Is Caldwell done?

[Keegs]

Why do I have to explain it to you? I'm not going to lose sleep over Keegs questioning what I do.




Reche Caldwell apologizes for not catching 30 more balls and 6 more touchdowns to make Keegs happy. He also notes that even if he did so, Keegs would most likely consider it a choke job since he didn't catch 31.

You should have to explain it to me. You said that Tom Brady and Reche Caldwell were EQUALLY at fault that play. That's a bold statement is simply not true. You have nothing to back it up. You have nothing to prove how they are "equally" at fault.

And as for the 2nd part of your response i don't get what the numbers are from... If you actually read my comment you would see that the whole point is that the numbers don't matter. I just want him to be reliable in the biggest of games and not make horrible mistakes. Like i said before, he could have had 200 catches and 20 tds.... He still CHOKED in the biggest game of his career.

Reche Caldwell = Unreliable.
(and there's not a damn thing you can say to change that )

 

[Keegs]

So you're telling me he caught 61 passes even with the defense targeting him as the #1 wide receiver?

So what will happen when the defense doesn't target him, but he's still on the field as a starter?

I don't know hmmm... maybe he'll drop a few more in the most important football game of his life and then have you to defend him?

 

[pats1]

You should have to explain it to me. You said that Tom Brady and Reche Caldwell were EQUALLY at fault that play. That's a bold statement is simply not true. You have nothing to back it up. You have nothing to prove how they are "equally" at fault.

I apologize. My At-Fault-o-Meter 3000 is reading that Caldwell was .000001% more responsible for the failure of that play.

Again, I apologize.

And as for the 2nd part of your response i don't get what the numbers are from... If you actually read my comment you would see that the whole point is that the numbers don't matter. I just want him to be reliable in the biggest of games and not make horrible mistakes. Like i said before, he could have had 200 catches and 20 tds.... He still CHOKED in the biggest game of his career.

Reche Caldwell = Unreliable.
(and there's not a damn thing you can say to change that )

I don't even know why I bother to respond to you. It's like I waste 30 seconds of my life whenever I do.

So, what, if Gostkowski missed a field goal in the Colts game he'd be unreliable too?

Your method of damning players for isolated mistakes is laughable. Some of your posts are so useless it's beyond humor.

Again, I have no idea why I even bother. I should have never taken you off my ignore list.

 

[pats1]

I don't know hmmm... maybe he'll drop a few more in the most important football game of his life and then have you to defend him?

 

[solman]

Would a great deal more "skillful" wide receiver have a great deal more catches with the Patriots than Caldwell would?

If they replaced Reche on the 2006 Patriots? Of Course.

 

[Keegs]

I apologize. My At-Fault-o-Meter 3000 is reading that Caldwell was .000001% more responsible for the failure of that play.

Again, I apologize.



I don't even know why I bother to respond to you. It's like I waste 30 seconds of my life whenever I do.

So, what, if Gostkowski missed a field goal in the Colts game he'd be unreliable too?

Your method of damning players for isolated mistakes is laughable. Some of your posts are so useless it's beyond humor.

Again, I have no idea why I even bother. I should have never taken you off my ignore list.

You should just admit that saying Tom Brady is EQUALLY at fault as Reche is for that drop is wrong. What a load of crap. You keep backpeddling and now you try to use humor. Nice try. just admit it was stupid and we'll move on.


You respond b/c you can't let someone else get the last word. That is also why you keep responding to every negative Reche comment in this thread, even if it's a 3 word crap response typed in size 20 font. If that doesn't work, you name off stats even though it was never part of the question.

Dropping those Ridiculously easy Passes is not like missing a field goal.

If Gostkowski missed a 20 yard field goal (the equivalent), then yes, i would say he is unreliable too.

What good are these players to this team if they suck when it matters most?

Lets just play him during the regular season and then put someone else in for the playoffs.

 

[pats1]

If they replaced Reche on the 2006 Patriots? Of Course.

Brady would spread the ball around as much as he would/did with Caldwell.

 

[Keegs]

(Directed towards Pats1, Reche Caldwell's cousin)
ok so when you can't answer my questions you ignore me?

You tried naming off stats to defend Reche but then i told you i don't care about stats...
after that panic set in and you tried the old "keegs is a jerk and his posts suck" excuse to try and lower my credability (as if you needed to).

Then you ignore me b/c you can't win.

Thanks for giving up and thanks for playing. that was pathetic.

 

[pats1]

I should have done this a long time ago.

The peace, the tranquility...

 

[solman]

Brady would spread the ball around as much as he would/did with Caldwell.

A better receiver would be open more often.

One of the themes of 2006 was Brady facing off against an average secondary, getting plenty of time, and not having anybody open.

 

[Deus Irae]

If they replaced Reche on the 2006 Patriots? Of Course.

And the idiocy continues. It's like the gift that keeps on giving.


Branch's numbers in New England:

43
57
35
78
53


Hmmm.... 5 years, only one time with more catches than Caldwell's last season. David Givens has never exceeded that number. I await tales of both Branch and Givens being lesser receivers than Caldwell to explain this little problem. Hey, this was fun.

In other words, yet another theory of yours is crap.

