Wilfork says he wouldn't mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons

[Rob0729]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

Ok, I will respond to this and then I am done. You can go on arguing.

1.) What you're doing is rationalizing after the fact. It's what people do to protect their friends and family when they screw up. Fans do it with teams and coaches, as you are here.

Not rationalizing anything. My stand on the Seymour trade is the same today as it was when it happened. I knew the Pats would take a hit in 2009, but could be best off in the long run.

2.) There was no way on Earth that the Patriots were going to lose Seymour if they didn't want to. It was impossible to happen. They had the franchise tag available. The only way for Seymour not to have returned to New England was for the Patriots to make moves that made that happen.

The Pats can't franchise both Wilfork and Seymour. If they could, please explain. The Pats had little intention on resigning both Wilfork and Seymour or keeping both on the roster after 2009. That is pretty clear. If they end up letting Wilfork go in a trade or next season because they promised not to franchise him again, then come back to talk to me.

3.) Seymour on that defense and a healthy Welker on offense, and the Patriots were more than capable of beating any team in the NFL. It's amazing how quickly the people who are defending Belichick over this have forgotten about Seymour's play last season.

BS! No one or two players can make that much of a difference. Seymour isn't that good.

So it's a good idea to undermine current seasons, when the team has a QB that can win Super Bowls, in order to potentially improve in future seasons, when that QB is likely to either be gone or be a lesser player? That makes sense only if you don't want to win Super Bowls or if you've won one in the past year or two.

I agree! The Pats should try to have win it all in 2009 so they can be an 6-10 to 8-8 team for the next five years. The Patriots have never changed their philosophy of making sure you don't screw the future for today.

Donald Hayes wasn't cut until almost the very end of the season. Stokes was cut after 2 games, but the team had Branch, Johnson, Patten and Givens. Terrell never played a game for the team, didn't make the final 53, and never had to be replaced mid-season.

The Galloway move led to a player being cut while the team was undertalented at WR without him, and the team never replaced him, even though it happened at the beginning of the season. That's the difference.

What player was cut because of Galloway? Seriously?!? Greg Lewis?!? Lewis was cut because Galloway was here and not the fact that he was totally invisible the entire preseason? The guy had three catches the entire preseason. Even with the Vikings, the guy had 8 catches this season. Not exactly what I call a good #3 WR. And Belichick loved Lewis before he traded for him and had tried to get this guy for a few years. I seriously doubt Lewis didn't make the team because of Galloway.

Again, I am not talking the exact same situations. I am point out that Belichick in the past has made some really bad personnel decisions.

Plan "A" or plan "Z" is irrelevant. Belichick shipped off 2 draft picks. The argument about Seymour is "wait for the picks!", yet the picks that were pissed away for Burgess just get ignored. It's not bad enough that Burgess sucked for the vast majority of the season. We get to tack on the loss of a 3rd and a 5th along with that lovely display of generally incompetent football. As I've pointed out before

Seymour
3rd in 2010
5th in 2010

for

Burgess
1st in 2011

The Raiders stole from the Patriots. Crazy Al beat the tar out of Bill the genius. What's worse is that the 5th rounder could have been a 4th if the Patriots didn't make moves to re-secure a 5th in the 2010 draft. So, in other words, the Patriots had to make a second trade to avoid making that Burgess trade even worse.

Why not include the Doug Gabriel trade in this? Seriously, you have hit a new low by trying to pass the Seymour trade off as a combined trade with Burgess. Burgess was traded on August 6th and Seymour was traded on September 6th. At one point in time, you were better than this.

Burgess has nothing to do with Seymour. They may have been trades with the same team, but they were two different trades at two different periods of time. The Burgess trade was not a good trade, but it has nothing to do with Seymour's trade and it is a pathetic attempt on your part to combine the two. If you want to give Belichick an F for Burgess, I won't argue with you too much. But even with an F for Burgess, it has no bearing on the fact that Seymour trade will get an incomplete.

A stupid call is a stupid call, regardless of whether or not it's successful. It was a stupid call, particularly in light of everything that had preceded it during that series.

I don't agree with the call and I would have punted it away myself, but it was one friggin call. It was one really costly call that cost the Pats the game, but it is ridiculous to dwell on one call to question Belichick's overall judgement.

As I've noted before, we have no idea what was going on as far as the dynamic with Pees/Belichick. People are making assumptions, nothing more. The reality is that the coaching staff was able to make chicken salad out of chicken excrement this season. Whether it was mostly Pees, mostly Belichick, or an even split is irrelevant. The defensive coaching was among the very least of this team's problems.

