McGinest: "Pats don't take care of their players that are still productive"

[emoney_33]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

He didn't name names specifically so you just speculating. He could be talking about guys like Seymour, Branch, and Samuel whom were all productive at the time of their departures. I doubt hes talking about Milloy or Law since the Pats have won it all without them but again its a speculation.

What exactly are you arguing

 

[TriplecHamp]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

What exactly are you arguing

Maybe McGinnest isnt bitter? Crazy thought isnt it, maybe hes actually right?

 

[emoney_33]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Maybe McGinnest isnt bitter? Crazy thought isnt it, maybe hes actually right?

First define what he is "right" about. Because you accused me of speculation since he didn't come out and detail his exact plan. So tell me exactly what he is right about... I can't really argue against your vague opinion that "maybe he is right" when you tell me I can't speculate about anything he said unless he detailed it exactly.

Bitter might just be a bad term for you, it doesn't mean he's a bad person.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

He didn't name names specifically so you just speculating. He could be talking about guys like Seymour, Branch, and Samuel whom were all productive at the time of their departures. I doubt hes talking about Milloy or Law since the Pats have won it all without them but again its a speculation.

So I guess he's talking about guys we didn't win with who were still productive at the time of their departures, like himself...

Without whom I might add we remain the team of the decade. We are the only team to complete a 16 game undefeated regular season. We did that without Willie on the field. Unfortunately we came up one game short of 19-0 perfection with guys like Asante and Richard still on the field... Only a fool pays players for what they've done... You pay them for what you believe they will yet do. Which in Willie's case was nothing. And in Asante's case wasn't put the Iggles over the top. Remains to be seen what Richard will yet do - unless he gets stuck with the Raiders in which case that will be nothing, to.

He's probably right though that we wouldn't be in the position we're in today had we retained all those players we let go. Team of the decade...

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

So I guess he's talking about guys we didn't win with who were still productive at the time of their departures, like himself...

Without whom I might add we remain the team of the decade. We are the only team to complete a 16 game undefeated regular season. We did that without Willie on the field. Unfortunately we came up one game short of 19-0 perfection with guys like Asante and Richard still on the field... Only a fool pays players for what they've done... You pay them for what you believe they will yet do. Which in Willie's case was nothing. And in Asante's case wasn't put the Iggles over the top. Remains to be seen what Richard will yet do - unless he gets stuck with the Raiders in which case that will be nothing, to.

He's probably right though that we wouldn't be in the position we're in today had we retained all those players we let go. Team of the decade...

Actually, you pay players for the combination of those two things, as well as paying them by perceived positional value and other factors. Also, you pay rookies based upon a rough slotting system along with the perceived positional value.

It's not just a matter of paying them "for what you believe they will yet do".

 

[patsfan-1982]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Last time I checked, Samuel and Seymour could still get it done and explain to me how getting rid of Sey mad this team better this year. I was actually a fan of the move if it meant we could resign Wilfork but we havnt done that yet. BB's job is to not put the best team he can out on the field but to put together a team that can win with the pieces in place.

your right on samuel. and seymour,


samuel, wanted all most 8 million a year. witch. is not bad for a guy that has more INT's then anyone since he came in to the NFL. and they still have not replaced. and i don't think bodden, will be back. and even if he is back he is not as good at samuel. but brady went public. saying he wanted moss, back or he will be gone. and the pats are not going to give two guys. 8 and 9 million doller contracts in the same year.


tradeing seymour was the worst move in the BB era. they did not replace. him and i don't think they will any time soon. even with that so called. top 10 pick in 2011. witch i think will be more of a top 20 pick.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

First define what he is "right" about. Because you accused me of speculation since he didn't come out and detail his exact plan. So tell me exactly what he is right about... I can't really argue against your vague opinion that "maybe he is right" when you tell me I can't speculate about anything he said unless he detailed it exactly.

Bitter might just be a bad term for you, it doesn't mean he's a bad person.

I think hes right about the "Pats don't take care of their players that are still productive." Seymour, Samuel etc. were all productive and neither were "taken care of". I think alot of people here read "taken care of" as doing a favor but really "taking care of" is finding a way to keep your top players without guys talking about feeling disrespected by getting tagged and having them threaten to sit out. You pay your top players like top players are supposed to be paid and you don't overpay guys like Baker and Kaczur etc. And IMO Richard Seymour is bitter and rightfully so but Willie? Doubt it.

