of his union associations, then the patriots are in violation of the CBA. The patriots would certainly never do that.

Seriously, I think that the patriots are discussing all options with several players. I would expect one last approach to Mankins before we start to sign a high profile player. Of course, we could wait until we see who else is cut. Connolly could certainly start the first four games if necessary, or Ghiaciuc could.

Agreed. If Mawae wasn't the head ( one of the heads ? ) of the players association, would we have signed him already?

 

[Ring 6]

I understand your position. Tom Brady is just a hired hand and should have no interest in the quality of his offensive line. He is getting paid what he contracted for and who plays at OL is the business of the Front Office and he should have no input. No one deserves any input, not even one of the best quarterbacks who has every played and one who has recently played entire season injured, and re-injured and re-injured.

I am very glad that Kraft has a much different opinion of Tom Brady than you do. If you think that Tom Brady has no influence on who plays on the offense, then I strongly disagree with your position.

The bottom line is that Connolly is fine backup (as Hochstein was) and is likely to be needed to share a position with Neal as he did last year. I do NOT think that it is out of line for Tom brady to express concerns to the boss.

And I am very gld that Tom Brady is not the whiny biyatch that you would be in his position.
You are seriously telling me that you think the right thing for him to do is ***** to management because of an injury?
You think that Brady feels he must go tell BB about personell?
Now is that because you think BB cant evaluate his roster without Bradys help, or because he doesnt care?

 

[Ring 6]

I understand your position. Tom Brady is just a hired hand and should have no interest in the quality of his offensive line. He is getting paid what he contracted for and who plays at OL is the business of the Front Office and he should have no input. No one deserves any input, not even one of the best quarterbacks who has every played and one who has recently played entire season injured, and re-injured and re-injured.

I am very glad that Kraft has a much different opinion of Tom Brady than you do. If you think that Tom Brady has no influence on who plays on the offense, then I strongly disagree with your position.

The bottom line is that Connolly is fine backup (as Hochstein was) and is likely to be needed to share a position with Neal as he did last year. I do NOT think that it is out of line for Tom brady to express concerns to the boss.

By the way, if you are correct, then that would be Brady went to his boss last year and bltched about having to be dishonored by sharing his field with that slug Connolly starting, and BB must have told him to F-off, huh?
Maybe thats it. You are right, Brady is a prima dona who throws his teammates and coach under the bus, and thats why he doesnt have a contract. Go Hoyer!!!

 

[Ring 6]

I understand your position. Tom Brady is just a hired hand and should have no interest in the quality of his offensive line. He is getting paid what he contracted for and who plays at OL is the business of the Front Office and he should have no input. No one deserves any input, not even one of the best quarterbacks who has every played and one who has recently played entire season injured, and re-injured and re-injured.

.

Perhaps Brady will ask the boss how he can be expected to win with Connolly as his protector aolong with Koppen and Light.

There is a gap about 400 miles wide between those 2 statements.

The second implies that Brady should throw a temper tantrum over a player being injured. The first suggests he is either allowed to do that or irrelevant.
Everything Tom Brady has ever done as a Patriot is in the vast gap in between.

 

[mgteich]

There is HUGE difference between coping with injuries during the season and coping with injuries before the season starts.

Brady will obviously support whoever is on the roster in each and every game. Brady will also NOT publicly throw someone under the bus, even because of poor performance. SOME would like Brady to do MORE in this regard.

If Kaczur is injured and if the FO cannot get Mankins to play, then this is a KNOWN condition or situation before the season begins. Yes, Belichick knows his job, and yes Dante knows his (they are both the best in the nfl). HOWEVER, given the seniority of our QB coach, it is NOT out of line for Brady to voice his position, as one who understands the offense ALMOST as well as any of the coaches.
=====================
BTW, IMHO we were in this position at LB in 2005. Belichick did little. Our starting ILB's were Beisel and Chad Brown.
==========

THERE IS PLENTY OF TIME AND THERE ARE MANY OPTIONS!
I don't think it is out of line for Brady to point out the obvious: Our #1 OG is not playing, our #2 OG is an injury waiting to happen and our #3 OG is an injured tackle who has never played guard. And I don't think it is out of line to ask what the plan was to solve this apparently critical situation.

