Three ?'s for the board.

[JSn]

Seymour - agree again that he is a shell of his former self. I have also said I don't think he's dogging it; I think his knees have given out. He has looked a little better in the first two games this year (against bad teams) and he looked as bad as everyone else against Miami.

I don't know if this totally accurate as he doesn't necessarily play even a bad teams weakest links. He had some pretty challenging match-ups against the Jets and won a lot of them.

Seeing that everyone sucked equally vs. the Dolphins, I think we have to almost not count that game in evaluating him.

I might be wrong, just a different perspective.

 

[PatsDeb]

I don't know if this totally accurate as he doesn't necessarily play even a bad teams weakest links. He had some pretty challenging match-ups against the Jets and won a lot of them.

Seeing that everyone sucked equally vs. the Dolphins, I think we have to almost not count that game in evaluating him.

I might be wrong, just a different perspective.

Not even sure it's a different perspective. He definitely looked better in weeks 1 & 2 than he has in a while and the Miami game was a write off for everyone, so I agree, you can't count it, even for Seymour. I'll be interested in how he does against San Diego, Denver & other "better" (at least perceived so) teams.

 

[mb6592]

what do we really know about the defense or the team in general?

you don't know until week 10 or so

Week 10? God forbid we lose to the 49ers, this could be like a gun fight and end very quickly (with the chargers and broncos up next). At 2-4 who here is going to feel like there's hope for this season (with Cassel at the helm?) I hope and pray the Cassel is up to the task (and that our defense unscrews itself).

 

[mb6592]

Ok, I don't get the Seymour bashing. Before the Dolphins game everyone was saying how dominant he looked now that he is totally healthy again. Now he is washed up, underachiever because of one game.

Sorry, but he was the old Seymour the first two games of the season and sucked against the Dolphins, but so did the rest of the defense. To say he plays well against the bad teams, but sucks vs. the good teams is BS at this point since the Pats have only played three games this year and he was dominant in two of them (he manhandled D'Brickishaw Ferguson so bad that I heard Ferguson's mother disowned her son).

I swear have never seen people overreact more based on one game. Every thread is another complaint how this team lacks talent, someone is too old, or some one is a bust. Based all on one game?!?

Yes one game, but it's not like we were 7-1 and had a one game fart. This is the start of a new season - one to be played w/o the best quarterback in the league. We have just lost to, arguably, one of the worst teams in football AND out defense looked like crap. I think the concerns are warranted, besides what else is there to concern ourselves with? It's not like the country has more pressing matters.....

 

[Miguel]

Hey guys and girls. I am having a pretty heated debate with Deus in another thread, and I wanted to get direct feedback from the board on the issues we are going back and forth over. Please take the time to post a response, and leave out the insults. I am not a troll, and I am looking for honest opinions here.

The players in question are as follows:

Maroney
Jackson
Sey



Here's my opinion on these players, and some of the issues that they have:

Maroney - A highly coveted rb out of Minn, that had very high expectations coming out of the draft. I think that Maroney is injury prone, and has shown that his dancing at the line is a flaw in his game that cannot be corrected. I believe that his inability to be the feature back, and to stay on the field is a trend, and it deserves criticism. How do you feel about the issue? I think Maroney has a pretty solid history of the flaws in question. I don't buy into the "holding Maroney out" crap, and I believe that he is injury prone. Belichick plays his players ( look at Hobbs doing kr's). If hobbs goes down, we are screwed.


Jackson - I called Jackson a bust long ago, and was ripped for it. Jackson was cut, and not a single team gave him a shot. Who thinks that Jackson was not a bust, and that I am off-base with my opinion on him.


Sey - Big sey was a force before the injury and the contract. Now he is a shell of himself, and we get excited when he plays well vs a bad team, loaded with rookies (KC). I believe that he is overpaid, and should renegotiate his contract, or they should cut him when the time comes. How do you feel about this issue?

Just my opinion.

