Pats sign DE Mark Anderson

[PatsWickedPissah]

Riveting! 10 characters

 

[Joker]

Give me some room Triumph...let me.....uhh....move this...aarrgghhh...over here ...like this....THERE....OK, everybody...a buck and a half a box...step right up...

 

[Ring 6]

YES. REALLY.





*sigh* I will enumerate for you in hopes that you can follow things better since you can't seem to follow the conversation even when you quote it.

Hard to follow when you change what you think you meant to think you said every time

1) My research comment was not a direct response to you saying he won't play Vrabel's position.

Yes it was, you even quoted that comment from me in your response.

That's why it was a separate paragraph. The direct response to you saying that Anderson wouldn't be playing "Vrabes" was my saying:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...-sign-de-mark-anderson-page8.html#post2617760

"How do you know he won't be playing the same role as Vrabel?"



2) The research comment was a general one to tell you that you clearly don't know enough about Mark Anderson to be making the comments you are making. You've said absolutely nothing in this thread to lead me to believe you have any idea who Mark Anderson was prior to the signing by the Pats.

Right, since I don't agree that after 6 years in the NFL of being off the field against the run, he will miraculously become Carl Banks this year, I don't know anything about the guy.

3) The LIE you said was that I told you to research the difference between Mark Anderson and Mike Vrabel. I never said such a thing.
I never implied it.

You quoted my post that ONLY said he will not play the same role as Vrabel. It said NOTHING ELSE. In that response you said 'do research'.
Either that was referring to comparing Vrabel to Anderson or it was responding to something in your mind.
How would I know what it was referring to? Nowhere in the post do you say it refers to anything not in what you quoted?

This is getting ridiculous. I am now wasting my time telling you what you posted.

You are the one who assumed it. Why you assumed it, I haven't the foggiest. Nor do I care, honestly. All I know is that you are attributing something to me that I did not say.

You said the exact words, in response to my exact words.

 

[Ring 6]

So sayeth ANDY JOHNSON.

Which is why it is my OPINION

I have news for you. People change. People learn. You only have to ask Mike Vrabel and Tedy Bruschi about that. Anderson isn't some 10 year veteran who is set in his ways.

Great. I hope he changes and learns how to play the run. Until then I will have to go with his career to date, which means his role here will be a sitautional pass rusher if he makes the team.

Seriously, you are being so irrational on this it's pathetic.

You keep saying this but you refuse to identify what comment I made that is irrational.
Are you saying it is an abandonment of rational thinking to believe that a guy who was a situational pass rusher in Chicago until they RELEASED him during the season, and he went to Houston to be a situational pass rusher, will likely be a situational pass rusher for us, and isn't a lock to make our team, which is better than the one that cut him?

Please explain the irrationality of that take.

 

[DaBruinz]

Why would I lie about my opinion?
Feel free to disagree, but that is my opinion, and its actually pretty consistent with the facts.

Why would you lie about your opinion? In a pathetic attempt to make yourself look smarter than you are. And, no, it's not pretty consistent with the facts. As has been shown to you numerous times during this thread.

If I knew a damn thing, who you liked when would be pretty far down on that list.

Ahh yes. Back to cherry picking statements so they are out of context. And ignoring items of support.

Thats good. Maybe you should have called his coaches who consistently wouldn't put him on the field on running downs.

Maybe you should realize that just because someone isn't on the field on running downs doesn't mean that they are bad. It just means that others are better. But, god forbid you accept that very plausible scenario.

These were your words:


Originally Posted by DaBruinz
How do you know he won't be playing the same role as Vrabel? Because we, the FANS, have speculated that Anderson is going to be a 3rd down pass specialist


I think my reading comprehension is fine, but you are the first person I've met who needs remedial WRITING COMPEHENSION help.

I already proved that your reading comprehension is not fine and that my writing comprehension is not the issue.

