We are on to Dallas

[Vatahala]

Why is reporting that a player could be missing a couple of games because of a sprain a "negative story" of any sort? Getting that sort of information is precisely what reporters are supposed to be doing. It's literally their job. Reporting is that Sanu has a sprain that'll cost him a little bit of time on the shelf. He was at the practice but didn't take part in any drills. That's perfectly consistent.









But, take heart:

Curran IMO is expressing an opinion as a given fact and should have couched it with he might miss or its a possibility he could miss multiple games.

 

[mgteich]

Brady has 5 games of experience with the WR's before the playoffs (he won't play Game 17). How is it terrible for him to get more reps with Meyers and Harry?

Personally, I'm not sure the record going into the bye matters as much as how well the team uses this late "preseason" to develop the offense and its identity.

. If you are shuffling players in and out all the time it's tough.

 

[Deus Irae]

Curran IMO is expressing an opinion as a given fact and should have couched it with he might miss or its a possibility he could miss multiple games.

Curran is reporting on an injury, and giving the information he's gotten. This isn't "OMG! Brady's knee!". This is "Sanu could miss a couple of weeks" after a play where everyone saw the ankle get tweaked. I'm one of the people who think Curran's gone downhill over the past 1+ years, but come on with this nonsense. We're now reduced to bashing reporters over a simple ankle sprain report?

It's an ankle sprain. It could heal up in time for the game. It could be a couple of weeks. a report saying that a regular sprain is all that it is is actually good news, because a high ankle sprain for a WR could have meant a month or more on the shelf.

FFS

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Brady has 5 games of experience with the WR's before the playoffs (he won't play Game 17). How is it terrible for him to get more reps with Meyers and Harry?

Personally, I'm not sure the record going into the bye matters as much as how well the team uses this late "preseason" to develop the offense and its identity.

That's if Brady even targets Meyers and Harry in the remaining games...he's targeted Jules 100 times and Sanu 14 times in basically 2 games...

 

[venecol]

Looking like Jules & two rookies. Dobson & Thompkins redux with hopefully better progress this time

That's just perfect. Bill outbid other teams to get Sanu for the gauntlet of games from BAL-KC and he's going to miss the last 3 games?

This has been a "perfect storm" season with WRs and TEs. LMFAO

 

[Sicilian]

???

Outside of FB, everything is as people worried about all offseason.

WR depth
OT depth
TEs from top down

This isn't a series of freak accidents. The team deliberately traded away both Thomas and Gordon. The team chose to cut Brown when it wasn't necessary. The team has chosen not to draft TEs, or to bring in quality younger TEs via FA. The team had an OT retire on it pretty much as soon as he signed, and then failed to better address that problem, despite having most of the offseason to do so.

That's all coaching/management.

My point was never that their approach was perfect or above criticism. I don't blame them for Brown, because no other team has signed him either. Clearly there's a message out there, that if he's on a team he's going on the exempt list, otherwise SOMEONE would have taken a flier on him by now. I don't blame them for Thomas either, because at the time of his trade they had Edelman, Brown, Gordon, Dorsett, Meyers, and Harry coming back mid season. You could argue he was better depth than Meyers, but I think their opinion was using the WR5 spot on a prospect was better long term than using it on Thomas.

There has been an above average slew of bad luck on the offensive side of the ball, and while there's always room for critique in approach, I'm not sure it's reasonable to think this was an easy situation to navigate.

 

[mgteich]

The open question is Gordon. From the outside, it seems that he should have been kept for awhile as depth, given the inexperience of Meyers and Harry.

Apparently, Gordon didn't like his situation, and was slacking off. That was enough for Belichick to make a point, taking a serious chance. This week and in the coming weeks, we will see whether his faith in Harry and Meyers was warranted, especially Meyers. Besides, if Dorsett and Sanu are healthy for the playoffs, Gordon is a non-issue.

To state the obvious, Gordon could have been kept on the roster for awhile instead of Gunner. Gordon could have been cut later if that made sense.

My point was never that their approach was perfect or above criticism. I don't blame them for Brown, because no other team has signed him either. Clearly there's a message out there, that if he's on a team he's going on the exempt list, otherwise SOMEONE would have taken a flier on him by now. I don't blame them for Thomas either, because at the time of his trade they had Edelman, Brown, Gordon, Dorsett, Meyers, and Harry coming back mid season. You could argue he was better depth than Meyers, but I think their opinion was using the WR5 spot on a prospect was better long term than using it on Thomas.

There has been an above average slew of bad luck on the offensive side of the ball, and while there's always room for critique in approach, I'm not sure it's reasonable to think this was an easy situation to navigate.

 

[Sicilian]

The open question is Gordon. From the outside, it seems that he should have been kept for awhile as depth, given the inexperience of Meyers and Harry.

Apparently, Gordon didn't like his situation, and was slacking off. That was enough for Belichick to make a point, taking a serious chance. This week and in the coming weeks, we will see whether his faith in Harry and Meyers was warranted, especially Meyers. Besides, if Dorsett and Sanu are healthy for the playoffs, Gordon is a non-issue.

To state the obvious, Gordon could have been kept on the roster for awhile instead of Gunner. Gordon could have been cut later if that made sense.

I agree with this, and it does seem like the rumblings around Brady started after that release. I always come back to Occam's Razor, in that it's easier for me to think Belichick had a reason for Gordon's release (that we'll likely never hear about), rather than needlessly endangering the depth of the team. But I agree that without that knowledge, it's a fair criticism given what has transpired since.