So I guess he's talking about guys we didn't win with who were still productive at the time of their departures, like himself...

Without whom I might add we remain the team of the decade. We are the only team to complete a 16 game undefeated regular season. We did that without Willie on the field. Unfortunately we came up one game short of 19-0 perfection with guys like Asante and Richard still on the field... Only a fool pays players for what they've done... You pay them for what you believe they will yet do. Which in Willie's case was nothing. And in Asante's case wasn't put the Iggles over the top. Remains to be seen what Richard will yet do - unless he gets stuck with the Raiders in which case that will be nothing, to.

He's probably right though that we wouldn't be in the position we're in today had we retained all those players we let go. Team of the decade...

Really, Samuel and Seymour don't have rings?...

 

[emoney_33]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

your right on samuel. and seymour,


samuel, wanted all most 8 million a year. witch. is not bad for a guy that has more INT's then anyone since he came in to the NFL. and they still have not replaced. and i don't think bodden, will be back. and even if he is back he is not as good at samuel. but brady went public. saying he wanted moss, back or he will be gone. and the pats are not going to give two guys. 8 and 9 million doller contracts in the same year.


tradeing seymour was the worst move in the BB era. they did not replace. him and i don't think they will any time soon. even with that so called. top 10 pick in 2011. witch i think will be more of a top 20 pick.

So they should have invested ~$25M a year in Seymour and Samuel?

 

[RayClay]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

I think hes right about the "Pats don't take care of their players that are still productive." Seymour, Samuel etc. were all productive and neither were "taken care of". I think alot of people here read "taken care of" as doing a favor but really "taking care of" is finding a way to keep your top players without guys talking about feeling disrespected by getting tagged and having them threaten to sit out. You pay your top players like top players are supposed to be paid and you don't overpay guys like Baker and Kaczur etc. And IMO Richard Seymour is bitter and rightfully so but Willie? Doubt it.

Really, Samuel and Seymour don't have rings?...

The players can take care of themselves. Deion sure did and good luck to him (actually screw him, bad example, he's a rat). thank gawd we didn't take care of him, we're not strangled with his contract.

Actually, BB and Rac conspired to "take care" of McGinest much better $$$ than his market value and he turned around and crapped on them. they should have cut his ass without the sweetheart deal and let him really see the market for over the hill linebackers was.

Their only obligation is to "take care" of the New england Patriots. they've actually continued the policy that brought them 3 SBs by securing the mid level player, solid stars like ty Warren and Brady and have spent on Randy Moss and others. Samuel's a good CB who was a fourth rounder, takes chances and isn't a great all around cornerberback IMO.

We paid top money for Seymour and got a great deal when we didn't want to pay top money for a questionable future. We can spend this money.

You want to "take care" of Adalius? Not like we don't have plenty of places to fill. Sign Bodden, I hope, he's a complete CB, not just a ballhawk. Sign Wilfork, I hope. I understand we might not be able to, but if we were choked with contracts for McGinest (lol) Branch and Samuel, it wouldn't even be possible. There's a cap, in case you don't know. You might have noticed we've been competitive the whole decade, who else has?

Total up all the players we've let go and all the long term contracts other teams are still paying over that span. I think we're looking pretty good.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

I think hes right about the "Pats don't take care of their players that are still productive." Seymour, Samuel etc. were all productive and neither were "taken care of". I think alot of people here read "taken care of" as doing a favor but really "taking care of" is finding a way to keep your top players without guys talking about feeling disrespected by getting tagged and having them threaten to sit out. You pay your top players like top players are supposed to be paid and you don't overpay guys like Baker and Kaczur etc. And IMO Richard Seymour is bitter and rightfully so but Willie? Doubt it.

Really, Samuel and Seymour don't have rings?...

If you ran an NFL team, you would end up as the Redskins. The idea that you don't pay the middle roster but should overpay for the top-end talent turns you into a top-heavy team with no depth and crappy middle roster. That makes you... NOT the team of the decade.

