New England Patriots thread (MOD WARNING - #4503)

resdubwhite

TO.

A lot of that is scheme. Its 4 -3 defence built to stop the run on first down. Obviously the D has problems. Patricia/BB just aren't sending enough bodies in my opinion (probably down to the lack of pass rush ability)

Its a D with a lot of holes, but improvements in 1 or 2 areas will help.

Namely, lack of production at DE (hopefully, Jones turns into a beast this year and Bequette shows something)
Giving Vince help up the Middle (Armstead a projected 1st 2nd rounder coming cheap.
Slow LB play ( I know you fundamentally disagree, but to me its a big problem when all three are in for third down, Fletchers absence last year was felt here)
Talib staying healthy( without doubt the biggest reason we lost that game)

Lets hope Wilson improves the safety play. My concern is his age. But he really shouldn't be an every down safety either.

Son Of A Vidic

resdubwhite wrote: »

Pats are getting killed on 3rd and 10-15 yards. That's a weakness with three run stuffers at LB.

Our defensive problems is not down to our run defense. Our secondary has been the repeated source of our woes. Getting rid of Chung was an important move, keeping McCourty at safety is vital. Tavon Wilson is a tank and he strikes me as a player who can morph into a Wilson style hybrid player. So he will learn a lot from his new mentor. We need to draft more depth at CB and S though. Gergory for me was a total flop last season. They're probably just keeping him for depth reasons although I wish they didn't. Having Dennard is huge, the kid is a starter now opposite Talib. But again look at the back ups? What injury will the likes of Dowling have next season? Arrignton will do fine if they keep him covering the slot.

My main concern about the front seven is getting a compliment to Jones. Ninkovich had a very good season last year so hopefully he can continue that upward trend for us. I'm mystified about our 3rd round pick from last year Jake Bequette. Things looked ominous with his abscence and then I see later in the season, he starts winning a bunch of practice player of the week awards. Which is usually a good sign toward player development. So it will be interesting to see how he works out in training camp. So tbh, Spikes is the least of my worries, he's a beast, his big hits set the tone and every team needs one. If the secondary can shape into a more formidable unit for next season, then you will naturally see a much more agressive front seven.

resdubwhite

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Our defensive problems is not down to our run defense. Our secondary has been the repeated source of our woes. .

Not being able to generate pass rush is just as important. There's very little pass rush coming from the front seven. Corners can't be asked to cover for 7 or 8 seconds.

its a chicken and egg scenario.

TO.

resdubwhite wrote: »

TO.

A lot of that is scheme. Its 4 -3 defence built to stop the run on first down. Obviously the D has problems. Patricia/BB just aren't sending enough bodies in my opinion (probably down to the lack of pass rush ability)

I know it is but that doesn't change anything. The scheme may be setup to stop the run but it gives a clear indicator as to our problems. I wouldn't be surprised to find the numbers include a majority of mid to long passes due to our poor secondary and hit and miss pass rush. But the numbers speak for themselves. A large chunk of TDs scored on us on 1st down. Any coach will tell you whatever about giving up TDs on 3rd down giving them up on 1st down is a big problem.

Its a D with a lot of holes, but improvements in 1 or 2 areas will help.

Secondary is the major flaw, the 2nd problem would be getting that Pass rush right. Linebackers are low down on our needs and problems and are not an issue for us right now.

Slow LB play ( I know you fundamentally disagree, but to me its a big problem when all three are in for third down, Fletchers absence last year was felt here)

You brought up the scheme argument for first down and I am going to throw it back at you for 3rd down. Linebackers are not the issue when we go Nickel or Dime as I said. And for the most part on 3rd and long we shoot into a nickel or dime set.

All 3 linebackers are usually still in there on anything less than 5 yards. Where we fall down on 3rd and short is blown coverages all over the shop and no pressure on the QB. Again linebackers being a minor problem. Secondary and Pass Rush being the major issue. We fix that secondary and get those sacks it will solve 90% of our defensive problems.

resdubwhite

TO. wrote: »

You brought up the scheme argument for first down and I am going to throw it back at you for 3rd down. Linebackers are not the issue when we go Nickel or Dime as I said. And for the most part on 3rd and long we shoot into a nickel or dime set.