Obviously, Dante could tell Brady that he had utmost confidence in Connolly, Ohrnberger and Larsen as starters, or not.

As I said, I understand your position that hired hands like Brady should keep their mouths shut and just do their job.

By the way, if you are correct, then that would be Brady went to his boss last year and bltched about having to be dishonored by sharing his field with that slug Connolly starting, and BB must have told him to F-off, huh?
Maybe thats it. You are right, Brady is a prima dona who throws his teammates and coach under the bus, and thats why he doesnt have a contract. Go Hoyer!!!

 

[Ring 6]

There is HUGE difference between coping with injuries during the season and coping with injuries before the season starts.

Brady will obviously support whoever is on the roster in each and every game. Brady will also NOT publicly throw someone under the bus, even because of poor performance. SOME would like Brady to do MORE in this regard.

If Kaczur is injured and if the FO cannot get Mankins to play, then this is a KNOWN condition or situation before the season begins. Yes, Belichick knows his job, and yes Dante knows his (they are both the best in the nfl). HOWEVER, given the seniority of our QB coach, it is NOT out of line for Brady to voice his position, as one who understands the offense ALMOST as well as any of the coaches.
=====================
BTW, IMHO we were in this position at LB in 2005. Belichick did little. Our starting ILB's were Beisel and Chad Brown.
==========

THERE IS PLENTY OF TIME AND THERE ARE MANY OPTIONS!
I don't think it is out of line for Brady to point out the obvious: Our #1 OG is not playing, our #2 OG is an injury waiting to happen and our #3 OG is an injured tackle who has never played guard. And I don't think it is out of line to ask what the plan was to solve this apparently critical situation.

Obviously, Dante could tell Brady that he had utmost confidence in Connolly, Ohrnberger and Larsen as starters, or not.

As I said, I understand your position that hired hands like Brady should keep their mouths shut and just do their job.

You sound as if Brady cares about the quality of LG and no one else does, so he better take BB out to the woodshed and teach him a lesson.
Do you seriously believe that BB won't do everything he can to make this team the best it can be, and he needs biyatching from Brady to wake up from his nap and realize its time to go to work?
Thats my objection with your post.
Brady doesnt need to tell his boss anything. Brady plays QB, his boss puts together a team. Each are the best in the business at it.
Your post implied Brady cares and BB doesnt. That is wrong.

Why would Brady need to point out the obvious, and why would Brady all of sudden decide to become judgmental and doctatorial to BB???? That isn't how we have won. Do you want to shift authority in the organizaiton from the coach to the players? Very Pete Carrollish.

 

[Kontradiction]

What do you want? He is/was our 4th G. It is what it is. What are you arguing here? If we are at the point of our 4th G starting, I'm OK with it being a guy who played 5 full games last year where the results where not really diminished.
Everything else aside, we were not hurt last year by him stepping in.
I am not going to spend the next month cowering in the corner because we may have to start a guy who proved competant in limited action last year. Every other of the 31 teams will end up starting guys they would rather not, due to injury. When its a G and that G is a guy who just last season played capably, thats not a nightmare.
As of today, we have a starter at LG that we would rather have as a backup, but when pressed into starting before did an OK job. Whats so terrible about that?

I'm going to save myself the trouble of making a long, drawn out post by just quoting this. Yes, he is our 4th G. He is our 4th G for a reason. That reason states that he should not be thrust into the starting line-up this year. Unfortunately, that's what we're looking at. If that's the case, the Connolly is a drop off from Kaczur and is an even bigger drop off from Mankins. Thats potentially bad news for our offense and bad news for Brady. Yes, back-ups do sometimes start and I don't really have a problem with him starting a game here or there in spite of the deficiencies that I saw in his game. I have a problem with a career back-up starting a 16 game season protecting a franchise quarterback that has been as banged up as Brady has. If you agree with that, then just say so instead of typing a master's thesis in which some of you points state that you do agree and other points state that you don't.

Secondly, watch your own video again. Light engaged the OLB, not the DE. It's pretty clear. Mankins was engaged with the DE and that DE was the same guy that came around and hit Brady. Mankins, however, was not charged for the hit by the website which you are using. The same website which admits to have a pretty good sized rate of error in their statistics.