That statement does not say you are basing your opinion on other fans. Clearly you do not comprehend that when someone says "We, the fans" that you would be included unless you are 1) Not a fan or 2) Part of the Coaching staff. I purposely included you in there.

You insult everyone you speak to. Its tiring. You can state your opinion without making comments like that. It will take a little maturity, but you can do it.
How is my OPINION, which was backed up with facts, IRRATIONAL?

Another blatant lie on your part. I do not insult everyone I speak to. That is just the spew that people like yourself have to perpetuate to make yourselves feel better. You get the comments because you earn them.

Your opinion is only backed up by bits and pieces of the factsbut primarily it's backed up by assumptions. Ones that you've made by purposely ignoring the all facts.

I have said nothing of the sort. I have quoted your exact comments so please return the favor and show me where I have said I am more right than anyone else. Where do I compare what I know to anyone else, aside from countering your claim that YOU do by saying I am quite confident that my abiity to assess the player is at least as good as yours.

You are now, in this thread, doing what you accuse me of (inappropriately) doing, by telling me your opinion is a better one than mine.
Which is it? Is what I am not doing, and you are doing still a bad thing now that you realize that?

First of all, you missed the point yet again. The point I made in my initial response to you. That YOU are a fan. Yet, from the get go, you clearly were talking as if you were more than one. That you knew more than others who had posted. With your DEFINITIVE statements about Anderson and your comparing him to Burgess and others questioning them.

I have quoted you time and again in this thread. And, unlike you, I have quoted your entire message without cherry-picking phrases out of them to distort or change what was said.

Here is another quote of yours.
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...sign-de-mark-anderson-page10.html#post2617844

I am quite confident that my assessment of Mark Anderson is based upon an equal or greater level of knowledge of his ability that yours. Of course, I decided to not base my opinion on draft reports from 2005.

BTW, in writing comprehension, that says my opinion in based on a 2005 draft report. Not on anything else. Pretty laughable attempt on your part. Especially since I know that Anderson was drafted in 2006. Pretty sure that is you claiming your more knowledgeable than someone else and doing exactly what you claimed you didn't do in this thread. And, to that point, all I had done was stated that you needed to do some research. Hadn't said you were dumb, stupid, ignorant, or anything else. Hadn't even claimed that you only based your opinions on draft resources and not actually watching games.

The only thing that I realize through this, Andy is that you'll never admit to being wrong.

Congratulations. You must be proud of your performance in this thread.

My performance has been fine. I feel confident that I didn't lie about something another poster said. I feel confident that I didn't cherry pick sentences out of posts. And I feel confident that I said what I meant and meant what I said.

 

[Ring 6]

It's amazing how you take something you see and outright LIE in an attempt to make yourself look smart. No where did I say that Anderson starting 14 games was "proof" that he was good against the run.I said it was proof he wasn't BAD. You clearly don't understand that there is something else other than good or bad.

A) I have no interest in trying to make myself look smart. I am as smart or dumb as I am and what people on a message board think isn't going to change that.
b) You are right you used that 'fact' to say he wasn't bad rather than he was good. Its still a silly argument.
C) Are you seriously trying to say that me confusing you saying he was good with you saying he was not bad is LYING?

love how you purposely move things around so they can be taken out of context. If you watched ANY of the Bears games you know guys like Harris and Vasher were out there on kick returns the year before. You'd also know that it put the defense in bad positions when the offense turned the ball over on early downs.

I made that comment because its totally irrelevant. I brought the rankings up in the first place to illustrate how ridiculous it was to use 'he started in 14 games' as a means of assessing his ability.

Sorry. But that was your flawed interpretation of what I stated.

Yes. It was flawed. I interpreted that you were using it as proof he was good when you were only using it as proof he was not bad. How can I ever show my face in public?

No. It wasn't an attempt to call you stupid. If I thought you were stupid, I'd tell it to you. You should know that by now.

