The Official Patriots vs Buc's Pre-Season Game Thread

[Joker]

at my age I'm more concerned about calling out "where's my nuts???"...I'm shrinking fast....

 

[PP2]

Yeah, seeing Amendola do his thing by splitting the defense down the seam with speed on the TD catch

There was a defensive breakdown on that play, FYI.

 

[Froob]

Isn't it kind of unfriendly to call people "Christian nuts"? I mean, if you don't have any specific personal faith, would you like someone calling people with your worldview: "agnostic nuts" or whatever the case might be? Let's keep the comments on football - most of us agree that Tebow doesn't have the skill set to be a starting NFL QB, so having him as a backup is a luxury that takes a roster spot on the 53 that is probably needed elsewhere - WR, TE, etc.

Fo real, why is it socially acceptable now to call Christians nuts? Hate the double standard.

 

[mcmurtry86]

Fo real, why is it socially acceptable now to call Christians nuts? Hate the double standard.

I'm pretty sure most Christians would consider non-Christians who genuinely believed in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny to be nuts.

If I told you that I honestly believe the sun is pulled across the sky by some god's chariot and lightning bolts are thrown from the sky when another god gets angry, you would consider me nuts and rightfully so. Whether or not you would admit it on a public forum, I don't know.

Every believer out there is atheistic towards literally hundreds of gods - as there have been thousands over the course of humanity. And I'm sure the vast majority of them seem bizarre, crazy or ridiculous. Yet when non-believers go just one god further, it's some sort of double standard?

 

[Joker]

I'm pretty sure most Christians would consider non-Christians who genuinely believed in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny to be nuts.

If I told you that I honestly believe the sun is pulled across the sky by some god's chariot and lightning bolts are thrown from the sky when another god gets angry, you would consider me nuts and rightfully so. Whether or not you would admit it on a public forum, I don't know.

Every believer out there is atheistic towards literally hundreds of gods - as there have been thousands over the course of humanity. And I'm sure the vast majority of them seem bizarre, crazy or ridiculous. Yet when non-believers go just one god further, it's some sort of double standard?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

While I agree with everything that you said re:Edelman and I agree that he probably makes the team, we only kept 4 WRs last year, so keeping 6 this year may be a difficult thing to do (but necessary).

I defended him all last summer, but I haven't been able to do that as much this summer for obvious reasons. I didn't notice him stick out as much as you did last night.

They started the season with 4 + Slater (Welker, Edelman, Salas, Lloyd).

Right now, I'd project 5 + Slater (Amendola, Edelman, Dobson, Boyce, Thompkins).

 

[mgteich]

You are correct. However, Salas was signed the day after the cutdown date and then waived 2 weeks later. By Sept 18, we were down to 3 + Slater.

A valid point has been made by many posters. Why do we need 5 wide receivers? Is it our norm to carry so many, especially given that we will carry 3 TE's, perhaps 4? We could start the season with 10 WR/TE on the 53 plus one or two on PUP (Gronk and Harrison). That is a lot!

They started the season with 4 + Slater (Welker, Edelman, Salas, Lloyd).

Right now, I'd project 5 + Slater (Amendola, Edelman, Dobson, Boyce, Thompkins).

 

[mgteich]

You are correct. However, Salas was signed the day after the cutdown date and then waived 2 weeks later. By Sept 18, we were down to 3 + Slater.

A valid point has been made by many posters. Why do we need 5 wide receivers? Is it our norm to carry so many, especially given that we will carry 3 TE's, perhaps 4? We could start the season with 10 WR/TE on the 53 plus one or two on PUP (Gronk and Harrison). That is a lot!

After all, we had one of the top passing teams in NFL history last year. The total number of catches for the #3 and #4 receivers was 37, 38 if you include Stallworth's one catch. We ran a lot of 3 WR sets when one of TE's was out, and still the backup WR's didn't contribute much. Is it too much of a stretch to think that this year's #3 and #4 can produce as well as last year's and total at least 37 receptions. I think that the clear answer is "yes." In fact, it seems likely that the top 4 receivers may equal the production of the top 4 last year.

So, why are even considering a 5th WR? or a 5th RB for that matter? We are presuming that Belichick has DECIDED to use 2 positions on returners after using none last year. After all, Edelman was expected to be part of the offense, as he was when he was available.
Just maybe, we are correct and Belichick has made that decision. Perhaps, he has not.

Personally, I would carry the 5th WR. For me, it is just too much to depend on three rookies, and have no WR carried over from last year.

They started the season with 4 + Slater (Welker, Edelman, Salas, Lloyd).

Right now, I'd project 5 + Slater (Amendola, Edelman, Dobson, Boyce, Thompkins).

 

[supafly]

I hate to even bring it up, but it looks like we're going to continue to go back and forth with the 5RB, 6 WR, 4 TE arguments until we definitely know the plan in regards to Tebow.

If cutting him is the plan (and I do hope that it is, no knock on him personally) then we really have no issue keeping 5 RB, 6 WR, or 4 TE.

If keeping him is the plan, then the decision will likely have to be made between the 5th RB, the 6th WR or the 4th TE. That decision will be difficult to try and determine, as arguments can be made for any of those positions.

It's going to be a long week and a half, b/c we have no choice but to keep ending up back here

 

[ctpatsfan77]

You are correct. However, Salas was signed the day after the cutdown date and then waived 2 weeks later. By Sept 18, we were down to 3 + Slater.

They signed Branch when they cut Salas, so it was still 4 + Slater.

A valid point has been made by many posters. Why do we need 5 wide receivers? Is it our norm to carry so many, especially given that we will carry 3 TE's, perhaps 4? We could start the season with 10 WR/TE on the 53 plus one or two on PUP (Gronk and Harrison). That is a lot!

Historically, yes, the Patriots have generally carried 5 receivers, not counting ST-only players. Last year was the anomaly, not the rule.

 

[captain stone]

Seems to me that, not including whatever Bill wants to call Slater, 5 WRs is the absolute minimum
we should be carrying, given the almost complete turnover at the position.

I shudder to think what's going to happen when 3 rookies at the same position hit the Rookie Wall
at the same time.