So the fact that the last 3 years, Belichick stripped Pees of one of his most important in game roles, you don't think that is significant. Of course Pees stepped down on his own because he wanted to explore better opportunities like a pay cut and demotion to work as a LB coach in Baltimore. It seems pretty clear to me that Belichick was not happy with Pees. I could be wrong, but there is a lot of evidence to support that theory. Even guys who are plugged into the team like Michael Holley say that he has heard rumblings that people were not happy with how Pees ran the defense. Yes, they are rumors, but Holley does have trusted sources.

Respond any way you want. I wouldn't have even responded to this post if I thought you wouldn't have spin it that I was running away. I am now saying I am done on this before I even know how you want to respond. I will give you the last word on the subject.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

Ok, I will respond to this and then I am done. You can go on arguing.

be leery of anyone who announces their exit.......I hyosi last call!!!!

I don't agree with the call and I would have punted it away myself, but it was one friggin call. It was one really costly call that cost the Pats the game, but it is ridiculous to dwell on one call to question Belichick's overall judgement

in your previous post you said he would have looked like a genius if the pats made 4th down from their own end of the field.........now you don't agree with it and don't want to dwell on it......is this some kind of reaffirmation of you last call claim?

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

be leery of anyone who announces their exit.......I hyosi last call!!!!




in your previous post you said he would have looked like a genius if the pats made 4th down from their own end of the field.........now you don't agree with it and don't want to dwell on it......is this some kind of reaffirmation of you last call claim?

I don't agree with the call, but the world would have called him a genius if the Pats did make it. These are two different assertions. But no one ever accused you of understanding the sutilies of an argument.

 

[Jangles]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

BS! No one or two players can make that much of a difference. Seymour isn't that good.

So Rex Ryan saying the Pats are always the favorite as long as they have Tom Brady is a lie?

Most of the NFL nation is delusional when they say the Colts would be nothing without Peyton Manning?

If we had a D line like the Vikings losing Wilfork wouldn't be a tremendous issue. When you have a trash D line that isn't capable of anything other than filling up roster spots you don't let go of a pro bowl NT

 

[patsfan-1982]

Dam... Wilfork wants to play in Florida....

I knew we were in trouble when I seen those Golden Corral commercials.

That is a whole lot of food for around $10.

best post of the day. LMAO lol

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

in your previous post you said he would have looked like a genius if the pats made 4th down from their own end of the field.........now you don't agree with it and don't want to dwell on it......is this some kind of reaffirmation of you last call claim?

I just want to point out that if we are talking about the 4th & 2 in the IND game, it was the right call no matter how much hindsight you throw at it.

(And BTW it was a first down!)

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

I don't agree with the call, but the world would have called him a genius if the Pats did make it. These are two different assertions. But no one ever accused you of understanding the sutilies of an argument.

you mean the subtleties?

just like Deus said......it was a dumb call either way....right up there with going for it on 4th and 13 in the SB versus the giants

sure they are......you could have said you disagreed with it the first time, except you would then be agreeing with deus........you change your tune when you know someone else is right......which is why you shifted the assertion

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

you mean the subtleties?

just like Deus said......it was a dumb call either way....right up there with going for it on 4th and 13 in the SB versus the giants

sure they are......you could have said you disagreed with it the first time, except you would then be agreeing with deus........you change your tune when you know someone else is right......which is why you shifted the assertion

LOL! Yes, I have a long history of refusing when I am wrong.

Seriously, I am touched that you think so highly of me that my opinion so powerful that the world always agrees with me. I hate to disapoint you, but the world disagrees plenty. So it is different.

I didn't agree with the call, but many people did. If he made it, the media would have called it a ballsy call that only Belichick would call. Since it failed, it was an "uncharacteristically bad call" by Belichick. And you know that is what would have happened.

Either way, it is one friggin call. I thought it was a bad call, but not the worst. It should have been converted for a first down, but Faulk bobbled the ball. It was risky but it wasn't like it was 4th and 14.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

I just want to point out that if we are talking about the 4th & 2 in the IND game, it was the right call no matter how much hindsight you throw at it.

(And BTW it was a first down!)

I think it should have been a first down too, but there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it unfortunately. I thought it was too risky to be the right call, but I don't think it was as bad as some make it out to be. It wasn't 4th and 14.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

I think it should have been a first down too, but there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it unfortunately. I thought it was too risky to be the right call, but I don't think it was as bad as some make it out to be. It wasn't 4th and 14.

Punting was far more risky than going for it. The defense was getting abused, tired in the 4th quarter, they weren't stopping Manning all through the 17 point lead wiltering away. The most-likely case of a punt is Manning starting on the 30, assuming a good punt and not much of a return. Even if you get this scenario, Manning driving from his 30 to our 30 is the difference from punting to failing on 4th down.