Willie is wrong and so are you. "Taking care" of your players in the sense that you should overpay for your veterans is how you kill the team, not how you make it better. The patriots have a mission statement of fielding a competitive team EVERY year not just one or 2 years here and there.

Is it really hard to understand that operating under this philosophy has created the TEAM OF THE DECADE? Yet you want to complain that they don't do things that would make them worse... I don't get it.

They have been the BEST team of this decade but you question the very philosophy that got them there.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Actually, you pay players for the combination of those two things, as well as paying them by perceived positional value and other factors. Also, you pay rookies based upon a rough slotting system along with the perceived positional value.

It's not just a matter of paying them "for what you believe they will yet do".

So you're claiming that it's wise to pay players based on anything other than how you think they'll perform over the duration of the contract? Maybe I'm missing something, because that seems like a pretty bizarre stance to take.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Typical emoney. Bashing those who don't agree with him, acting like a smug know-it-all, and claiming Bodden is far superior to Samuel.

I love how he always brings up who Samuel picked off, but never mentions 3 of Bodden's 5 picks were personally deposited by the great Sanchise and the 4th was a wounded duck that wasn't even really close to Garcon. In both cases forget who they were against. 9 INT > 5 INT.

Bodden was matched up with the the #2 WR way too often to be considered as good as you claim he is. Wilhite was on Wayne while Bodden was on Garcon. Bodden was on Royal instead of Marshall. Bodden played RCB most of the time, which is considered the #2 CB position. Asante plays LCB, which is typically the #1 CB position. Bodden had a solid season, but he is not as good as claimed. Certainly not better than Asante Samuel. Anyone who feels that way is a homer and not a realist. You love to beat that dead horse of more completions were completed against Samuel than they were Bodden. Yes, typically when you play LCB you are matched up with the #1 WR so you are going to give up more catches. It's much harder to limit the catches of a Brandon Marshall or Reggie Wayne than of an Eddie Royal or Pierre Carcon.

Seriously Leon Hall better than Asante? Have you ever watched any Bengals games or do you just base your arguments off stats from ProFootballFocus? I mean you watch him play vs the Jets and he got toasted by Braylon Edwards quite a few times, one of which should've definitely been a TD if Braylon didn't have brick hands. You watch him play vs San Diego and you see Vincent Jackson shred him by scoring two long TD's on him and going for over 100 yards. It seems like you just list CB's who are in the top 10 on that website. And by the way that website that you swear by has Tramon Williams and Terrell Thomas as top 12 corners, better than Nnamdi Asomugha. Go figure.

HOMER. No other way to say it. Overrate Patriots players, think the Pats are always right, and hate on/undervalue players who left the Pats on bad terms. Bodden is by far better than Samuel, Moss is by far the best WR in the NFL, etc., etc., etc. Be objective for once. And please stop getting so worked up over a discussion amongst fellow fans. Do you really have nothing better to do than come on a message board and start **** with everyone you talk to? If you don't, then you have a pretty sad life.

You think you are right about everything, but you aren't. Anytime someone disagrees with your opinion, you take it personally and try to insult their intelligence. You must have some thin skin. No one can ever tell you that you are wrong, but if they do, you unleash hell on them. Stop being so sensitive and come to the realization that you are not always correct. In fact, you are wrong much more often than you are correct. I guess you're attacking and relentless demeanor is used to mask the deficiencies in your arguments. I must say it does a pretty good job b/c after a while people get so sick of you that they don't even bother going back and forth with you. So opinionated, so wrong, and as always, such a douche.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Bodden was matched up with the the #2 WR way too often to be considered as good as you claim he is.

Not that I disagree with your point (Samuel is better than Bodden), but it's not like Samuel is a lock to match up against the #1 WR either. One of the complaints that people had for him when he was with the Pats was that he was the LCB, and that was that. If the #1WR went to the other side, he did not follow. Which, IMO, is fine, but I wouldn't use that against Bodden in the comparison for that reason.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Not that I disagree with your point (Samuel is better than Bodden), but it's not like Samuel is a lock to match up against the #1 WR either. One of the complaints that people had for him when he was with the Pats was that he was the LCB, and that was that. If the #1WR went to the other side, he did not follow. Which, IMO, is fine, but I wouldn't use that against Bodden in the comparison for that reason.

