Jump to content


Community Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Wilmington NC

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Ed_Formerly_of_Roch's Achievements


Veteran (6/8)



  1. Wow, didn't recall he was still here when Allen first arrived. I ha assumed he was gone prior.
  2. Agree, you're stuck, maybe you don't give him Rodgers/Mahomes/Allen type money, but enough that you have trouble fielding a good enough team around him. When you have a guy like Rodgers you can get away with not having elite talent around him, "Good talent" is good enough. Instead if you have the guy who's a good step below Rodgers who needs better talent, but not enough money left to pay everyone that's needed. But he's still showed enough those first 4 years, you can't just cut him and start over as the next guy may not even be as good as the guy you just cut. So now 6 or 7 years later, you have nothing to show for it and likely if you're the GM you're now also jobless.
  3. You probably have a better than 50/50 chance of being correct only because more QB's become flops than franchise types. I wil lsay in the past 5 years or so that trend is changing as more good QB's are entering the league. I also am wary of QB's who came from star studded college teams as hard to really know, how much did the QB elevate the play around him or did the other players help elevate the QB. But also recall Brady didn't look at that great first couple of seasons either, so will see. Think the rubber hits the road in 4 more years when due for his second contract. That's where teams get in trouble, paying big $$ for QB's that are good, but not great enough to lead a team to the top. Once the QB is making the big money, can't afford as many shiny new toys around him so the team regresses. See Tannerhill, Daulton, etc.
  4. When I opened this thread I was expecting to read Belichick and M Jone are both on the Covid list.
  5. Also are alot of NE fans in western NY just as all over the country. Teams winning every year change that, just like the Cowboys in the 60's and 70's
  6. Don't too often see this, Fox is not allowing an early game to be shown on CBS in Chicago. Or is it really the Bears forcing the blackout, not Fox?? NO GAME due to blackout enforced by home team on FOX
  7. We didn't activate Hart last two weeks when Brown was out, so don't see why that would change now.
  8. He does that at least twice a game. Think one time he threw it at the Lombardi trophy as they didn't win the SB by enough. Always throught he should have a sponsorship with Microsoft Surface the way he throws them.
  9. Agree completely. Fans were expecting at least close to the 2nd coming of Gronk. Maybe with great QB play would have got that too, who knows.
  10. I read the article to, the rankings were based somewhat off statistics, think the number he tended to give a higher weighting to was average yards per game. But also seemed to look at other things like one big year, or a high number of TD's per catches, etc. So ranking is rather subjective. The one thing he did state about Clay: He lasted four seasons and averaged 33.7 yards a game, highest for a Bills tight end. He ranks fourth in receptions and fifth in yards. Clay is the lone Bills tight end with three seasons of at least 525 yards. So he maybe was better than we recall, but as the whole article was intended to point out, the bar was pretty low to start with for TE's on the team. The top two guys also spent time on the offensive line too and Warlick's best year may have been in the CFL
  11. Fixed your list for you Maybe in Australian rules football you could do that!
  12. Comments: 1. Will be interesting to see what they do in place of White. NE has two good TE's too, something we often struggle against to start with. 2. Maybe be Groot has hit the rookie wall. Seems often rookies have trouble adjusting to the longer season. Hopefully Mac Jones has the same issue next week. Groot seems to be better agasint the run than the pass which is kind of unusual for a rookie. Even Bruce Smith had issues defending the run his first couple of years, though for him think it was more due to lack of effort than anything. I'm not one to complain much about penalties as I feel the even out, but do agree I even saw the tackle leave early. 5. Knox is playing real well, TE is a tougher spot for rookies to develop, add on he really was never featured much in the offense in college. It's taken him some time, but looking real good. People complain about Davis not playing, but between Knox improving and Sanders play, it is hard for Davis to see the field. Having said thta, would like to see him in more in place of Sanders, or even Beasley. 8. Not sure I put much stock in McKenzies comments about done for the season unless there's something else much worse going on behind the scenes than fumbling the KO. 9. Not sure McD's comment are going to effect things all that much if at all. Please stay home!
  13. That is true. Other than last week technically none were in the red zone.
  14. Was torn on the first one. Agree a Tenn loss helps us to potentially get the #1 seed. But we're still two games behind them based on the tie breaker and can't see them losing more than 3 games at most, and that's optimistic. So not sure we can catch them. On the other hand a NE loss yesterday and a win by Buffalo next week, we'd be in the drivers seat for the division, we could lose the 2nd NE game and Tampa and still win the division as long as they beat Carolina, Atlanta, and the Jets unless NE wins out. I will also say this, last year around this same time, thought there was no way we could catch the Chiefs for the #1 seed and in the end only were one game behind them, so who knows for sure.
  • Create New...