All 3 linebackers are usually still in there on anything less than 5 yards. Where we fall down on 3rd and short is blown coverages all over the shop and no pressure on the QB. Again linebackers being a minor problem. Secondary and Pass Rush being the major issue. We fix that secondary and get those sacks it will solve 90% of our defensive problems.

[/QUOTE]
Its all complimentary. Pass rush helps secondary. Tight coverage helps the QB hold onto the ball. for third and long it seems (and I have no stat to back this up. The opposing TE is having a field say. Those 10-15 yard passes are a killer.

Pats were 32nd in third down in 2011. Mid 20's in 2012, and agree, gave up a F**k load of plus 20 yard pass plays in 2012.

Trading Spikes is a classic BB move. I feel it in my waters probably because ultimately I think he's a value freak. If he can turn Spikes into a 3rd rd pick in 2013, its better than the complimentary 5th or 6th in 2015. I don't think they can afford to keep him past 2013.

TO.

Its all complimentary. Pass rush helps secondary. Tight coverage helps the QB hold onto the ball. for third and long it seems (and I have no stat to back this up. The opposing TE is having a field say. Those 10-15 yard passes are a killer.

I know how it works, I coach and play the game but how have we gone from our 3 linebackers being a problem to the obvious problems in our secondary and pass rush that we all agree on. I have said more than once that our secondary and Pass rush are the main problem.

But the Pats have gone primarily to a 4-3 which depends on your Linemen to get most of the sacks and pressure. The 3 linebackers in question has 8 of the 37 sacks we had last season. A couple of other gap fillers and our secondary had 4 more sacks. Our defensive line including our ends had the other 25 sacks. The Pass rush problems stems solely on our D-line right now not our linebackers.

As for tight coverage as I said on 3rd a long we generally shift into a nickel and dime so again our linebackers are not the main reason why the yards are given up.

Trading Spikes is a classic BB move. I feel it in my waters probably because ultimately I think he's a value freak. If he can turn Spikes into a 3rd rd pick in 2013, its better than the complimentary 5th or 6th in 2015. I don't think they can afford to keep him past 2013.

Probably a classic move but you are in the minority of anyone suggesting such move. I have read a few more posts on other thread on other forums suggesting something similar but I dont even think any of the beat writers or hacks have even suggested it.

resdubwhite

TO. wrote: »

I know how it works, I coach and play the game but how have we gone from our 3 linebackers being a problem to the obvious problems in our secondary and pass rush that we all agree on. I have said more than once that our secondary and Pass rush are the main problem.

But the Pats have gone primarily to a 4-3 which depends on your Linemen to get most of the sacks and pressure. The 3 linebackers in question has 8 of the 37 sacks we had last season. A couple of other gap fillers and our secondary had 4 more sacks. Our defensive line including our ends had the other 25 sacks. The Pass rush problems stems solely on our D-line right now not our linebackers.

As for tight coverage as I said on 3rd a long we generally shift into a nickel and dime so again our linebackers are not the main reason why the yards are given up.



Probably a classic move but you are in the minority of anyone suggesting such move. I have read a few more posts on other thread on other forums suggesting something similar but I dont even think any of the beat writers or hacks have even suggested it.

Look back at what I said

I was asked to justify a Spikes trade. The reasoning was that there were three similar style players in the position.
I never said poor LB coverage was the biggest problem with the D. I did say that on 3rd down it was a weakness. ( in middle to long situations).
maybe you can acknowledge that and stop putting words in my mouth.

TO.

resdubwhite wrote: »

Look back at what I said

I read what you wrote. So calm down.

I was asked to justify a Spikes trade. The reasoning was that there were three similar style players in the position.

I got that and you were told by 3 people who felt we didn't need a coverage linebacker to replace Spikes. You moved on to talking about the problems we all know about and all agree on which actually doesn't help your justification of trading Spikes..

I never said poor LB coverage was the biggest problem with the D. I did say that on 3rd down it was a weakness. ( in middle to long situations).
maybe you can acknowledge that and stop putting words in my mouth.