1.) I think that Maroney is underrated by this board.
2.) Jackson was a bust. Let's move on.
3.) Seymour has been making the minimum salary for a player with his experience for the 3 past seasons (2006/2007/2008). It is only in 2009 that his salary ($3,685,000) is greater than the minimum. Based on what I have seen over the first 3 games, I think that the Patriots front office will retain him for the 2009 season at that price.

 

[mb6592]

Just my opinion.

1.) I think that Maroney is underrated by this board.
2.) Jackson was a bust. Let's move on.
3.) Seymour has been making the minimum salary for a player with his experience for the 3 past seasons (2006/2007/2008). It is only in 2009 that his salary ($3,685,000) is greater than the minimum. Based on what I have seen over the first 3 games, I think that the Patriots front office will retain him for the 2009 season at that price.

I second points 1 & 2, and appreciate being enlightened by point 3.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Week 10? God forbid we lose to the 49ers, this could be like a gun fight and end very quickly (with the chargers and broncos up next). At 2-4 who here is going to feel like there's hope for this season (with Cassel at the helm?) I hope and pray the Cassel is up to the task (and that our defense unscrews itself).

I hate to reference this but what was the record of the 2001 Pats after week 6 or even week 10?

Parcells and BB say the week 10 knowing about your team thing

 

[Rob0729]

Yes one game, but it's not like we were 7-1 and had a one game fart. This is the start of a new season - one to be played w/o the best quarterback in the league. We have just lost to, arguably, one of the worst teams in football AND out defense looked like crap. I think the concerns are warranted, besides what else is there to concern ourselves with? It's not like the country has more pressing matters.....

First, how do we know the Dolphins are one of the worst teams in football? Because of last year? This is a league where a team can go from 5-11 one year and go 11-5 and win the Super Bowl the next (remember the Patriots in 2001?). Just because they barely lost to the Jets and sucked vs. the Cards (another team who may be a lot better than people give credit to) doesn't mean they won't be a 7-9 or an 8-8 team at the end of the season. I thought going into this season, the Dolphins were going to sneak up on teams and be a lot better than people think. It is unrealistic to think they will be a playoff team, but I wouldn't be shocked if they have a better record than the Jets.

Second, being concerned is warranted, throwing every player and coach under the bus for one game's performance isn't. There are one game abberations all the time. The 14-2 Super Bowl winning Pats lost to the 6-10 Bills 31-0 in 2003. That same season the Pats lost to the 5-11 Redskins. So one of the best years the Pats ever had, they lost to two of the worst teams on their schedule (one in one of the worst shut out losses in team history) and beat 5 playoff teams in the regular season.

I know it is early in the season and people are already concerned about the loss of Brady, but a lot of people are turning one really bad loss into a referendum on the team. Odds are the Pats are worlds better than they played last Sunday and probably will not play anywhere near as bad again.

 

[Rob0729]

Just my opinion.

1.) I think that Maroney is underrated by this board.
2.) Jackson was a bust. Let's move on.
3.) Seymour has been making the minimum salary for a player with his experience for the 3 past seasons (2006/2007/2008). It is only in 2009 that his salary ($3,685,000) is greater than the minimum. Based on what I have seen over the first 3 games, I think that the Patriots front office will retain him for the 2009 season at that price.

I have to agree with you about Maroney. He is a pretty ggood Rb who needs to stay on the field. The funny thing is the league is completely on Joseph Addai's jock (and many people on this board say we should have taken him over Maroney), but other than not missing as many games as Maroney his production isn't any better than Maroney's.

 

[mb6592]

I hate to reference this but what was the record of the 2001 Pats after week 6 or even week 10?

Parcells and BB say the week 10 knowing about your team thing

I'm not sure why we'd be concerned with the 2001 Patriots, unless someone felt there was a comparison to be made between Brady and Cassel. We now know that that team had a HOF qb at the helm so 3-3 after six weeks and 5-5 after ten weeks proved to be surmountable. If THIS team is 2-4 or 3-3 after six weeks, who would feel optomistic?