Grow some balls. You said any INTELLIGENT person knows....... and then went on to criticize my comment, or your version of what you thought it meant. It was a clear attempt to call me unintelligent. If you are going to do it, have the balls to own up to it, or stay home.

BTW, the second part of your blathering makes no sense what so ever.

Not surprising since you don't even seem to understand your own posts.

No. I didn't slam myself. And here's why.
1) Anderson's only played in 5 seasons.

That makes all the difference in the world
Starting 1 season out of 5 and being injured in one is clearly the resume of a starter while starting 1 of 6 is not.

2) There is such a thing as not being bad, yet other players being better.

There is such a thing as sucking and getting a chance to play sometimes too, isnt there?

3) There is plenty of proof if you actually had watched Anderson at all. Clearly, you haven't.

Lame. Now your argument is that I can't be right because you disagree.
I assess him as what he has always been a situational pass rusher. You seem to think he is more than he has ever shown to be, so that means you have been paying attention and I have not?
Why don't his coaches agree with you?

Says the guy who has out-right lied in this thread and purposely ignored relevant facts because they blew up his argument ..

Never lied. If you really think that people sit at a computer discussing their opinions on football players and would lie in order to gain so hypothetical advantage in an argument, that is a really poor reflection on your own self-esteem and you may want to find a new hobby.
Get this straight. I could not care less if you agree with me. Since I have stated my opinion, and you continue to respond with silly arguments, I will respond to correct the errors. But I have absolutely zero concern whether you agree with me or not. I have less than no reason to lie in order to create some kind of image that you appear to have great concerns about.

Lets do this.
I will not post any more in response to you.
Go right ahead and have the last word.
Call me stupid, call me gay. Accuse me of kidnaping the Lindberg baby.
Say whatever you think about Mark Anderson, and it will be the last word.

But do me a favor. Please do not quote any of my posts and respond to them in the future.
I have a very bad habit of not giving up. That causes me to get into these type of threads, and in the end I regret having them with the likes of you who insist on littering your comments with personal insults.
I am done. I tried once to give you some friendly advice that your style makes you impossible to speak to. I'm done now. Ive wasted hours beating by head against a brick wall.

So, fire away. Its all yours, get all those insults in, and good luck to you.

BTW, Great attempt at back-pedaling, Andy. First you claim that Anderson is bad against the run. Then you claim there isn't enough information because the one time he started, the team was bad against the run. Hell, you even discount the fact that he won the starting job until his injury.

Editting because I missed this part.
Again with the reading comprehension.
I said Anderson is a bad run defender. YOU said he isn't bad because once he earned a starting job. I responded to that by pointing out that D was bad vs the run. You misunderstood that and said I was saying it was all his fault.
So I explained to you that the only reason for the reference was to show your 'proof that he wasn't bad' was dubious.
OK, carry on.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

My assessment was that he was SOLID. Not good. not great. SOLID. That's all I've said. Unlike you who is going around comparing him to Derrick Burgess.

He has not been as productive as Burgess:

Derrick Burgess 2006-2010
57 games 27.5 sacks, 148 tackles 6ff

Mark Anderson 2006-2010
77 games 25.5 sacks 133 tackles 5ff

 

[Joker]

jeezus...I'm running out of popcorn...only one solution....

 

[Ring 6]

He has not been as productive as Burgess:

Derrick Burgess 2006-2010
57 games 27.5 sacks, 148 tackles 6ff

Mark Anderson 2006-2010
77 games 25.5 sacks 133 tackles 5ff

Yeah, but Burgess was over the hill when he got here.
Anderson to Burgess is a bad comparison in many ways:
1) How they were acquired
2) Their style of play. Burgess actually had a lot of experince as a sub package DT
3) Age

They are a good comparison in their general strengths (pass rush) weakness (run D) projected role (situational pass rusher) and lack of position in the base 34.

My comments comparing them were strictly about the role they will have here.


