Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [patriotzip] FANTASTIC Discussion on NFL Network's 'Game

Expand Messages
  • George Richman
    The one thing we’re still missing, Baze, is a running game that can be both a breakaway threat, and a pound it out closer. I am a big fan of Bee Gee, because
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 12, 2010

      The one thing we’re still missing, Baze, is a running game that can be both a breakaway threat, and a pound it out closer. I am a big fan of Bee Gee, because I rarely see him fail to finish a run, by getting another yard or two after he’s “stopped” – something we rarely saw from Maroney! But Bee Gee definitely is not a RB that an opposing DC has to game plan for. He’s not a threat to hit a 30+ breakaway run. Nor is anybody else on the team now. I love the “healthy” Fred Taylor. But how often do we see him? Sammy, I’m afraid, is doneer based upon what I’ve seen from him this year. The exciting possibility is “Mighty Mouse”. But can he really be depended upon for steady production at his size?


      If I may look ahead, without ANY “give it up” for this year in this, I will go on record right now as saying that I want the Patriots to do whatever it takes next year, with all those draft picks they have, to get Alabama’s RB Mark Ingram. I love this kid! He’s got size, speed, and intelligence. He will, IMO, be an Adrian Peterson level star in the NFL. I think that if the Patriots add a RB of that caliber to their already scary passing attack, they will be a truly great team.


      OK, I’ve said it. Here in October of 2010, I am committing to a player in the 2011 draft. It’s time, BB. Listen to me. Go get us a Corey Dillon at the BEGINNING of his career, instead of at the end of it. We’ve got the picks to do it!


      In case you dozed off and missed it … I WANT MARK INGRAM!!



      Patriots - A new decade - A new dynasty!


      From: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com [mailto:patriotzip@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Basile
      Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:33 PM
      To: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [patriotzip] FANTASTIC Discussion on NFL Network's 'Game



      Is bail covered under the CBA?  Because that's the next special payment we'd need to make to Jackson.  He makes the Bengal Gang look like choir boys--not a fit in our locker room I think.


      I like this overall, especially when you consider the Branch/Brady chemistry and knowledge of the system, and when you look at the receiving targets George laid out.  With 3-TE sets, and  promising TEs with good hands (Hernandez has a reception every time he has been targeted except twice this season), plus Tate, Tiny and Welker and Edelman in the slot/semi-deep role, I like this addition a lot.


      Remember when no one could even name our receivers?  :-)





      Steve Basile
      B.D. Riley's Irish Pub
      Austin, TX
      Official Home: Austin Patriots Club
      Web: www.bdrileys.com


      On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:57 AM, Machado.Nicholas wrote:


      I thought one of the writers - I don't remember who (might have been Reiss) - said Jackson was one infraction away from being suspended for a year. If that is true I don't see how he could be the kind of player the Pats would want to add to their roster. That and the fact that VJ would likely want around what Moss wanted for money doesn't seem like a good fit. Welker has a contract coming up soon and he certainly deserves a pretty good payday.


      At 11:52 AM 10/12/2010 +0700, you wrote:


      Personally, I would have preferred that they give the Chargers the 2 & 3 they wanted for Vincent Jackson. Can you imagine a 3 WR, 1 TE set of Jackson, Tate, Welker in the slot, and either Hernandez, split out a bit from the line, or Gronk at ╲true╡ TE? That would leave Brady with RB for protection or a running play. And who does the opponent double cover deep, Jackson or Tate? â•œ Or, how about an empty backfield, with those 3 WRs, and both TEâ•˙s; or with Woodhead in a slot, or ╲WR screen╡ position?


      That said, adding Branch is definitely an upgrade to the overall receiving corps. Heâ•˙s not the deep threat he once was; but heâ•˙s not slow either. And, of course, the ╲chemistry╡ he has with Brady has to be factored in.


      For a R4 pick, itâ•˙s a positive move.



      Patriots - A new decade - A new dynasty!


      From: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com [mailto:patriotzip@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dres74@...
      Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:53 AM
      To: Mark Morse; patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [patriotzip] FANTASTIC Discussion on NFL Network's 'Game Day' about Moss



      Branch added according to ESPN.

      Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

      ----- Reply message -----
      From: "Mark Morse" <packy001@...>
      Date: Mon, Oct 11, 2010 8:14 pm
      Subject: [patriotzip] FANTASTIC Discussion on NFL Network's 'Game Day' about Moss
      To: <patriotzip@yahoogroups.com>

      I'll make this argument.  Before Randy Moss, Brady's favorite target was the
      open receiver!  We will be okay without Moss ... and you can put that one in the
      bank.  Tate will assume the deep threat and if teams want to allow him single
      coverge Tate will burn them.  Look for Hernandez to stretch the field.  Safties
      have trouble covering him never mind ILB.

      If we are able to add Deon Branch, that will be icing on the cake.
       Mark Morse
      Razor's Edge Tailgate Patriots Fangroup

      From: George Richman <patswingr@...>
      To: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, October 10, 2010 10:42:46 AM
      Subject: [patriotzip] FANTASTIC Discussion on NFL Network's 'Game Day' about

      One of the best arguments Iâ•˙ve ever seen (yeah, Iâ•˙m biased) on the future effect
      of a trade. When you get ex players of the quality of Michael Irvin, Marshall
      Faulk, and Warren Sapp; plus an outstanding former coach like Steve Mariucci,
      discussing the plusses and minuses of this huge trade; it is just fun to watch!
      Irvin jumps all over the 50 TDs Randy scored. ╲How do you replace that?╡
      Sapp leans on the fact that the Patsâ•˙ new ╲ball control╡ offense will protect
      the young defense, keeping them off the field, and limiting the offensive
      opportunities of the opponent.

      Faulk buys Sappâ•˙s argument, and adds that the Pats won their 3 SBâ•˙s without a
      ╲deep threat╡ WR; and notes that BB always sees the best net result for what the
      Patriots have on  both sides of the ball.
      In jumps Mariucci to basically agree with Irvin regarding the immediate damage
      to the offense; but with Sapp and Faulk as to the value of the new ball control
      offense over the course of the season; and in the long term.

      Net result on me was that my own mixed feelings, as noted just after the trade,
      have been swung to the positive side for the move.

      It is going to be great to watch the change that is clearly coming in the
      overall game plan, offense and defense, for our Patriots.

      Itâ•˙s obvious to me that there are good points on both sides the argument.
      Can anyone deny that it hurts to lose the 50 TDs that Moss gave us; and the
      nightmares that he gives to opposing Defensive Coordinators before every game? I
      think not.

      Can anyone deny that our young defense needs to be kept off the field for as
      long as possible while the offense moves the sticks, and eats the clock? I think

      So, will the ball control, time of possession domination of the new offense
      prove better on the W & L chart than the quick strike, low time of possession
      offense that we had with Moss? Will that ball control offense allow our young
      defense to develop over the course of the season, rather than collapse due to
      too much time on the field that we seemed to have with the many 3 and outs of
      the ╲Moss╡ offense?
      Iâ•˙m sure that we are in agreement on hoping that will be the case. We shall see.

      Patriots - A new decade - A new dynasty!





    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.