Will We Get Any Production From Branch, Allen or Harris?

[Ring 6]

Then rewind yourself back to your "if you know somebody better..." and stop typing, as that was the only point to begin with.

This is obviously the issue. You read what you want to read. That was far from the only point as evidenced by my first comment about replacing the role.
If there were somebody better for the role why wasn't he here the first 5 weeks.
Nothing Harris has done would change his fit for the role he is in BECAUSE HE HASNT BEEN NEEDED.
If BB felt coming out of camp Harris was the best #3 ILB he could find and felt he needed a #3 ILB what possibly could have happened now to change his mind?

Nobody said it was.

Then was has he done to say he isn't he best guy for that role? The role has not been needed yet.

What wasn't your opinion, lol. You get so lost in syntactical pasta you could say anything is your opinion. You are, charitably, not a good writer.

my writing is fine you just choose to redefine it to fit your narrative.

Why argue? You're the one yipping at my heels like a puppy. "Highly paid," which football players are, was the point, so hardly unnecessary. I think you're the one who's "cunfused."

Clearly you have no argument so you resort to criticizing typos.

In using the English language when you qualify something it means you are limiting the statement.
Players have no right to not do what is told.
Highly paid players have no right to do what is told.
Any honest person would admit those are different statements and not be so intellectually dishonest to claim (long afterward) they are the same because all players are highly paid. YOU are the one who segregated your comments to highly paid players. Unfortunately you are incapable of accepting that was wrong.

No it doesn't.

I wasn't "arguing to get rid of Harris," I said it wasn't unreasonable to ask if another player would be better suited to the role. Reading is fundamental, Andy.

Then it's too bad you can't read.
My points were:
1) If someone is better we should replace him.
2) Why is this coming up now when nothing has changed? The role is you don't play if there are no injuries. There have been no injuries. He hasn't played poorly in the role because the role hasn t been needed.

If you opened your mind and listened none of this was necessary because you would have realized these 2 points.

Quoting this to illustrate your sloppy writing, which flows from sloppy thinking.

Comes from typing on a phone and the thinking is precise and clear. You just choose to ignore the parts that leave you no choice but to be "wrrrrrr".
Not very hard to read through the typo.

In your mind, frighteningly, perhaps it is.

What is frightening is that you apparently lack the intelligence to get it.

You are truly delusional. Black is white, white is black.

You qualified the statement by limiting it to highly paid players.
Just admit you later realized it should apply to all players
I promise nothing awful will happen when you admit you were wrong ona message board. Everyone but you already knows it.

It's telling that something so straightforward as two points not being mutually exclusive (nor particularly different) would confound you so much that this would be your response.

Because you made them mutually exclusive by qualifying "highly paid".
Backtracking and saying you didn't mean highly paid players doesn't change that.
But it's ok, you refuse to admit you are wrong so you are arguing that it depends on what he definition of is is. I get it.
So we can agree you were wrong to limit which players can't "not do things they don't want to" to highly paid players and we are only stillon this because instead of admitting you were wrong you have to say it another way. Ok. Gotcha.

I can only assume you said this while gazing at a mirror.

With that bit of childishness you have shown me you have no interest in being an adult and actually discussing football.
I'm through with you. Find someone else to have these ridiculous discussions where you want to talk about a person who shows you are wrong to deflect being wrong instead of football.
You know nothing about me. All I know about you is you made some wrong statements that I responded to in order to create a discussion about the real issues and you got butt hurt and decide to post messages on a football board about you analyzing me.
There is nothing with less value to this board than that.
Since I'm sure you can't stop yourself and will require yourself to have the last word, I will put you in ignore and not respond.

Nice job by you.

 

[Ring 6]

Reiss on Harris:

It’s hard to imagine this is the way Belichick saw it unfolding when the team guaranteed Harris $1.25 million this offseason.

No doubt but by cutdown this is exactly what he expected.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not sure what the issue, if any, with Harris is but to your 44-53 point most of those guys contribute on special teams. So they usually do see the field.