And there is no doubt that over his career Burgess was certainly a better player than Anderson has been, but much doubt that at the stage we got burgess he was as good as Anderson is now.

 

[DaBruinz]

In other words, nothing. Please feel free to explain how my argument is IRRATIONAL. I truly don't have a clue why you would say someones opinion of how good a player is (which by the way fits with his career achievements quite nicely) could be described as irrational.

Your "argument" is irrational because you insist that the situation is black and white (good against the run vs. bad against the run). It's very common knowledge that there are varying degrees of ability in playing run defense.

Your specific comment was how can he be bad against the run if he started 14 games in 2007. Do I need to keep going back and pasting in your comments for you to accept what you said?

Wrong. Here was my SPECIFIC comment.

If Anderson was so "bad" against the run, why did the Bears make him their starting DE in 2007 opposite Ogunleye? Where Anderson started the first 14 games until he went down with an injury.

That was my specific comment. Maybe you should actually post them so you know what was said and not some mish-mashed guesswork that you've attempted to piece together.

OK. Try to follow along.
You said that he couldnt be bad vs the run because he started in 2007. I found that to be a silly comment, and also noticed the Bears run d was bad that year. Where did I base his performance on that? I just stated that your point was silly, in part because of that.
Put it this way. Joe Blow is a starting TE. Therefore he must be a good run blocker or he wouldn't start. Illogical conclusion. If ON TOP OF THAT his team was awful running the ball, it adds to the possibility that while he is out there, maybe he isn't doing a real good job. See, that doesnt say the running game is his fault, it accentuates the ridiculous argument that anyone who starts one year out of 6 must be good at every aspect of his position.

I have been following along just fine this entire thread. You, on the other hand, have had plenty of issues keeping up. Especially with your insistence that I am saying something other than what I posted.

No, you didn't state that my comment was silly. Nor did you post anything of the sort. It would seem that I need to re-post your comments so you can be reminded of what you said.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/785507-pats-sign-de-mark-anderson-page9.html#post2617798

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...-sign-de-mark-anderson-page9.html#post2617798

That is the first time you have used that word. Capitalizing it doesn't make it go back in time and get retroactively added to your posts.

No, Andy. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I used solid in my description of him way back. Post #77 to be exact.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...-sign-de-mark-anderson-page8.html#post2617769

You'll also see that the post is UNMODIFIED. The best part? You quoted me in post 80.. Just more proof that you don't actually read what is said...

Did I really compare him to Derrick Burgess? Really?
If you actually look at the post I compared his ROLE to Burgess. When someone mistook that for comparing him to Burgess I IMMEDIATELY cleared up that misconception and 3 times stated I was referring to his role. But you know that, you just can't find anything I've actually posted to fit into your insult pattern, so you need to make one up.

You didn't "immeditately" clear anything up. In fact, it took posters calling you out on it before you said anything. Had you truly meant to change it, you could have easily gone back and done so. And just as a point, when you posted "Yeah, I haven't said 3 times that I am talking about his role" to Rod the Pat, you hadn't. To that point, you'd only said it twice. To VJC and Patchick.

I don't need to make things up or lie. You give all the good posts I need.

I know exactly what you think because you posted it. You said he is closer to Vrabel than Burgess. Now you say you didnt say it?

Again, reading comprehension is an issue to you. You don't know what I think because you insist on warping everything into some wild assed BS.

Yes, I said he is Closer to Vrabel than Burgess.

Anderson: 6'4 2/8, 255 lbs, Good Pass Rusher. Solid against the run.
Vrabel: 6'4, 261 lbs Very Good all around LBer.
Derrick Burgess: 6'2 3/8": Excellent Pass Rusher, What's run defense???

Again, it's about the varying degrees of grey, Andy. Not just One or the other.

No. We should have assessed Vrabel as the player Vrabel was, and we should assess Anderson as the player Anderson is.
Anderson would be the same player whether Vrabel became a HOF or was cut in his first camp.
Vrabel was not proven to have the deficiencies that Anderson does.
They are different players. They don't even really play the same position. There backgrounds are completed different.