 

[Deus Irae]

My point was never that their approach was perfect or above criticism. I don't blame them for Brown, because no other team has signed him either. Clearly there's a message out there, that if he's on a team he's going on the exempt list, otherwise SOMEONE would have taken a flier on him by now. I don't blame them for Thomas either, because at the time of his trade they had Edelman, Brown, Gordon, Dorsett, Meyers, and Harry coming back mid season. You could argue he was better depth than Meyers, but I think their opinion was using the WR5 spot on a prospect was better long term than using it on Thomas.

There has been an above average slew of bad luck on the offensive side of the ball, and while there's always room for critique in approach, I'm not sure it's reasonable to think this was an easy situation to navigate.

It was an incredibly easy situation to navigate. That's the biggest problem. The entire WR situation is one that didn't need to happen: none of the missing 3 needed to be moved on from. The "roster's full" approach to Watson was asinine. The failure to hunt down another swing OT early on in the offseason has proven to be a huge problem.

Every one of those issues was easy to navigate, though I do grant that it's possible that even backup LTs were prohibitively expensive to acquire. But even if that were the case, it would almost certainly still have been cheaper than what the cost has been.

 

[PatsFan2]

That's if Brady even targets Meyers and Harry in the remaining games...he's targeted Jules 100 times and Sanu 14 times in basically 2 games...

Poor Jules Alligator armed a few Footballs in recent weeks Hmmmmmm I wonder why? With Sanu out he wont have anybody to take the pressure off over the middle. I don't think Jules would like to have mush for brains Two years from now.

 

[Deus Irae]

Poor Jules Alligator armed a few Footballs in recent weeks Hmmmmmm I wonder why? With Sanu out he wont have anybody to take the pressure off over the middle. I don't think Jules would like to have mush for brains Two years from now.

Edelman's coming back from what's probably a rib cartilage injury.

 

[Sicilian]

It was an incredibly easy situation to navigate.

This is patently ridiculous. If this is your starting point, we have nothing to debate.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is patently ridiculous. If this is your starting point, we have nothing to debate.

Which wide receiver was a necessary cut/trade that couldn't have been worked around?

 

[Sicilian]

Which wide receiver was a necessary cut/trade?

I've already explained that Thomas had no role on a team that had four wide receivers ahead of him on the depth chart, plus a fifth that they saw future potential in. I'm 100% okay with them moving on from a likely 1-year veteran who may or may not have impressed them, to keep a rookie as the WR5.

I've also explained my position that the Brown cut was necessary due to his actions. He was on the team for less than two weeks and already showed signs he wasn't going to behave for the whole season. If that was so egregious a mistake, another team would have signed him by now. The fact they haven't leads me to believe he's either A) Too scary even for the stupid teams, or B) There's a prevailing opinion around the league that as soon as he's on a team, he's on the exempt list until the NFL has concluded whatever process they feel like trotting out this time.

Gordon is the wildcard, as I said in my response to mgteich. To sum up what I said there, it seems more likely to me that there is a good reason that Gordon needed to go, rather than BB just decided he was going to hurt the WR depth for no reason. But, I'll concede that without knowing exactly what the reason was, it's a fair criticism given what's transpired since (with injuries to THREE more WR's on the team).

But I wouldn't classify any of these situations as easy.

 

[Uptown]

 

[Uptown]

Heads up to yo DB’s ankles!

 

[patfanken]

I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know at what point this thread went from a discussion about the Pats vs the Cowboys, to the Patsfans.com's edition of the WHINER LINE! This incessant, chronic, and unceasing complaining about so many things seems indecent for a 9-1 team.

I don't think some of the whiners understand how INSANE it would sound to an outsider to listen to someone complain about the team's management given the enormous success we've had over the last 5 years.

This team has made ENORMOUS investments into the offensive side of the ball, ESPECIALLY at the OL, RB. and WR positions. Injuries, bad luck, and yes, even some bad decisions have sabotaged a lot of those investments short term, but it's not like Tommy can complain about the effort that went into trying to improve the offense.

Sometimes I just want to shake my head in disgust, or astonishment, or something at some of what I read here.

BTW- can we please get this thread back to discussing a VERY interesting and difficult game coming up.

 

[Mack Herron]

 

[Deus Irae]

I've already explained that Thomas had no role on a team that had four wide receivers ahead of him on the depth chart, plus a fifth that they saw future potential in. I'm 100% okay with them moving on from a likely 1-year veteran who may or may not have impressed them, to keep a rookie as the WR5.

My earlier post was by no means "patently ridiculous", and this is an excellent example of why your claim was erroneous. There's a world of difference between "I'm ok with that" and "that wasn't easy to do". Yes, it would have been easy to keep all the WRs, and many of us wanted them to do just that. If you want to argue your preference, or what you're ok with, that's a different issue than viability.

And, having pointed that out, I'll leave it there, because it's just going to be the same thing with the other examples.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The open question is Gordon. From the outside, it seems that he should have been kept for awhile as depth, given the inexperience of Meyers and Harry.

Apparently, Gordon didn't like his situation, and was slacking off. That was enough for Belichick to make a point, taking a serious chance.,,

To state the obvious, Gordon could have been kept on the roster for awhile instead of Gunner. Gordon could have been cut later if that made sense.

To state the also obvious, you don't change your coaching philosophy because you're weak at a position. Being a consistent and straight-forward leader is *much* more important than any individual problem you're dealing with. The long-term results speak for themselves.