30 to 30 in the 4th quarter against our tired and HURT defense (TBC and Jarvis I believe both were on the sideline) was NOT the hard part. If the defense couldn't stop him in the smaller-field redzone why do people think they are going to stop him with the wide open field that is harder to cover?

Not only that but he STILL has to go from our 30 to the endzone, which he proved that he could easily while killing the clock. Everything points to putting the clinching play in Tom Brady's hands as the right move. It's not like failing on 4th gave the Colts the win, the defense still got easily abused for 30 yards and would undoubtedly not have posed much threat for the other 40 yards (30 to 30).

I mean yes you have a better chance to stop him going from his 30 to TD than from our 30 to TD, but put it all together and it's the right decision. You had 2 possibilities:

1) Give Brady one play to WIN the game OR have the defense hold Peyton out of the endzone while hurt and tired for 30 yards.

or

2) Rely on special teams and hurt/tired defense to stop the Colts from going 70 Yards.

I take 1 in that situation all the time.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

I just want to point out that if we are talking about the 4th & 2 in the IND game, it was the right call no matter how much hindsight you throw at it.

(And BTW it was a first down!)

it will always be a stupid call to go for it on 4th down in your own end of the field while you have the lead........no matter how much kool-aid you drink

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

it will always be a stupid call to go for it on 4th down in your own end of the field while you have the lead........no matter how much kool-aid you drink

That's incorrect, and in fact there are actually very few things in general that will "always" be correct. In the IND game the best chance to win the game was going for it on 4th and 2. If you think the defense had a better chance of stopping Peyton from going 30 to 30 than Brady had of gaining 2 yards, then you are delusional.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

Punting was far more risky than going for it. The defense was getting abused, tired in the 4th quarter, they weren't stopping Manning all through the 17 point lead wiltering away. The most-likely case of a punt is Manning starting on the 30, assuming a good punt and not much of a return. Even if you get this scenario, Manning driving from his 30 to our 30 is the difference from punting to failing on 4th down.

30 to 30 in the 4th quarter against our tired and HURT defense (TBC and Jarvis I believe both were on the sideline) was NOT the hard part. If the defense couldn't stop him in the smaller-field redzone why do people think they are going to stop him with the wide open field that is harder to cover?

Not only that but he STILL has to go from our 30 to the endzone, which he proved that he could easily while killing the clock. Everything points to putting the clinching play in Tom Brady's hands as the right move. It's not like failing on 4th gave the Colts the win, the defense still got easily abused for 30 yards and would undoubtedly not have posed much threat for the other 40 yards (30 to 30).

I mean yes you have a better chance to stop him going from his 30 to TD than from our 30 to TD, but put it all together and it's the right decision. You had 2 possibilities:

1) Give Brady one play to WIN the game OR have the defense hold Peyton out of the endzone while hurt and tired for 30 yards.

or

2) Rely on special teams and hurt/tired defense to stop the Colts from going 70 Yards.

I take 1 in that situation all the time.

I can see the argument for going for it. I don't agree with it, but I don't find the argument ridiculous though. A 2 yard conversion isn't a very low percentage play.

Personally, I was more upset about the events on that drive leading up to that call than the call itself. Without those events, I don't know if anyone would have been talking 4th and 2. I think Belichick was spread too thin this past season and I think that might have led to those mistakes. I think if Belichick replaces Pees with someone who can work with the defense on sidelines, it will take a big step to avoiding problems like burning time outs because plays aren't getting in fast enough.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

It goes on to say :

"Not sure that would be enough for Wilfork, but could be a starting point."

The #2 this year would be attractive - add in something next year and I'm all ears. MoLewisrocks idea of swapping #1s would be sick but probably not realistic - having the Raiders and Bucs #1s next year . . . :singing:

Maybe BB can use the threat of a trade to the Bucs to force Parcel to cough up two first rounders and sign Vince, if BB franchises Vince.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

I can see the argument for going for it. I don't agree with it, but I don't find the argument ridiculous though. A 2 yard conversion isn't a very low percentage play.

Personally, I was more upset about the events on that drive leading up to that call than the call itself. Without those events, I don't know if anyone would have been talking 4th and 2. I think Belichick was spread too thin this past season and I think that might have led to those mistakes. I think if Belichick replaces Pees with someone who can work with the defense on sidelines, it will take a big step to avoiding problems like burning time outs because plays aren't getting in fast enough.

I agree with things leading up to it. Passing on 3rd down was a bad call, going for it on 4th was the right call.