It is moronic to say that Anderson is better than he is because Vrabel turned out better than you thought he was.

Vrabel, coming from Pittsburgh, was a situational pass rusher. He wasn't used much, if at all, one 1st and 2nd downs with Pittsburgh.

What position did Vrabel play in Pittsburgh as a situational pass rusher?

And, btw, I never said that Anderson would be the same, would have the same results or anything else.

I said
"Now, That being said, I am NOT saying that Anderson is going to be a savior. I am saying that he's got potential. And that he's closer to Mike Vrabel than to Derrick Burgess, imho."

 

[DaBruinz]

Which is why it is my OPINION

Yep. It is. Regardless of whether or not is absolute total BS.

Great. I hope he changes and learns how to play the run. Until then I will have to go with his career to date, which means his role here will be a sitautional pass rusher if he makes the team.

He knows how to play the run. That is your problem. You think that he doesn't refuse to acknowledge the glaring holes in your assessment.

You keep saying this but you refuse to identify what comment I made that is irrational.
Are you saying it is an abandonment of rational thinking to believe that a guy who was a situational pass rusher in Chicago until they RELEASED him during the season, and he went to Houston to be a situational pass rusher, will likely be a situational pass rusher for us, and isn't a lock to make our team, which is better than the one that cut him?

Please explain the irrationality of that take.

You are irrational in your opinion that Anderson is what he is and that he can't change. Even though there are numerous examples of players coming into the Pats system and having success.

You're irrational in this idea that there is only good or bad run defenders.

Do you know WHY Chicago released him during the season? Did you ever stop to think that it was because he asked for it. The same way that McKenzie asked to be released from the Pats?? What's that? You didn't? You don't say?

 

[DaBruinz]

A) I have no interest in trying to make myself look smart. I am as smart or dumb as I am and what people on a message board think isn't going to change that.
b) You are right you used that 'fact' to say he wasn't bad rather than he was good. Its still a silly argument.
C) Are you seriously trying to say that me confusing you saying he was good with you saying he was not bad is LYING?

A) You keep telling yourself that. Your words say otherwise.
B) No. It's not a "silly argument." It's living in reality. Understanding that things aren't just black or white.
C) You didn't confuse anything. You made an outright claim that I stated something I didn't. There is no confusion. That is your silly attempt to back-track and make yourself look good.

I made that comment because its totally irrelevant. I brought the rankings up in the first place to illustrate how ridiculous it was to use 'he started in 14 games' as a means of assessing his ability.

You did nothing of the sort. You did it in an attempt to discredit Anderson. Plain and simple.

Yes. It was flawed. I interpreted that you were using it as proof he was good when you were only using it as proof he was not bad. How can I ever show my face in public?

Just one of your many screw-ups in this thread.

Grow some balls. You said any INTELLIGENT person knows....... and then went on to criticize my comment, or your version of what you thought it meant. It was a clear attempt to call me unintelligent. If you are going to do it, have the balls to own up to it, or stay home.

No. It wasn't a clear attempt to call you unintelligent. If I truly thought you were stupid, Andy, I'd say so. You should know that by now. And the mods can tell you that I have no fear in holding back.

Have the balls to own up to what you really meant. That Anderson couldn't be that great because he was a part of a crappy 2007 Bears run defense.

Not surprising since you don't even seem to understand your own posts.

The 2nd part of your statement was not coherent. Plain and simple. BTW, I understand my posts just fine. I have said what I meant and meant what I said.

That makes all the difference in the world
Starting 1 season out of 5 and being injured in one is clearly the resume of a starter while starting 1 of 6 is not.

Again with the asinine assumptions of what was being said. You were the one who incorrectly stated that he as a starter for only 1 of 6 seasons. I corrected you because he's only played in 5. No where did I say anything otherwise. But, as is typical of you, you take something for what it's not and make assumptions to try and defeat a point that wasn't even made.

