LaFell and Easley not present at practice

[oldrover]

 

[Brady6]

This guy referring to himself in the 3rd person should tell you everything you need to know about him. I wouldn't even bother clicking on "show ignore content" because 9 times out of 10, it's Brady6 making an ass out of himself.

Who are you again? Why is my username in your post again? Why do you only insert yourself into confrontation?

 

[Brady6]

This couldn't be more incorrect. The passes you are comparing to give receivers tons of lead time, plus when it is necessary to tap it away, they know because the defender actually had better position for the ball. Neither occurred on this play.

If you want to keep banging away on "catchable" be my guest, but the argument goes completely off the rails when you say he should have knocked it down.

I disagree. I never said he “should of” I said he could of.

 

[Deus Irae]

Dominique Easley returned to New England Patriots practice Thursday, but the rookie defensive tackle still wasn’t able to fully participate in the session.
Easley was limited with a knee injury that held him out of practice Tuesday and Wednesday. Easley told the Boston Herald’s Jeff Howe that he didn’t re-injure his knee last week, and that he was getting his brace re-fitted while sitting out of the early portion of practice.

http://nesn.com/2014/11/patriots-injury-report-dominique-easley-limited-with-knee-injury/

 

[Brady6]

{Sighs}

What do you want me to tell you O, I posted that Amendola actually had a good game against the Broncos, I was speaking in a positive way about him, I simply said he had a catchable ball go off his hands for an interception. That was worthy of 4 pages of BS posts in which people run their mouths and talk ****. I honestly do not have time for this, so I am out.

 

[mgteich]

... I could careless, my issue was never with Amendola it was always with posters like you thinking you were right when you were clearly wrong.

This says a lot.

Some folks are under the misapprehension that what was important was the content of arguments. You make it clear that this irrelevant for you. What is important for you is for you to be able to say that you are right.

Please understand that no one else cares. What matter is the patriots, and the content of discussions.

 

[oldrover]

http://nesn.com/2014/11/patriots-injury-report-dominique-easley-limited-with-knee-injury/

That's good news. Hope he can play.

We now return you to the internet argument already in progress.

 

[Tom meets Kaepernick]

Who are you again? Why is my username in your post again? Why do you only insert yourself into confrontation?

I am vengeance. I am the night. I am Tom Meets Kaepernick!!!!!

 

[pwes]

Its just an internet messageboard. Jeez.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Of course, but he didn't just say, "I'm a WR, pay me!" He presented evidence, like the fact that he splits out wide 2/3 of the time. If I was his rep, I would've asked him to block in front of the arbitrator. That would've removed any doubt right there.

Good points. I wonder how often Gronk splits out?

 

[Marinlik]

I would have said it was a catchable football if it was Edelman, LaFell, Wright, Gronkowski, Vereen or just about any other WR on the team. It would have been a difficult catch for sure but it was a catchable or at the very least he could have knocked it down to prevent the turnover, the interception is on Brady but being a good WR is often about stepping up and helping your teammate out when they make a poor, Amendola had an opportunity to do that and did not, that is what it is. I do not blame Amendola or hold him accountable for it, I am just not ignorant or delusional enough to suggest what happen on that play is the only possible outcome because that was not the case.

As far as my long standing issue goes, you are right, but I was the most RIGHT about Amendola, 95% of posters came at me suggesting I would be wrong, I stood my ground. My issue was with them being wrong and continuing to suggest otherwise, not with Amendola, since it has been understood that he sucks I seldom say anything about him.

So you are saying that a good WR grows a couple of inches when the QB throws a ****ty ball? He jumped as high as he could, reaches his hands as high as he could and he still barely touched the under side of the football. That is not a catchable ball. A good WR can't suddenly become much larger to help against a bad throw. I agree that there are cases where good receivers can really limit the damage from a bad throw, bat it down or whatever. But there are also cases where even the best receivers can't limit the damage from a bad throw because the throw is off enough that it's physically impossible for them to do that. This was one of those cases(not elite WR, just impossible to stop)

You seem to blaim Amendola for not stopping that interception. But that's just rediculous. Sometimes it's just a ****ty throw and the QB is to blame. Just because you are payed $5,7m does not mean you can defy the laws of physics(you need to be B.Lloyd to do that).

 

[Brady6]

This says a lot.

Some folks are under the misapprehension that what was important was the content of arguments. You make it clear that this irrelevant for you. What is important for you is for you to be able to say that you are right.

Please understand that no one else cares. What matter is the patriots, and the content of discussions.

The content of the argument was accurate and correct the content of your argument was incorrect, as was the case for others and despite that it was presented aggressively and issue was taken when it was not agreed with. It destroyed yours and many others creditability because it highlighted that your opinions are based solely on name notoriety and what the team invested in the player. Amendola was a poor signing from day one and I maintained that and you took issue with that and your failure was that you relied on nothing but the fact Amendola was well known and the Patriots invested a lot in him. You were wrong here and if you maintain that mediocre approach to scouting and assessing personnel you will be wrong many more times.

You are also wrong if you believe that football was not catchable.