 

[mb6592]

First, how do we know the Dolphins are one of the worst teams in football? Because of last year?

Well, yes and no. They were 1-15 last year. If you need more - they are 1-2 this year (having lost to the Jets and Cardinals - two teams that I doubt would be on many top 15 lists of best teams). That is why I said ARGUABLY one of the worst teams in the league. If it will prevent a back and forth, can we agree they are probably in the lower third tier of teams?

 

[mb6592]

Second, being concerned is warranted, throwing every player and coach under the bus for one game's performance isn't.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Rob0729]

Well, yes and no. They were 1-15 last year. If you need more - they are 1-2 this year (having lost to the Jets and Cardinals - two teams that I doubt would be on many top 15 lists of best teams). That is why I said ARGUABLY one of the worst teams in the league. If it will prevent a back and forth can we agree they are probably in the lower third tier of teams?

I think at the end of year, they may be the third best team in the AFC East. BTW, the Broncos at this point are struggling against the Chiefs which is universally considered to be the worst team in football and the Broncos is considered the best in the AFC. That tells you about perceptions this point of the season.

 

[mb6592]

The 14-2 Super Bowl winning Pats lost to the 6-10 Bills 31-0 in 2003. That same season the Pats lost to the 5-11 Redskins. So one of the best years the Pats ever had, they lost to two of the worst teams on their schedule (one in one of the worst shut out losses in team history) and beat 5 playoff teams in the regular season.

I just don't understand how to discount the loss of Brady. There is no way that I can confidently dismiss the sky is falling members of this board. Losing Brady was HUGE, not having a, thus far, proven back up is HUGE. I hope (the Cassel bashers) are wrong, but I'm not about to professs indignance when history shows that a team losing its' starting quarterback (let alone a Brady) is extremely harmful to its' success.

 

[Patslifer]

I have to agree with you about Maroney. He is a pretty ggood Rb who needs to stay on the field. The funny thing is the league is completely on Joseph Addai's jock (and many people on this board say we should have taken him over Maroney), but other than not missing as many games as Maroney his production isn't any better than Maroney's.

Addai has over double the amount of career td's, is hurt less, looks like a better pure runner when he is running the ball, and is a better option out of the backfield.

 

[mb6592]

I think at the end of year, they may be the third best team in the AFC East.

They may be both third best AFC east team & lower third tier of all teams.

 

[mb6592]

BTW, the Broncos at this point are struggling against the Chiefs which is universally considered to be the worst team in football and the Broncos is considered the best in the AFC. That tells you about perceptions this point of the season.

I don't understand the purpose of this post. Do you feel the detractors are wrong about the Chiefs?

 

[Rob0729]

I just don't understand how to discount the loss of Brady. There is no way that I can confidently dismiss the sky is falling members of this board. Losing Brady was HUGE, not having a, thus far, proven back up is HUGE. I hope (the Cassel bashers) are wrong, but I'm not about to professs indignance when history shows that a team losing its' starting quarterback (let alone a Brady) is extremely harmful to its' success.

I'm not discounting the loss of Brady. What does Brady have to do with Seymour? Am I missing something? Is Seymour's play tied to Brady being on the field?

The Pats should be good enough still to contend for a playoff spot with the shape if the AFC. I am not predicting Super Bowl wins. I just think it is stupid to act like the sky is falling based on one loss.

 

[Rob0729]

Addai has over double the amount of career td's, is hurt less, looks like a better pure runner when he is running the ball, and is a better option out of the backfield.

I actually meant the last year. Addai is more of a red zone option than Maroney so he should get more TDs. Before Morris went down last year, he was the red zone back.

Even so, Addai is one of the most overrated players in the NFL. He has sucked since he played the Pats in November last year. Look at his number since he played the Pats. They are abismal.

 

[mb6592]

I'm not discounting the loss of Brady. What does Brady have to do with Seymour? Am I missing something? Is Seymour's play tied to Brady being on the field?

I'm sorry, I wasn't addressing any of your posts with that statement. I put it forth because I was struggling with it.