I also answered and acknowledged this more than once and on 3 occasions told you Linebackers for the most part are not at fault on 3rd down due to the scheme we play i.e Nickel and Dime on 3rd and long. The fact of the matter is trading away Spikes for another draft pick to try and get a "Coverage Linebacker" where the need is very minimal is silly. Why would we offload an already solid player for one who might not be good enough anyways. Makes no sense especially when we fix our secondary and Pass rush and we fix 90% of the problems.

I also never put words in your mouth so calm down. You gave your opinion I gave mine simple as.

resdubwhite

TO. wrote: »

I read what you wrote. So calm down.



I got that and you were told by 3 people who felt we didn't need a coverage linebacker to replace Spikes. You moved on to talking about the problems we all know about and all agree on which actually doesn't help your justification of trading Spikes..



I also answered and acknowledged this more than once and on 3 occasions told you Linebackers for the most part are not at fault on 3rd down due to the scheme we play i.e Nickel and Dime on 3rd and long. The fact of the matter is trading away Spikes for another draft pick to try and get a "Coverage Linebacker" where the need is very minimal is silly. Why would we offload an already solid player for one who might not be good enough anyways. Makes no sense especially when we fix our secondary and Pass rush and we fix 90% of the problems.

I also never put words in your mouth so calm down. You gave your opinion I gave mine simple as.

You clearly stated, that I said LB play was a major problem on D. Isaid we have 3 similar type LBs and in situations its a problem.
I never said the pick would be used on a coverage LB. I did mention Dane Fletcher. Already on the roster.

Now, on 3rd and long there have been plenty of situations where the LB in this case Spikes was given the coverage role against the TE (spikes on keller plays offs 2011/12 on one memorable 50 plus yard play for example just as the team dragged themselves back into the game. )They have been given coverage roles, to which I say they are not ideally suited.

Now, the real reason I saw a Spikes trade coming was down to cap. If the team wants more draft picks its the closest thing I can see to a player trade NE can make. That's it plain and simple.

Spikes is a fine player. His ability to force the turnover is huge. His pace is his Achilles heal. Mayo is on a fat contract. Hightower is a 2012 1st rd draft pick. Neither of them are going anywhere.
That's the justification.

TO.

resdubwhite wrote: »

You clearly stated, that I said LB play was a major problem on D. Isaid we have 3 similar type LBs and in situations its a problem.
I never said the pick would be used on a coverage LB. I did mention Dane Fletcher. Already on the roster.

No I didn't. Want me to repeat what you said to me about putting words in your mouth or reading what you wrote?

Now, on 3rd and long there have been plenty of situations where the LB in this case Spikes was given the coverage role against the TE (spikes on keller plays offs 2011/12 on one memorable 50 plus yard play for example just as the team dragged themselves back into the game. )They have been given coverage roles, to which I say they are not ideally suited.

Yes there have been but it is a minimal issue and we don't give up enough plays due to our linebackers to justify the trade even with the contract issue as the kicker.

Now, the real reason I saw a Spikes trade coming was down to cap. If the team wants more draft picks its the closest thing I can see to a player trade NE can make. That's it plain and simple.

Spikes is a fine player. His ability to force the turnover is huge. His pace is his Achilles heal. Mayo is on a fat contract. Hightower is a 2012 1st rd draft pick. Neither of them are going anywhere.
That's the justification.

And with the Pats they will run Spikes contract and deal with it when it becomes an issue like they have done for the most part under Bill and Bob. What it boils down to is there has been no real chatter about any sort of deal as lets face it

Son Of A Vidic

resdubwhite wrote: »

Not being able to generate pass rush is just as important. There's very little pass rush coming from the front seven. Corners can't be asked to cover for 7 or 8 seconds.

its a chicken and egg scenario.

Where are you getting 7-8 seconds from . No QB holds onto the ball for 7-8 seconds in the NFL. The NFL average is 3.7 seconds, any longer than that and a QB is in trouble. Coverage is fundamenal, as Belichick always says - "Do your job." We sort out our secondary, the rest will follow. Only when the front 7 has confidence in the seondarys coverage, are you more likely to see a more agressive pass rush.

counterlock

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Where are you getting 7-8 seconds from . No QB holds onto the ball for 7-8 seconds in the NFL. The NFL average is 3.7 seconds, any longer than that and a QB is in trouble. Coverage is fundamenal, as Belichick always says - "Do your job." We sort out our secondary, the rest will follow. Only when the front 7 has confidence in the seondarys coverage, are you more likely to see a more agressive pass rush.