There is such a thing as sucking and getting a chance to play sometimes too, isnt there?

Yes. But if he sucked so bad, do you really think that he'd have started 14 games in a row for a team that had other run defenders on it?

Lame. Now your argument is that I can't be right because you disagree.
I assess him as what he has always been a situational pass rusher. You seem to think he is more than he has ever shown to be, so that means you have been paying attention and I have not?
Why don't his coaches agree with you?

That was never my argument. More fiction on your part. Now you are just making things up.

You assess him with horseblinders on and without any actual proof to support you.

Oh, yes, his coaches thought enough of him to have him start 14 straight games even though they still had the previous years' DE on the roster.

Never lied. If you really think that people sit at a computer discussing their opinions on football players and would lie in order to gain so hypothetical advantage in an argument, that is a really poor reflection on your own self-esteem and you may want to find a new hobby.
Get this straight. I could not care less if you agree with me. Since I have stated my opinion, and you continue to respond with silly arguments, I will respond to correct the errors. But I have absolutely zero concern whether you agree with me or not. I have less than no reason to lie in order to create some kind of image that you appear to have great concerns about.

Yes, you did lie. I showed it. You've done it numerous times. Trying to attribute to me things that I never said.

My self-esteem is fine. It's people like yourself who feel the need to make things up and attribute things to other people who have the self-esteem issues. If/when I do it, I do my utmost to correct it.

Lets do this.
I will not post any more in response to you.
Go right ahead and have the last word.
Call me stupid, call me gay. Accuse me of kidnaping the Lindberg baby.
Say whatever you think about Mark Anderson, and it will be the last word.

I will respond to the posts as I read them. If yours are there, then so be it.

But do me a favor. Please do not quote any of my posts and respond to them in the future.
I have a very bad habit of not giving up. That causes me to get into these type of threads, and in the end I regret having them with the likes of you who insist on littering your comments with personal insults.
I am done. I tried once to give you some friendly advice that your style makes you impossible to speak to. I'm done now. Ive wasted hours beating by head against a brick wall.

The problem, Andy, is that you insist things are black and white and only YOUR way. While I used to do that, I have changed from it. You'll also note that i give many hypotheticals and offer up different scenarios that could be true when arguing a point. Particularly when someone like yourself insists that it's only black or white.

The only brick wall that you've wasted hours beating your head against is one of your own creation. You are the one with the insistence Anderson can only be good or bad. I've got the clear understanding that there are many different shades there.

So, fire away. Its all yours, get all those insults in, and good luck to you.


Editting because I missed this part.
Again with the reading comprehension.
I said Anderson is a bad run defender. YOU said he isn't bad because once he earned a starting job. I responded to that by pointing out that D was bad vs the run. You misunderstood that and said I was saying it was all his fault.
So I explained to you that the only reason for the reference was to show your 'proof that he wasn't bad' was dubious.
OK, carry on.

Wrong. I said he was solid. I didn't misunderstand anything. I took your words exactly how you meant them to be. Claim otherwise all you want. You know you are only lying to yourself.

 

[DaBruinz]

I missed this doozy.

Hard to follow when you change what you think you meant to think you said every time

I've not changed my stance at all in this thread. And I have said exactly what I meant every step of the way.

Yes it was, you even quoted that comment from me in your response.

For the last time, my research comment was a General one about ANDERSON. It was not telling you to to research the differences between Anderson and Vrabel. You are the ONLY person who thinks that in this entire thread.

Right, since I don't agree that after 6 years in the NFL of being off the field against the run, he will miraculously become Carl Banks this year, I don't know anything about the guy.

More exaggerations. This is the typical sign of when a person realizes they are losing an argument.

Anderson has only been in the league for 5 years. He HAS played on run downs during ALL seasons. You can check the Game splits on ESPN for them. All I have ever said is that he's solid against the run, but I don't expect him to be a savior.