People keep forgetting how hurt and tired the defense was too. I forget who was out but IIRC TBC and Jarvis both got hurt early on.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

That's incorrect, and in fact there are actually very few things in general that will "always" be correct. In the IND game the best chance to win the game was going for it on 4th and 2. If you think the defense had a better chance of stopping Peyton from going 30 to 30 than Brady had of gaining 2 yards, then you are delusional.

no...that is correct

a punt would have put the colts back at their 20 yard line or so at the 2 minute warning....lots can go wrong for the colts in that scenario, and nothing was certain

you are the blindly delusional one

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

no...that is correct

a punt would have put the colts back at their 20 yard line or so at the 2 minute warning....lots can go wrong for the colts in that scenario, and nothing was certain

you are the blindly delusional one

So first you assume that we would have gotten a great 60 yard punt from Hanson, then you assume we would have netted 50 yards on that punt from scrimmage. Then you further go ahead and assume the Colts were just going to do things wrong. With our obviously tired and HURT defense, you take those chances.

You would rather rely on Hanson + Special Teams Coverage + Tired and Hurt defense stopping Peyton from driving 70 yards...

rather than TOM BRADY gaining 2 yards OR the tired and hurt defense stopping Peyton from driving 30 yards.


Again, you are delusional. The punt protection, Hanson punting and special teams coverage all have to come out with A's just to get Peyton backed to the 30. So you rely on all that going perfect, just to give the defense an extra 40 yards, while taking the ball out of Brady's hands lol. This board continues to make me ever so thankful that BB makes the decisions.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

So first you assume that we would have gotten a great 60 yard punt from Hanson, then you assume we would have netted 50 yards on that punt from scrimmage. Then you further go ahead and assume the Colts were just going to do things wrong. With our obviously tired and HURT defense, you take those chances.

You would rather rely on Hanson + Special Teams Coverage + Tired and Hurt defense stopping Peyton from driving 70 yards...

rather than TOM BRADY gaining 2 yards OR the tired and hurt defense stopping Peyton from driving 30 yards.


Again, you are delusional. The punt protection, Hanson punting and special teams coverage all have to come out with A's just to get Peyton backed to the 30. So you rely on all that going perfect, just to give the defense an extra 40 yards, while taking the ball out of Brady's hands lol. This board continues to make me ever so thankful that BB makes the decisions.

I am not delusional.......I'm just not stricken with blind love......a 50 yard punt would have put the ball at the 22.......in those instances (especially for the colts), the returner is instructed to be more cautious and to fair catch.

and if your defense is so bad that you can't risk the chance of the other team (who needed a TD not an FG) on a 70-80 yard drive in 2:00, then you relaly have to wonder what idiot is staffing the defense

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Wilfork says he wouldnt mind playing for the Bucs or Dolfoons.

I am not delusional.......I'm just not stricken with blind love......a 50 yard punt would have put the ball at the 22.......in those instances (especially for the colts), the returner is instructed to be more cautious and to fair catch.

and if your defense is so bad that you can't risk the chance of the other team (who needed a TD not an FG) on a 70-80 yard drive in 2:00, then you relaly have to wonder what idiot is staffing the defense

A 50 yard kick (from LOS), a 60+ yard kick in the air, and you assume that it's going to be so perfect that they fair catch lol.

And in the 4th quarter with a tired and hurting defense, the extra 40 yards is NOT going to be that hard for Peyton. It's so simple, yet you refuse to open your blind eyes. Let's even assume they got the ideal kick and Peyton got it at the 30. Your blind eyes continue to look at ooh look 70 yards is harder than 30 yards. You fail to grasp the fact that those 30 yards are a PART of the 70 yards. You fail to grasp that it's also game over if TOM BRADY can get 2 yards. You fail to grasp that there were TWO injured starters and a tired out defense in the 4th quarter. Taking into account EVERYTHING, the Patriots have a better chance of winning by deciding to go for it on 4th & 2 in that exact situation.

You assume a perfect world punt which is stupid in and of itself, especially considering Hanson had a 34.7 net average on the year.

 

[Patjew]

patjew. It is not your fault. We both still love you very much. Sometimes when two message board posters are posting together for a number of years they just don't see eye to eye anymore. I doesn't mean we both don't love you anymore.

I think it is for the best that deus and i see other posters. Personally, i am heading over to the warcraft website, buying a virtual porsche, and starting to date a 21 year old elf with 21 hit points (i like them a little freaky).

Don't worry kiddo, we can spend quality time on this board together every other weekend, half the major holidays, and three weeks during the summer.

:d:d
....................