It's more to do with coaching confidence in the secondary than the front seven. If we had a pass rush then your secondary doesn't have to be spectacular and if we had a decent secondary then your going to get coverage sacks from it. Our problem at the moment is that we are falling between two stools, we are holding back on blitzing to protect the secondary so the qb has time to throw.

Son Of A Vidic

counterlock wrote: »

It's more to do with coaching confidence in the secondary than the front seven. If we had a pass rush then your secondary doesn't have to be spectacular and if we had a decent secondary then your going to get coverage sacks from it. Our problem at the moment is that we are falling between two stools, we are holding back on blitzing to protect the secondary so the qb has time to throw.

Just watch McCourty when he was at CB, his technique was all wrong. The guy never watched the flight of the ball, instead he waits to attack the receiver when he goes for the catch. So he gave up a lot of PI and cost us yards. He's a much better player a safety and he reads the game better. Now watch Dennard at CB and you'll see a much better technique. He stays with the receiver, but he also is watching the QB and the flight of the ball. And that's the key difference. Manning repeatedly targetted him on his NFL debut and Dennard passed with flying colours.

As I have already said, once you sort out the fundamental errors at secondary, make it meaner and stronger. The effect of this will pass onto the front seven. So whether they blitz or not nearly becomes irrelevant, when you have a secondary that will close down the pass. There's more to defense than a pass rush. If you have a strong secondary that can close down the passing game. Then blitizing nearly becomes a luxury. Of course every team needs a strong pass rush, but the secondary is where the foundation stone starts for me.

TO.

counterlock wrote: »

It's more to do with coaching confidence in the secondary than the front seven.

Coaching confidence? What? Our secondary is poor simple as. DBs getting beat far too easy and that has nothing to do with confidence. The coaches aren't the ones getting beat easy or giving away PI calls.

If we had a pass rush then your secondary doesn't have to be spectacular and if we had a decent secondary then your going to get coverage sacks from it.

This is some what true but not the case for the Pats for the most part. McCourty plays at CB he gets beat easy. Arrington is forever getting beat easy and there has been a few more shocking CBs in our secondary over the last few years. Its true the Pass rush plays somewhat hand in hand with the secondary but it doesn't help when our DBs are getting beat off the line to begin with. Even in games our Pass Rush is doing something our secondary was getting bitch slapped at times.

Look at Talib and McCourty when Talib was in at CB and McCourty in at Safety. They both have shown the difference it makes having guys confident and capable in their positions. Dennard provided the same comfort at times also. One would be a fool to think some of the secondary we have or had are just not starting material.

Our problem at the moment is that we are falling between two stools, we are holding back on blitzing to protect the secondary so the qb has time to throw.

Yes and no. Our biggest need is 100% corners and safeties who can do the job especially on a team who has every ambition to be in bowls. This lackluster secondary we have can and will only get us so far but has let us down far too often. So many throws made within the first 3-4 seconds beating our corners deep is not good enough and blaming the correlation between the pass rush and secondary is not good enough anymore.

TO.

[QUOTE=Corvus Maximus;84143978] There's more to defense than a pass rush. If you have a strong secondary that can close down the passing game. Then blitizing nearly becomes a luxury. Of course every team needs a strong pass rush, but the secondary is where the foundation stone starts for me.[/QUOTE]

I agree and this Pass Rush excuse is coming in more and more with people and is nonsense at the best of times. It has become a modern excuse for a failing secondary. Defenses that win Championships have the whole package across the board including good to strong secondaries. Look at our 3 Super Bowl wins our secondary was solid compared to our pass rush. Our pass rush from 2001-2005 was good but not great, But our front 7 as a unit made up for it. We had some very key players working together to make the difference.

counterlock

You guys' posts can come across as very insular at times. Any opinion slightly differing from your own seems to get attacked rather than discussed.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

If you have a strong secondary that can close down the passing game. Then blitizing nearly becomes a luxury.

counterlock wrote: »

if we had a decent secondary then your going to get coverage sacks from it.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Only when the front 7 has confidence in the seondarys coverage, are you more likely to see a more agressive pass rush.

counterlock wrote: »

It's more to do with coaching confidence in the secondary than the front seven.