 

[pats1]

And the idiocy continues. It's like the gift that keeps on giving.


Branch's numbers in New England:

43
57
35
78
53


Hmmm.... 5 years, only one time with more catches than Caldwell's last season. David Givens has never exceeded that number. I await tales of both Branch and Givens being lesser receivers than Caldwell to explain this little problem. Hey, this was fun.

In other words, yet another theory of yours is crap.

4 years actually (53 catches in Seattle).

But I agree.

 

[Deus Irae]

And the idiocy continues. It's like the gift that keeps on giving.


Branch's numbers in New England:

43
57
35
78
53


Hmmm.... 5 years, only one time with more catches than Caldwell's last season. David Givens has never exceeded that number. I await tales of both Branch and Givens being lesser receivers than Caldwell to explain this little problem. Hey, this was fun.

In other words, yet another theory of yours is crap.

4 years actually (53 catches in Seattle).

But I agree.

My sloppy mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[solman]

And the idiocy continues. It's like the gift that keeps on giving.

It is frankly absurd that you would even TRY to compare Givens and Branch to Caldwell and Gabriel.

Our passing stats in 2006 were down in EVERY SINGLE MAJOR CATEGORY.



Once again, Stats != Skills. If 61 catches makes Caldwell the 41st best receiver, then Jon Kitna (who led the league in completions) would be the NFL's best quaterback.

Caldwell did not suddenly become more than twice as good a receiver between 2005 and 2006.

He changed teams and became the primary target of the best QB in the game.



Since you continue to repeat yourself, you become the first member of my ignore list. Congratulations! :woohoo:

 

[solman]

4 years actually (53 catches in Seattle).

But I agree.

Hmm, I wonder why Deion went from 78 catches to 53 catches?

Do you suppose that it had something to do with going to a team with a worse QB, and numerous quality receiving options?

 

[pats1]

It is frankly absurd that you would even TRY to compare Givens and Branch to Caldwell and Gabriel.

Our passing stats in 2006 were down in EVERY SINGLE MAJOR CATEGORY.



Once again, Stats != Skills. If 61 catches makes Caldwell the 41st best receiver, then Jon Kitna (who led the league in completions) would be the NFL's best quaterback.

Caldwell did not suddenly become more than twice as good a receiver between 2005 and 2006.

He changed teams and became the primary target of the best QB in the game.



Since you continue to repeat yourself, you become the first member of my ignore list. Congratulations! :woohoo:

I do ask you, then:

If "skills" aren't good for stats, then what are they good for?

 

[pats1]

Hmm, I wonder why Deion went from 78 catches to 53 catches?

Do you suppose that it had something to do with going to a team with a worse QB, and numerous quality receiving options?

Givens and Brown to Engram and Jackson? Not a tremendous difference.

The 2 games he missed helped out too.

 

[solman]

I do ask you, then:

If "skills" aren't good for stats, then what are they good for?

I'm saying that stats are a poor proxy for skills.

Vinatieri >> Vanderjagt
Branch >> Caldwell
Brady >> Manning

Skills ARE useful in getting stats. They are more useful in winning games.





I'm done for the day.

 

[Deus Irae]

It is frankly absurd that you would even TRY to compare Givens and Branch to Caldwell and Gabriel.

Our passing stats in 2006 were down in EVERY SINGLE MAJOR CATEGORY.



Once again, Stats != Skills. If 61 catches makes Caldwell the 41st best receiver, then Jon Kitna (who led the league in completions) would be the NFL's best quaterback.

Caldwell did not suddenly become more than twice as good a receiver between 2005 and 2006.

He changed teams and became the primary target of the best QB in the game.



Since you continue to repeat yourself, you become the first member of my ignore list. Congratulations! :woohoo:

I've proven this assclown wrong on the finances argument. I've proven him wrong on the #1 target argument. I've proven him wrong on the value-for-production argument. I've proven him wrong on the "better players will have better numbers" argument.

So his response is to put me on ignore for repeating myself when I'd never compared Branch and Givens numbers before and was responding to yet another lame argument he put forth. Well, if guess since he can't take the heat and hasn't had a valid point for the entire thread, it makes sense for him.

Here, in his honor:

 

[Kdo5]

I'm saying that stats are a poor proxy for skills.

Vinatieri >> Vanderjagt
Branch >> Caldwell
Brady >> Manning

Skills ARE useful in getting stats. They are more useful in winning games.





I'm done for the day.

Hopefully your done with this thread forever because you and Keegs are the two most ignorant people on this forum. Your arguments are stupid, you just cant face the facts that Caldwell was a good reciever for us last year and the fact that Reche doesnt deserve blame for the loss. How about the DEFENSE? Multiple good players choked in the second half. I mean towards the end it was terrible, absolutely terrible. We shouldnt have needed to rely on Reche to score a TD to seal that game. We had a lot of points already. 31 points. But the defense was just pitiful towards the end. I wanted to throw up. DONT throw blame on Reche. Keegs is only doing that because he is the easiest to blame because his drop stood out like a sore thumb. But you may not have noticed the various screw ups or performances by certain defensive players. Not to mention I didnt see the other recievers do squat aside from Gaffney's TD. Nor Maroney.