Third, Mankins position = his position in regards to his contract negotiations with the team. Not his actual position on the field. Whether you want to admit it or not, the team now has to think a lot harder about how they want to deal with Mankins.

Fourth, even if the offensive competition we played last year WAS average, that doesn't really make the competition argument that much better for the defense. They played average offenses and got good results for it. There's nothing wrong with it as they did their job against the guys they should have done their job against. How you can disagree that they failed... miserably... against upper level competition is beyond me. For a guy that's usually pretty level headed when it comes to other teams, you sure can't seem to be objective about your own team.

It's not arrogance to state that you were defending the status quo of last season. The team obviously disagreed that the need for a competent WR3 was "minimal at best". You were wrong. Why you can't see that is beyond me.

I'm not sure how you can fault me for wanting the best protection that Brady can possibly get. I don't think Connolly is it. Sorry. I saw instances of it last season and so did the team. Otherwise, Connolly would have started off TC starting at LG instead of the team moving a RT over there. Connolly is what he is... a back-up that should be relied on for a few games. Relying on him for a full season would be the team shooting itself in the foot again just like they did a year ago when they let Seymour go.

I'll end this with a simple question: I'm aware that you think Connolly is a "solid" back-up. I agree that he is a back-up but disagree with the "solid" part. With that in mind, do you want to see Connolly starting at LG this year?

 

[mgteich]

A) Brady will make no public statements. We will never know what concerns he has voiced to Dante, Belichick or Kraft.

B) I do not mean to imply that Brady will be anything but tactlful in voicing his concerns. Brady is not likely to throw a temper tantrum.

C) BTW, I do not think that Dante, Bill and Kraft will simply tell Brady that Brady should mind his own business and let the personnel folks do their jobs.

D) I'm sure that there are top quarterbacks in this league who don't worry about the rest of the team, and simply go out and do their job every day, and just let others do their jobs. If you think that this sounds like Tom Brady, I would suggest that your mistaken. We once had a SB quarterback like that, Tony Eason.

[/I]

There is a gap about 400 miles wide between those 2 statements.

The second implies that Brady should throw a temper tantrum over a player being injured. The first suggests he is either allowed to do that or irrelevant.
Everything Tom Brady has ever done as a Patriot is in the vast gap in between.

 

[Kontradiction]

Are you serious? They argued for like 3 pages about the difference between 16 and 16.5 in another thread.
Seriously.
They will argue anything.

Sorry someone handcuffed you and made you read mine and Andy's posts. It must have sucked being forced to do that. :ugh:

 

[Kontradiction]

Its hard to do that when I post that the walls in my office are white, and get a response asking me how I can possibly argue that purple is a better color than yellow.

I'm sorry, but doesn't "the offensive production didn't drop off at all with him last year" = we should be fine with Connolly as a starter this year? After all, if the offensive production didn't drop off, then what do we have to lose by starting him this season?

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry someone handcuffed you and made you read mine and Andy's posts. It must have sucked being forced to do that. :ugh:

 

[Kontradiction]

Its hard to do that when I post that the walls in my office are white, and get a response asking me how I can possibly argue that purple is a better color than yellow.

That's ridiculous. Your office walls are obviously purple.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm going to save myself the trouble of making a long, drawn out post by just quoting this. Yes, he is our 4th G. He is our 4th G for a reason. That reason states that he should not be thrust into the starting line-up this year. Unfortunately, that's what we're looking at. If that's the case, the Connolly is a drop off from Kaczur and is an even bigger drop off from Mankins. Thats potentially bad news for our offense and bad news for Brady. Yes, back-ups do sometimes start and I don't really have a problem with him starting a game here or there in spite of the deficiencies that I saw in his game. I have a problem with a career back-up starting a 16 game season protecting a franchise quarterback that has been as banged up as Brady has. If you agree with that, then just say so instead of typing a master's thesis in which some of you points state that you do agree and other points state that you don't.