TO. wrote: »

Coaching confidence? What? Our secondary is poor simple as. DBs getting beat far too easy and that has nothing to do with confidence. The coaches aren't the ones getting beat easy or giving away PI calls.

Did you read the above? Where did I say that it was a coaching issue? Nowhere. Corvus said that when the front 7 had confidence in the secondarys coverage we would see a more aggressive pass rush. I disagreed. I happen to think that the front 7's confidence in the secondary's coverage ability, does not dictate what plays are called from the side line. Any thoughts to the contrary suggest that the front 7 are freelancing based on their confidence in the secondary.

TO. wrote: »

Its true the Pass rush plays somewhat hand in hand with the secondary but it doesn't help when our DBs are getting beat off the line to begin with. Even in games our Pass Rush is doing something our secondary was getting bitch slapped at times.

Look at Talib and McCourty when Talib was in at CB and McCourty in at Safety. They both have shown the difference it makes having guys confident and capable in their positions. Dennard provided the same comfort at times also. One would be a fool to think some of the secondary we have or had are just not starting material.

It seems you are inferring that I think the secondary is fine. I'll just ask you to show me where I said that the secondary we had is starting material. Maybe it was this part :

counterlock wrote: »

....and if we had a decent secondary....

TO. wrote: »

Yes and no. Our biggest need is 100% corners and safeties who can do the job especially on a team who has every ambition to be in bowls. This lackluster secondary we have can and will only get us so far but has let us down far too often. So many throws made within the first 3-4 seconds beating our corners deep is not good enough and blaming the correlation between the pass rush and secondary is not good enough anymore.

Again, I did not say that we don't need safeties or corners. Nor did I blame the correlation between the pass rush and the secondary. I pointed out the fact that we play the bend but don't break defense, conservative but not to the point of it actually working well - why? Because we don't have the DB's capable of defending it

TO.

counterlock wrote: »

You guys' posts can come across as very insular at times. Any opinion slightly differing from your own seems to get attacked rather than discussed.

I have posted this way since I joined Boards in 2006 and it is my style of posting. You say it is attacking rather than discussing which is fair enough. But it is a discussion and no matter how someone replies if you don't like it put us on ignore or report us and let the mods decide. But nowhere did I say you can't have your opinion and I can't have mine. Sometimes a difference of opinion can't be discussed. But as I said if you don't like it report it.

Did you read the above? Where did I say that it was a coaching issue? Nowhere.

My apologies I read that on my phone and read it completely wrong and apologise.

It seems you are inferring that I think the secondary is fine. I'll just ask you to show me where I said that the secondary we had is starting material. Maybe it was this part :

No I didn't. I wasn't saying or thinking anything of the sort. I was making points that the secondary is the major problem right now and it doesn't matter what type of pass rush we have. Maybe you are trying to read between the lines too much.

Again, I did not say that we don't need safeties or corners. Nor did I blame the correlation between the pass rush and the secondary. I pointed out the fact that we play the bend but don't break defense, conservative but not to the point of it actually working well - why? Because we don't have the DB's capable of defending it

Ok then I misread this and If I am wrong I apologise.

If we had a pass rush then your secondary doesn't have to be spectacular and if we had a decent secondary then your going to get coverage sacks from it.Our problem at the moment is that we are falling between two stools, we are holding back on blitzing to protect the secondary so the qb has time to throw.

But I don't agree with this. Our conservative blitzing and Pass rushing are on two separate levels. Our coaching staff are being conservative with Blitzes not pass rushing. When Jones went down we struggled to find any D-lineman who was getting enough pressure on pass rushes and this was not down to play calling just lack of ability across the board. And this was outside called blitzes.

But hey if you want to say I am attacking your opinion fair enough. I wont reply to you in future. I am not about to change my posting style. You have your opinion I have mine. If I offended you my apologies.

Hazys

No Sanders

Son Of A Vidic

counterlock wrote: »

You guys' posts can come across as very insular at times. Any opinion slightly differing from your own seems to get attacked rather than discussed.