What nobody cares about is your after the fact attempts to save face when really a person who was as wrong and misdirected as you were on the Amendola subject would be better off standing clear of it rather than inserting yourself into something you've so clearly already failed to assess properly.

 

[Brady6]

So you are saying that a good WR grows a couple of inches when the QB throws a ****ty ball? He jumped as high as he could, reaches his hands as high as he could and he still barely touched the under side of the football. That is not a catchable ball. A good WR can't suddenly become much larger to help against a bad throw. I agree that there are cases where good receivers can really limit the damage from a bad throw, bat it down or whatever. But there are also cases where even the best receivers can't limit the damage from a bad throw because the throw is off enough that it's physically impossible for them to do that. This was one of those cases.

Was the football uncatchable? I don't think it was. If he could get both hands on the football, which he did he could have caught the ball. The question is if the ball was catchable nothing else, everything else you've posted and others have posted is meaningless spin in an attempt to side step the actual question and try to focus the attention elsewhere. If you want to have those types of weak conversation do that with someone else. If you want to quote my posts answer the questions, which I will repeat - was it impossible for Amendola to catch that ball, therefore making it uncatchable? My answer is NO. What is yours?

As far as blaming Amendola I have said several times that I do not blame him, I am not sure what I can say to make it more clear that I do not blame him, and I cannot for the life of me understand how you could interpret my blaming Amendola for it when my posts have the complete opposite written. I don't know what else I can do to convey this to you and everyone else. The ball was poorly thrown, the interception was Brady's fault, but Amendola could have caught the ball, it was possible.

 

[ausbacker]

The content of the argument was accurate and correct the content of your argument was incorrect, as was the case for others and despite that it was presented aggressively and issue was taken when it was not agreed with. It destroyed yours and many others creditability because it highlighted that your opinions are based solely on name notoriety and what the team invested in the player. Amendola was a poor signing from day one and I maintained that and you took issue with that and your failure was that you relied on nothing but the fact Amendola was well known and the Patriots invested a lot in him. You were wrong here and if you maintain that mediocre approach to scouting and assessing personnel you will be wrong many more times.

You are also wrong if you believe that football was not catchable.

What nobody cares about is your after the fact attempts to save face when really a person who was as wrong and misdirected as you were on the Amendola subject would be better off standing clear of it rather than inserting yourself into something you've so clearly already failed to assess properly.

Was the football uncatchable? I don't think it was. If he could get both hands on the football, which he did he could have caught the ball. The question is if the ball was catchable nothing else, everything else you've posted and others have posted is meaningless spin in an attempt to side step the actual question and try to focus the attention elsewhere. If you want to have those types of weak conversation do that with someone else. If you want to quote my posts answer the questions, which I will repeat - was it impossible for Amendola to catch that ball, therefore making it uncatchable? My answer is NO. What is yours?

As far as blaming Amendola I have said several times that I do not blame him, I am not sure what I can say to make it more clear that I do not blame him, and I cannot for the life of me understand how you could interpret my blaming Amendola for it when my posts have the complete opposite written. I don't know what else I can do to convey this to you and everyone else. The ball was poorly thrown, the interception was Brady's fault, but Amendola could have caught the ball, it was possible.

@Brady6, the two bolded points show the breakdown in your position. Telling someone they are wrong if they believe the football was not catchable is not supported by I don't think it was.

For reference, I believe Gronk catches that football not Amendola. That's how close plays are in the NFL: inches.

 

[Brady6]

I am vengeance. I am the night. I am Tom Meets Kaepernick!!!!!

That's great. Well I don't talk **** about so I would appreciate it if you could reciprocate. I try not to have grudges against handles on the Internet.. Just saying.

 

[Brady6]

@Brady6, the two bolded points show the breakdown in your position. Telling someone they are wrong if they believe the football was not catchable is not supported by I don't think it was.

For reference, I believe Gronk catches that football not Amendola. That's how close plays are in the NFL: inches.

It was catchable, watch the play. It would have been a difficult catch, but he could have timed it different and got up higher.

 

[JMC00]

 

[ausbacker]

It was catchable, watch the play. It would have been a difficult catch, but he could have timed it different and got up higher.

I did watch the play. I'm fairly certain everyone debating the topic with you watched the play. The consensus appears to be that ball was uncatchable. I don't believe it was uncatchable to the extreme more it was improbable which pushes it toward uncatchable. If you want to rest your laurel on a 5% chance it was catchable, so be it. Gronk takes that ball in stride, Amendola doesn't it. 6'6 vs. 5'11.

 

[Brady6]

I did watch the play. I'm fairly certain everyone debating the topic with you watched the play. The consensus appears to be that ball was uncatchable. I don't believe it was uncatchable to the extreme more it was improbable which pushes it toward uncatchable. If you want to rest your laurel on a 5% chance it was catchable, so be it. Gronk takes that ball in stride, Amendola doesn't it. 6'6 vs. 5'11.

Improbable I can agree with but uncatchable I cannot.

 

[ausbacker]

Improbable I can agree with but uncatchable I cannot.

Well then, let's establish something. If there's a 99% probability that Gronkowski makes that catch, what percentage would you give Amendola to make the catch?