My point is the same one it has been all along. It appears we will be relyng on Connolly. We relied on Connolly last season and he did OK. Sure I would liketo have Mankins, I would like Kaczur to be healthy. No one ever suggested we were better without them.
I don't know what you are arguing. We were better with them, now wtihout them we go to Connolly who did OK last year.
I don't think we cancel the season because we are medicore at LG IF Mankins doesnt report AND Kaczur is out.
Still not sure what you are arguing? Are we supposed to have a probowler in that spot?

Secondly, watch your own video again. Light engaged the OLB, not the DE. It's pretty clear. Mankins was engaged with the DE and that DE was the same guy that came around and hit Brady. Mankins, however, was not charged for the hit by the website which you are using. The same website which admits to have a pretty good sized rate of error in their statistics.

I'll look again, wasnt frankly looking for that. ITs not really relevant anyway.

Third, Mankins position = his position in regards to his contract negotiations with the team. Not his actual position on the field. Whether you want to admit it or not, the team now has to think a lot harder about how they want to deal with Mankins.

Maybe. I dont think the difference between Kaczur or Connolly is going to have a largeimpact on their approach toward Mankins.

Fourth, even if the offensive competition we played last year WAS average, that doesn't really make the competition argument that much better for the defense. They played average offenses and got good results for it. There's nothing wrong with it as they did their job against the guys they should have done their job against. How you can disagree that they failed... miserably... against upper level competition is beyond me. For a guy that's usually pretty level headed when it comes to other teams, you sure can't seem to be objective about your own team.

The discussion was that the result, 5th in points allowed, was skewed by the schedule. If the schedule is exactly average there is no skewing.
Whether they performed better against good teams, bad teams etc doesn skew the ranking.
See here is the thing. They actually were the 5th best (based upon production) defense in the NFL. That is, for the 60 minutes of 16 games they played, they had the 5th best results.
What you are arguing, I think, is that under different circumstances they would have been exposed as worse than their performance actually was.
That would be the reason to cite all of those issues you are using.
One factor could be how they performed against the best teams or worst teams. But if they faced almost a perfect cross-section of the league that argument is diminished. What you would have to show is that other defenses were better against top competion and then that this worked out better for them because they also had to be worse against lesser competition (oputside of the top 4, no one could both allow less to good and bad teams and stil allow more than we did).
You have continued to argue anecdotally, with phrases such as 'the 5th best defense doesnt........' which of course is all unsupported opinion.
We were, by the play on the field, the 5th best defense. If you want to say that other teams PLAYED BETTER but the results were worse because of factors, such as competition, you have to show that, and you havent.
I think though we are just better off droppin this and agreeing to disagree.

It's not arrogance to state that you were defending the status quo of last season. The team obviously disagreed that the need for a competent WR3 was "minimal at best". You were wrong. Why you can't see that is beyond me.

It is the ultimate arrogance to say that whatyou think my point was is correct and what I say my point was is wrong. The discussion was whether the 3rd WR was the, or one of the biggest problems on the team last year.
A RESERVE position can both be undermaned and not one of the biggest problems on the team. I expect that a team with Moss and Welker can compete effectively with a terrible #3 WR, which, in fact, they did We were something like 3rd on passing and 3rd in scoring.
3rdWR sucked, but we were an excellent passing team despite that because we didnt need a good 3rd WR to be effective.
That is very different than 'arguing that Aiken was a fine 3rd wr" isnt it?

How did the team 'obviously disagree'? A vet at the minimum who is close to retirement and a 3rd roun pick is hardly an allout effort to solve a disastrous problem. By th way I did not say 'minimal at best' and I supoorted improving the spot. My argument was never that it was good, just that it was less relevant and necessary to success as it was being made out to be. BB seems to agree by only using a 3rd round pick and signing a cheap FA to fill the need. Seems he would agree with me that CB was bigger, since he used a #1, that TE was bigger since he used 2 picks and overhauled the spot.

I'm not sure how you can fault me for wanting the best protection that Brady can possibly get.[/quote[
Whn did I do that?

I don't think Connolly is it. Sorry. I saw instances of it last season and so did the team. Otherwise, Connolly would have started off TC starting at LG instead of the team moving a RT over there.

Not necessarily. You can be a competant player and also be behind another competant player. Kaczur hs started 5 years, and we have 3 starting caliber Ts. The fact that the one best suited to play inside is moved inside is by no means a condemnation of the other players at the position he is competing with.