Are you accusing me of being insular? Sorry to use an crude expression here but that's horseshít. And that's how strongly I feel about such an accusation. And where did I attack anyone for that matter? I gave my clear view on what I see as the defensive priorities and nothing more. I always respect other posters views in this thread and forum (Apart from those who clearly troll or bait others). And no, that latter comment is not directed at you.

I know TO can fight his own battles, but I think you also directing that insular commentary at him is totally ridiculous. He's a veteran poster in here with a passion for the game. I don't always agree with him, nor him with me, but I always respect and enjoy his contributions. So please stop throwing accusations around. I was actually enjoying our exchange until I came on this morning and read that.

Son Of A Vidic

The NFL today is fixated with the current trend for pass rush this, pass rush that, as if it is the miricale solution for all defences. We all know how the Pats built their dynasty on a fabled defense. Yet amazingly enough, by todays standards there wasn't a pass rushing superstar amongst them.

2001: total team sacks 41, Bobby Hamilton had the highest with 7 sacks.

2002: total team sacks 34, McGinest and Seymour had the highest with 5.5 sacks apiece.

2003: total team sacks 41, Mike Vrabel had the highest with 9.5 sacks.

2004: total team sacks 45, Willie McGinest had the highest with 9.5 sacks

Now look at 2012....

2012: total team sacks 37, Ninkovich had the highest with 8.

or even 2011...

2011: total team sacks 40, Carter and Anderson both hit double digits with 10 sacks apiece. Ninkovich had 6.5.

So it's pretty obvious with those figures that our current sack production isn't very different from our Championship winning years. Bruschi, Vrabel or McGinest never went out and got 16/17 sacks a season. Yet no one can question their legendary defensive status. That's because there's more to defending than simply pass rushing and sack production. The difference between then and now was, we had a strong secondary during those years. The defence had a strong balance. So getting our secondary to up its game for 2013, will go a long way to restoring that crucial balance from the championship years.

Son Of A Vidic

Hazys wrote: »

No Sanders

Pretty disappointed about that, we needed his speed . Drafting a field strecthing WR was still a necessity even if we had of landed Sanders. But it has got to be the No.1 priority now after this.

mongoman

counterlock wrote: »

You guys' posts can come across as very insular at times. Any opinion slightly differing from your own seems to get attacked rather than discussed.

As a regular lurker in here, I really think that is a totally unjustified commentary. I'm jealous to say, I think you guys have the best team thread on this forumn. The regulars in here always post some very good stuff. Tbh, I wish my team thread had the solid, hardcore fans you guys have here. :mad:

Gweedling

mongoman wrote: »

As a regular lurker in here, I really think that is a totally unjustified commentary. I'm jealous to say, I think you guys have the best team thread on this forumn. The regulars in here always post some very good stuff. Tbh, I wish my team thread had the solid, hardcore fans you guys have here. :mad:

Well said that man!

Hazys

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Pretty disappointed about that, we needed his speed . Drafting a field strecthing WR was still a necessity even if we had of landed Sanders. But it has got to be the No.1 priority now after this.

I'm not terribly disappointed if we resign Lloyd.

To me Saunders is only an upgrade on Lloyd because of his age and possible upside so a 3rd round pick was a steep price to pay imo, especially since we had no gaureentee of him signing a long term contract


Our WR roster is like this:

Kamar Aiken
Danny Amendola
Jeremy Ebert
Julian Edelman
Andre Holmes
Michael Jenkins
Donald Jones

Pretty pitiful to be honest and to me, its now an way bigger concern than our Secondary. I know we have Pass Catchers in Gronk and Hernandez also but that really only leaves us with 3 premium pass catchers (including Amendola) and then a load of below average pass catchers and nothing to scare anybody deep or outside.

I think we need to resign Lloyd and draft a WR in the first or second round for me to be anyway confident about our passing catchers going into the season.

TO.

counterlock wrote: »

You guys' posts can come across as very insular at times. Any opinion slightly differing from your own seems to get attacked rather than discussed.

You know I apologised for mis-reading most of your post last night and its not often I do so but when I do I always make sure to apologise. But this part right here is eating on me and its been a long time since someones comment online did so, contrary to belief. Syferus thinks his sh1t bothers me but in truth most stuff on here does not. I enjoy the banter.