You quoted my post that ONLY said he will not play the same role as Vrabel. It said NOTHING ELSE. In that response you said 'do research'.
Either that was referring to comparing Vrabel to Anderson or it was responding to something in your mind.
How would I know what it was referring to? Nowhere in the post do you say it refers to anything not in what you quoted?

More lies on your part. I quoted your entire post. And My post said a bit more than "do research". In fact, it didn't even say "Do research". Here is the post:

How do you know he won't be playing the same role as Vrabel? Because we, the FANS, have speculated that Anderson is going to be a 3rd down pass specialist??

Seriously, Andy. A little research on your part would go a long way.

It's quite clear. I questioned how you "KNOW" that Anderson is going to be a 3rd down pass rush specialist. The second part questioned the information you used to make your decision.

Please show me where that says to "research the differences between Vrabel and Anderson". It doesn't. That is some Fictitious blathering only in your mind.

This is getting ridiculous. I am now wasting my time telling you what you posted.



You said the exact words, in response to my exact words.

No. I said the words that I posted. Which is different than the words you are attributing to me. No where did I tell you to research the difference between Vrabel and Anderson. And you are the only person who took what I said that way.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Enough to have an opinion.

And how many snaps would that be then. Anyone can have an opinion based off watching a handful of snaps but that opinion is unlikely to be accurate or useful unless there's a large enoughs sample size to form a useful and informed opinion. Not to mention, judging a player's performance without also judging what the scheme was trying to do on that down and distance and what breakdowns happened on that play can also lead to inaccurately formed opinions. So far none of what you've said leads me to believe you've based your conclusions on any detailed or well reasoned analysis.

So far your arguments can be summed up to be - Anderson can't develop into a Vrabel-like player because I believe his skillset to be limited. Players with limited skillsets cannot become versatile players. Therefore Anderson cannot become a versatile player. He must therefore be a one dimensional Derrick Burgess type player. However your core proof for Anderson having a limited skillset lacks substantiation OTHER THAN he hasn't seen a lot of snaps as a starter. But then again neither did Vrabel for 4 years in Pittsburgh.

And for the record, Anderson has only played 5 years in the league, that's a whopping 1 season longer than Vrabel did before he became a Patriot. It's hard to believe that Anderson has become set in stone after a whopping 1 season more of playing in the league than Vrabel did.

Its not a red herring, it is a parellel example, and very similar in fact.

Your argument was how can anyone know Anderson wont play Vrabels role since he hasn't played here yet.


He has a track record and skillset. He wasn't invented today.

And neither was Vrabel. He had a 4 year track record of being a very lightly used situational pass rusher in Pittsburgh. Notice that Pittsburgh doesn't use the same system as the Pats. Notice that neither do the Bears or the Texans. Pittsburgh didn't know what they had in Vrabel because they never played him in the system the Pats use. It's also premature to project Anderson's abilities based on his play in systems entirely foreign to ours.

I was giving my opinoin, not trying to testify in the Scopes Monkeys Trial.
Are you saying your opinion has been scientifically tested?

Another red herring. And you wouldn't make a very good witness if you were testifying based only on your own opinion rather than the facts. If you'd actually present some convincing facts to SUPPORT your opinion, I could definitely be persuaded.

But he is a football player. It is not hard to see his skillset, know the Patriots system and have a good idea where he would fit.

So far you haven't presented any convincing proof that his skillset will be strictly limited to only one area. Some proof that would be persuasive would include seeing some detailed scouting reports or perhaps first hand accounts from someone who has actually watched Anderson extensively over his career.

The assumption that a player will show up here and magically develop skills he hasn't shown in a 6 year career is ludicrous.
But I'll play along. Can we discuss Murrell as our new double digit sack guy? Lockett as the next Rodney Harrison? Carter as Willie McGinest?
Perhaps Mallet will beat out Brady. We have no idea how much he will improve with a camp in NE. Your argument is silly.