Connolly is what he is... a back-up that should be relied on for a few games. Relying on him for a full season would be the team shooting itself in the foot again just like they did a year ago when they let Seymour go.

So this is about you being upset that we sustained an injury?
Well that happens. I didnt kno this thread was to whine about having an injury, In thought it was to discuss the ramifications of the injury. Thats what I was doing by discussing the body of work of the player who is filling in.
Should I have typed.
"Wow I'm depressed a player is hurt and we have to elevate a backup. I'm going to go hide in the corner"?

I'll end this with a simple question: I'm aware that you think Connolly is a "solid" back-up. I agree that he is a back-up but disagree with the "solid" part. With that in mind, do you want to see Connolly starting at LG this year?

Whether I want that or not is quite irrellevant
I have already typed
I wish Mankins was here.
I wish Kaczur was healthy.
I rated Connolly as a medicore starter.
Why are you asking it all over again.

What are you driving at? If I don't want him to start someone else will fall out of the sky?

We willl have backups playing starters minutes. So will every other team.
That creates a disadvantage.
I think that if tht position is LG, I am less concerned than I would be at many positions because we have a backup who has proven capable of starting. Does that mean the problem is solved? Of course not. But my confidence level that the impact of losing THIS STARTER doesn't seem debilitating.
We don't know how he will play. If we could know that, there would be no point playing the games. But based on how he has played, I'm not overly worried.

 

[Ring 6]

A) Brady will make no public statements. We will never know what concerns he has voiced to Dante, Belichick or Kraft.

B) I do not mean to imply that Brady will be anything but tactlful in voicing his concerns. Brady is not likely to throw a temper tantrum.

C) BTW, I do not think that Dante, Bill and Kraft will simply tell Brady that Brady should mind his own business and let the personnel folks do their jobs.

D) I'm sure that there are top quarterbacks in this league who don't worry about the rest of the team, and simply go out and do their job every day, and just let others do their jobs. If you think that this sounds like Tom Brady, I would suggest that your mistaken. We once had a SB quarterback like that, Tony Eason.

Evry word in your post is you making up how you think Brady thinks.
Are you aware of him ever giving critique, threats (which is how you originally framed it) or ultimatums regarding personell to BB?
Do you have any evidence at all about your rambling in (D) or was it simply designed to disguise the real point?

Tell you what, you seem to have the "I hope Brady turns into Peyton Manning" bandwagon straining at the axels, so I will go back to hoping Tom Brady contiunues to act like Tom Brady.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm sorry, but doesn't "the offensive production didn't drop off at all with him last year" = we should be fine with Connolly as a starter this year? After all, if the offensive production didn't drop off, then what do we have to lose by starting him this season?

I'm not sure what you are saying here?
When a backup steps in for 5 games and the team moves forward relatively unhindered, that doesn't mean you dont want the better player on the field, it means that either the dropoff wasnt as large as expected, or the team overcame it well, or probably a number of other possibilities.
That doesnt mean you don't want your starter back.
And btw, it wasn't that the offensive production didnt dropoff at all, its that the dropoff was small.
We could really cut down on these posts if you respond to what I post instead of changing it and responding to the incorrect version.

 

[Kontradiction]

My point is the same one it has been all along. It appears we will be relyng on Connolly. We relied on Connolly last season and he did OK. Sure I would liketo have Mankins, I would like Kaczur to be healthy. No one ever suggested we were better without them.
I don't know what you are arguing. We were better with them, now wtihout them we go to Connolly who did OK last year.
I don't think we cancel the season because we are medicore at LG IF Mankins doesnt report AND Kaczur is out.
Still not sure what you are arguing? Are we supposed to have a probowler in that spot?

Of course you're not sure what I'm arguing. That's been apparent throughout this whole thing. I could engrave my argument on a 24K Gold plaque and you probably still wouldn't understand because you're willfully missing it. Let me detail it...

1. Connolly has obvious deficiencies in his game which relegated him to being a back-up and were obvious in his 2009 appearances. Stats shouldn't matter in the end because we still had 4/5's of the starting offensive line playing so his sub-par play wouldn't really show up in the final statistics but would show up to anybody with an eye for line play watching the game.