Going over the snap count totals (including Special Teams) for LB's over the last 5 seasons Harris ranks second to last in total snap count percentage. But it's still early in the season and his role could change significantly.

New England Patriots 2017 Snap Counts | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Edit to add: At some point during the season. It's only week five.

The issue is simply that it's silly in week 5 to bring up cutting Harris because he made the team for a role that hadn't been needed yet.
He hasn't played poorly in the role. He hasn't played.

If we are talking about cutting him then we should have 5 weeks ago because nothing at all has changed.

 

[Tony2046]

The issue is simply that it's silly in week 5 to bring up cutting Harris because he made the team for a role that hadn't been needed yet.
He hasn't played poorly in the role. He hasn't played.

If we are talking about cutting him then we should have 5 weeks ago because nothing at all has changed.

For the record: I'm not talking about cutting him and I don't think I have ever talked about cutting players except maybe Haynesworth.

I do think it's an interesting situation.

Hell he may be part of the answer to the running D.

Just read an interesting article (Bedard) about how they were using McCourty to cover RB's out of the backfield to limit the coverage liability of the LB's. IF so then Harris could play ILB. I think. Haven't thought it all the way through yet.

 

[aluminum seats]

If BB felt coming out of camp Harris was the best #3 ILB he could find and felt he needed a #3 ILB what possibly could have happened now to change his mind?

The Pats are constantly monitoring their team and the players on it. Most people understand this, you apparently do not.

Then was has he done to say he isn't he best guy for that role?

As Reiss and many other posters here have noted, it would appear Harris isn't being used as planned, so it's reasonable to look at him.

my writing is fine

Saying it doesn't make it so. LaDainian Tomlinson says he's classy, too.

Clearly you have no argument so you resort to criticizing typos.

Everybody makes typos. You consistently craft endless streams of incoherent nonsense.

Any honest person would admit those are different statements and not be so intellectually dishonest to claim (long afterward) they are the same because all players are highly paid.

Wrong, on so many levels. Branch certainly isn't an outlier in terms of how much he gets paid.

The role is you don't play if there are no injuries.

Again, most agree that this wasn't the role the Pats had envisioned for Harris. I gave you an out a long time ago to agree to disagree, but you couldn't bear to let it go. So I'll have to say again you are wrong.

Comes from typing on a phone and the thinking is precise and clear. You just choose to ignore the parts that leave you no choice but to be "wrrrrrr".
Not very hard to read through the typo.

See above re typos. And the repeated "Fonz" references are kind of embarrassing, just fyi.

What is frightening is that you apparently lack the intelligence to get it.

Black is white, white is black.

I promise nothing awful will happen when you admit you were wrong ona message board

Speaking to the mirror again?

Because you made them mutually exclusive by qualifying "highly paid".

All football players are highly paid. Repeat this to yourself a hundred times and it might sink in.

With that bit of childishness you have shown me you have no interest in being an adult and actually discussing football.

Actually, it's called wit, which you tried with your 40 year old Happy Days references. Swing and a miss for you, unfortunately.

You know nothing about me.

Just what I see here, so we can all hope there's a different side.

I will put you in ignore and not respond.

I knew it wasn't possible for you to ever just stop, concede a point, admit you were wrong, etc. So this is probably the best course for you.

Nice job by you.

Yes! We finally agree! Have a great day.

 

[Oswlek]

No one is expecting that. Why is this so hard to understand? Every time a guy like that moves, his feet and bones have to carry 370 lbs. He has two feet, same as Amendola. Any physics majors out there? This can't be that hard to understand.

Your response seems to indicate that you think I am unaware of the effects of weight difference. If so, I'd encourage you to read my earlier comment again.

 

[kennyb]

Branch maybe the other two, no.

Allen not only cant catch, he cant get in the same zip code as the ball. Like a blind kid playing center field.

Harris is snail slow.

This is what belichick does for possibly brady's swan song? Useless washed up trash? Was duane starks not available? Shame on belichick. SHAME! Get someone who can actually run on defense or catch on offense.

 

[Gronkowski123]

david harris is washed up.

imagine him in coverage? lol