My posts are also cocky and for the most part argumentative. I am an arrogant pr1ck and when I am passionate about a subject I can get carried away but I never take it personal again contrary to what most who don't know me over the years believe. As for the angry stuff I just have to facepalm to that. Anyone that knows me outside this would laugh at that angry poster nonsense also.

The fact you threw a blanket accusation over myself and few others in here is ridiculous at best. I have my ways of discussing things and if you don't like it so be it but don't come in here and take it personal and throw sh1t around. That is the job of a mod not you. If you don't agree hit the report button.

I am sick of people accusing me of this and accusing me of that. This is the internet. Everything and anything is up for discussion especially on forums. If you don't agree click the X in the top right corner.

Half of this AF forum wouldn't last 10 seconds in the coaches forums I use and I mean that. You want to see some heated football debates that keep people coming back you should see these debates. Everyone doesn't agree but no one whines and throws accusations or stupid personal sh1t at others.

This forum has been built around the fact most of us long term posters in here can argue until a debate goes nowhere and still get on with it without going personal. We tend to do the usual thing guys do is scrap and then shake hands afterwards. Over the last few years it has annoyed me how people come in a take everything personal and throw up random sh1te and wonder why their posts get attacked. Or when someone throws up a huge post even if they make mistakes all of a sudden we are attacking them.

I am sure this post has now crossed over the back seat modding line and that is fair enough but if you don't like my posts put me on ignore. So many keep having a go but yet wont put me on ignore and still comeback and have a go. Nonsense it is.

So now lets become men and dust ourselves off and shake hands and get on with talking about football. It is that simple.

Son Of A Vidic

Hazys wrote: »

I'm not terribly disappointed if we resign Lloyd

At this stage, I'd be happy to have Lloyd back. He didn't provide the deep threat we hoped for, but I reckon he could be even more productive next season with 2012 under his belt. I read somewhere that with Welker, Lloyd and Woodhead gone Brady has lost 62% of all pass catchers from last season. :eek:

Tbh, I'm a bit sick of Brady getting this treatment. No QB has ever gone through the turnover in WR's than he has down the years. And none has ever been deprived of truly elite WR's the way he has. I think when we look back in years to come, it will only show how truly great he was.

TO.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

At this stage, I'd be happy to have Lloyd back. He didn't provide the deep threat we hoped for, but I reckon he could be even more productive next season with 2012 under his belt. I read somewhere that with Welker, Lloyd and Woodhead gone Brady has lost 62% of all pass catchers from last season. :eek:

Tbh, I'm a bit sick of Brady getting this treatment. No QB has ever gone through the turnover in WR's than he has down the years. And none has ever been deprived of truly elite WR's the way he has. I think when we look back in years to come, it will only show how truly great he was.

If we do go for Lloyd again we would most likely get him cheap also as very few teams have shown interest in him. I also think he is the best of a bad bunch and Brady had begun to trust him more towards the end of the regular season and playoffs.

Son Of A Vidic

TO. wrote: »

If we do go for Lloyd again we would most likely get him cheap also as very few teams have shown interest in him. I also think he is the best of a bad bunch and Brady had begun to trust him more towards the end of the regular season and playoffs.

Ya I agree, Brady had to force it with him early on. But there did seem to be a connection forming in the later part of the season. I reckon he could go 1000Yards plus and add another 3 or 4 TD's to last season numbers. Which is nothing to be sniffed at really. And nearly forgot, Lloyd was pretty durable last season, which is a rare commodity amongst our WR's.

JaMarcus Hustle

I'd take Lloyd back in a hearbeat rather than trusting us to find a WR in the draft or free agency, something we have a frankly appalling record at.

Son Of A Vidic

JaMarcus Hustle wrote: »

I'd take Lloyd back in a hearbeat rather than trusting us to find a WR in the draft or free agency, something we have a frankly appalling record at.

Our WR drafting record is pretty dire alright. Edelman is the best develomental WR we've managed under the Belichick era. Bringing Lloyd back makes so much sense, but I do think we really need to draft some young talent. Especially with the depth in this years draft class.