2. As a back-up, nobody should feel comfortable with having him starting. Since the thread is about how worried we are about not having Mankins, it's certainly relevant to discuss this in this topic.

3. If the team felt there was no drop off with Connolly in, he would have been starting at LG from the beginning of TC. The fact that he wasn't tells you all that you need to know about him... that he's a back-up.

I'll look again, wasnt frankly looking for that. ITs not really relevant anyway.

When you make the statement that you did and rely as heavily on the website for the statistics that you are, pointing out an obvious flaw is certainly relevant.

Maybe. I dont think the difference between Kaczur or Connolly is going to have a largeimpact on their approach toward Mankins.

If it doesn't then the team needs to reasses themselves.

The discussion was that the result, 5th in points allowed, was skewed by the schedule. If the schedule is exactly average there is no skewing.
Whether they performed better against good teams, bad teams etc doesn skew the ranking.
See here is the thing. They actually were the 5th best (based upon production) defense in the NFL. That is, for the 60 minutes of 16 games they played, they had the 5th best results.

This team was, pretty clearly, not the fifth best defense in the NFL. But thank you for finally answering the question though. I had a feeling that was your stance the entire time. Not so arrogant now, am I? Andy, it's really simple. Any variable in statistical analysis is a skew. An average, tough, or weak offensive schedule is a skew. So yes, there is definitely a skew there. On top of that, top five defenses stand up against the little guys as well as the big boys. You should know. We used to have a defense like this. This team did exactly one half of that last year.

What you are arguing, I think, is that under different circumstances they would have been exposed as worse than their performance actually was.
That would be the reason to cite all of those issues you are using.

When you berate me for taking stabs at what your argument is and then proceed to do the exact same thing, I find that absolutely delicious.

One factor could be how they performed against the best teams or worst teams. But if they faced almost a perfect cross-section of the league that argument is diminished. What you would have to show is that other defenses were better against top competion and then that this worked out better for them because they also had to be worse against lesser competition (oputside of the top 4, no one could both allow less to good and bad teams and stil allow more than we did).

I did in the thread. The fact that you threw your hands up in the air and dismissed perfectly good examples is on you.

You have continued to argue anecdotally, with phrases such as 'the 5th best defense doesnt........' which of course is all unsupported opinion.

How is it unsupported? There are decades of evidence supporting that fact. Top five defenses are good against all competition. We were not.

We were, by the play on the field, the 5th best defense. If you want to say that other teams PLAYED BETTER but the results were worse because of factors, such as competition, you have to show that, and you havent.
I think though we are just better off droppin this and agreeing to disagree.

Yeah, we're never going to reach an impasse on this. Besides, that was a matter for that thread.

It is the ultimate arrogance to say that whatyou think my point was is correct and what I say my point was is wrong. The discussion was whether the 3rd WR was the, or one of the biggest problems on the team last year.
A RESERVE position can both be undermaned and not one of the biggest problems on the team. I expect that a team with Moss and Welker can compete effectively with a terrible #3 WR, which, in fact, they did We were something like 3rd on passing and 3rd in scoring.
3rdWR sucked, but we were an excellent passing team despite that because we didnt need a good 3rd WR to be effective.
That is very different than 'arguing that Aiken was a fine 3rd wr" isnt it?

You keep misusing the term arrogance. For me, being arrogant would be me saying something like, "HEY ANDY, I THOUGHT YOU LEFT THE FORUM. WHAT HAPPENED?". THAT'S arrogance. Me taking your points and then accusing you of making an argument in that favor is not arrogance. For example, I kept stating that you were truly arguing that the defense was the fifth best defense. Your response was to deny it, dodge the question, and accuse me of being arrogant. That all fell apart just now when you actually admitted to thinking that this was the fifth best defense.

It's really simple, and something that I have said at least 20 times, when you argue for the status quo, you argue for all of the parts that go with it... in this case Aiken. Surely you can see this? For another, you always need a good third/fourth/fifth option. I don't care how good your two passing options are. If you only have two of them with not much else, it's going to be easy for the better defenses to shut you down. That happened more than a few times last year and the team made obvious moves to address it.