That is a valid point. Guys like Asomugha don't like to follow the #1 CB either. That's what makes Revis so great, he can move all over the field.

Bodden played RCB a lot vs the #2 WR. And when the #2 WR was moved to the left side, Bodden was often moved with him. If you watch some of the Colts game, Bodden was on the #2 WR Garcon basically the whole game. Wilhite went with WR #1 Wayne everywhere he went. One of the most vivid memories I have of that Colts game is Bodden getting beat deep by Garcon as the LCB. Wilhite, not Bodden, also followed Colston around until he was pulled. Bodden had a decent season, but most of his work was done against #2 WR, especially against good offenses. I don't know how anyone can warrant paying Bodden 7 million per year to matchup with the #2 WR most of the time.

 

[Patjew]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

I can understand Willie's perspective on this, but as a team- (rather than player-) first fan, I never want salaries to be rewards for past achievements.

 

[patsfan-1982]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

So they should have invested ~$25M a year in Seymour and Samuel?

no i did not think they would sign samuel, because moss, got 9 million that year.


but seymour i think they could have got for 7 million a year with a long term deal. not a big cap hit but more up front money thats what he wanted. he was and still is the best 3-4 DE in the NFL you don't replace guys like that to easy.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

no i did not think they would sign samuel, because moss, got 9 million that year.


but seymour i think they could have got for 7 million a year with a long term deal. not a big cap hit but more up front money thats what he wanted. he was and still is the best 3-4 DE in the NFL you don't replace guys like that to easy.

There is no way Sey stays here for $7m per. No way.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

That is a valid point. Guys like Asomugha don't like to follow the #1 CB either. That's what makes Revis so great, he can move all over the field.

Bodden played RCB a lot vs the #2 WR. And when the #2 WR was moved to the left side, Bodden was often moved with him. If you watch some of the Colts game, Bodden was on the #2 WR Garcon basically the whole game. Wilhite went with WR #1 Wayne everywhere he went. One of the most vivid memories I have of that Colts game is Bodden getting beat deep by Garcon as the LCB. Wilhite, not Bodden, also followed Colston around until he was pulled. Bodden had a decent season, but most of his work was done against #2 WR, especially against good offenses. I don't know how anyone can warrant paying Bodden 7 million per year to matchup with the #2 WR most of the time.

Apparently you missed most of Asante's career here, matching up against the #2 WR out of the lcb slot. You also don't seem to have noticed the difference when we're playing more man vs. more zone, something largely dicatated by the strengths/weaknesses of our corners. Asante is a zone ballhawk. Bodden and Butler and Wilhite can cover (although the latter two are a little raw). Hobbs was also better in coverage, but was routinely victimized by the early over reaction to Polian's emphasis. Ergo we began to play more zone to play to Asante's strength. Didn't pay off. Now that the rules are easing back to more reasonable interpretation, we are inching back towards playing more man. It's too bad we let Hobbs go, but durability was beginning to concern BB and probably rightly so since he may not play again after injuring his neck in Philly and he admitted he was going to want to get paid...they all do.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

Apparently you missed most of Asante's career here, matching up against the #2 WR out of the lcb slot. You also don't seem to have noticed the difference when we're playing more man vs. more zone, something largely dicatated by the strengths/weaknesses of our corners. Asante is a zone ballhawk. Bodden and Butler and Wilhite can cover (although the latter two are a little raw). Hobbs was also better in coverage, but was routinely victimized by the early over reaction to Polian's emphasis. Ergo we began to play more zone to play to Asante's strength. Didn't pay off. Now that the rules are easing back to more reasonable interpretation, we are inching back towards playing more man. It's too bad we let Hobbs go, but durability was beginning to concern BB and probably rightly so since he may not play again after injuring his neck in Philly and he admitted he was going to want to get paid...they all do.

I would welcome Hobbs back if he wants to be back.

 

[Patjew]

Re: McGinest: "Pats don't take care of thier players that are still productive"

I would welcome Hobbs back if he wants to be back.

He was a damn good KR.