More red herrings. Can Pinnochio suddenly grow wings and fly? Who cares. Let's get back to the football discussion.

You seem to think no one knew Vrabel had NFL ability. You are wrong.

Obviously somebody thought Vrabel had NFL ability or he wouldn't have been drafted. I don't see what argument you're trying to make here. Whether people thought he was going to be a starter and turn out as good as he did, well even Pittsburgh didn't know that or they wouldn't have given up on him after 4 years.

You are talking about him like he is a draft pick changing positions.
Of course we can know what Anderson brings to the table, we've seen 6 years of it.
Watch. I predict he will be pretty much the same player he has been for 6 years.
You predict the player he will be has no relation to the player he has been for 6 years of an NFL career, and apparently would randomly guess.
Which one is more likely to be right?

Again your statement is inaccurate. Vrabel was lightly used in Pittsburgh for 4 seasons before the Patriots 'discovered' him, plucked him from free agency, and eventually turned him into the player we know and love. Mark Anderson's career has been a whopping 1 season longer than Vrabels. He has only seen significant starting time in 1 of those 5 seasons. Point is we don't know what we have in Anderson because we don't have a large enough sample size.
Mark Anderson NFL & AFL Football Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

Maybe the bottom line is that you feel offended for some reason because Anderson's being compared to Mike Vrabel but the career parallels are actually quite similar. BB picks up a guy who didn't get much of a chance to show what he could do on his previous team(s), a guy with the right build, and athleticism to play the Pats 3-4, and hopes to mold him into a useful piece.

Maybe Anderson was a shot in the dark, but maybe the coaches see something in him that make it worth giving him a shot. The SAME can be said of Mike Vrabel before he proved himself with us.

Of course there's no way to tell if Mark Anderson can turn into the next Vrabel. But there are a lot of similarities here as far as how their career paths have gone up till now. And until presented with enough facts to make a solid judgment I'd rather not pigeonhole a guy before he's even taken a single snap in a Patriots uniform.

This whole discussion arises not from the fact that I have some deep seated belief that Anderson will turn into some all-pro but rather to reiterate the point, that players deserve a chance to PROVE themselves before we 'decide in our own minds' all that they are already capable of doing. This attitude is why players continue to slip through the cracks. The mental imaging of the one doing the 'talent evaluation' has no room to imagine the player being anything other than what their preconceived notions have already decided. This is why the Marques Colstons of the world slip to round 7, why the Michael Turners slip to round 5, and why the Tom Brady's slip to pick 199.

 

[E1Downey]

Can't believe you guys fought this long over Mark Anderson lol

 

[Joker]

Shut it, private...as I recall, YOU were convicted of obstruction and conduct unbecoming....

 

[Username]

I can't believe I've read all 14 pages of this petty Iknowmorethanyouathon.

I need to lie down

 

[Mountain_Commando]

I'm just going to defer to Agent Smith on this one.

It's Mark Anderson, not Thomas A Anderson.

 

[Daigle]

I can't believe I've read all 14 pages of this petty Iknowmorethanyouathon.

I need to lie down

Yeah this is total stupidity. Can you two guys arguing in the corner please give the thread back to us wanting to discuss this guy in a more balanced way?

 

[supafly]

Yeah this is total stupidity. Can you two guys arguing in the corner please give the thread back to us wanting to discuss this guy in a more balanced way?

Just a couple of very knowledgeable and well respected posters having a pissing match...no worries, happens all of the time.

I don't personally know a damn thing about Mark Anderson myself. Like most, I was hoping for a bigger name signing this week (not named Channing Crowder). In that respect, if Belichick thinks that he can be sufficient camp fodder, or even feels as though he has a decent shot at making the 53 man roster, then I'm all for it.

If you have any knowledge about any specifics of this player (besides the obvious NFL/ESPN writeups and stats), I would love to know more about him.