SouthNYfan

Whaley was a trash GM. Stahp.

I'm offended you are watching that.

You're right. Whaley didn't fake a crime. He blatantly committed them as GM.

Beasley is one of the best short guys out there. He absolutely is the perfect thing to help Allen in the underneath. I wanna see them draft hock also at te.

I don't think it's meaningless at all, I think we were both oversimplified with our stance. I would say Beasley is the #1 even if he's a slot guy (so it's tyreke Hill) , with Foster and brown at #2/3 coinflip I agree completely on Brown, something doesn't add up with his production vs what he's stated to be

I don't disagree with a whole with your thought process, but I think diminishing Foster into "his stats were because the defense messed up" is a bit simplified We can agree that he's at least shown enough to warrant him being on the roster this year, and that he goes into the season clearly locked ahead of Zay and behind brown and Beasley

Broken coverages happen all the time. You're acting like we shouldn't count Foster's statistics on plays that the defense broke down Come on dude. John. We agree. The world is coming to an end ? Bro. You said Zay is above Foster and has a better chance of making the team.

I think you should reread my post, my dude. I don't think either will be cut by day 1 (barring injury or a big rookie being drafted) but if I had to pick one, it's going to be Zay getting the axe. I think the only 3 wrs that are a current lock are: Beasley Brown Foster The rest are fighting for a spot, with Zay being the favorite only due to his familiarity with the system. Thanks dude.

Nobody is getting snaps ahead of anybody right now bud. It's off-season. Foster destroyed Zay when given the opportunity to start. I was really down on Foster prior to him being given a chance. I was definitely wrong. Not sure how else to explain it to you, but Foster produced much more than Zay when given the opportunity to actually play. Stash away. Boom.

That's awesome. That one is on my list. Really cool set!!

You're also a 41 year old man with a Muppet for an avatar... Which is equal parts creepy and awesome at the same time I mean I'm a 36 year old who giggled at the poop joke and still plays with Legos (even though I swear they are for my kid...) ??

There's probably an entire category on xvideos.

How many threads you gonna post this on today ??

They are better with gronk than without by a significant margin, at least statistically. Similar to the chiefs before and after hunt got cut. Basically the question is can you replace a Hof player with a replacement level player and keep winning? You can when you have the depth and scheming of the Pats. They are the devil.

The sith have unnaturally long lifespans. I had it in another thread, Brady's numbers with gronk on the field vs without gronk is the equivalent of Aaron Rodgers vs Ryan tannehill (I believe these numbers are since gronk came into the league)

14-6 if you really want to be technical about Casell went 11-5 It was 0-0 when Brady guy hurt NFL stats say Brady got the win bc he started but Cassel is the reason they won So okay 77.4 vs 70% 7% difference really. Tom is a huge reason, but my point was that with or without Brady they still won a good % of games. Doc was saying that because the win % didn't change drastically without gronk that he wasn't important. The win % not changing drastically without Brady, by his assessment that he applied to gronk, would imply that Brady wasn't that important either. They both were very important and impactful, and looking just at records with vs without doesn't tell the whole picture.

Well. Now that we've insulted each other and gone on about this... If that's your stance on Brady as well then I think we can just agree to disagree, but I think we can both be on board that life in Buffalo and the NFL will be better off without Brady and BB.

Why is it another discussion?? YOU stated that the pats win the same without gronk, therefore he's not that important, Brady is the key. You brought Brady into it. I showed you a statistic that the pats win an identical, if not higher, percentage of the time without Brady than with. Therefore, by your own method of assessment, Brady is not important to them winning.

He failed to hit 700 yards because he didn't play die to injury He was dominant when he played You can say you think longevity and availability (or lack of both) count against him, but he was dominant when he played

Reading is hard for you. He had a significant effect on their offense. I guess the back that they went something like 19-5 without Brady during his injury and suspension means that Brady isn't that important to their winning either, right? The pats are like 79% without Brady. Guess he's not important either, right??

I'd say that gronk was an equivalent level of dominance as brown I do know gronk dropped in the draft because of back injury concerns so the pats knew the risk

Sorry. Eli wouldn't have a second ring ??

Yeah I forgot to post the link I was at work and got interrupted Docs argument was that gronk isn't in consideration for the goat TE because the pats still won a bunch of games without him so he obviously didn't matter By that argument Jordan should be removed since the bulls still won 55 games and a playoff series without him the year he retired to play baseball. The pats were a very very good team without gronk, and absolutely all time great with him. While the QB is the most important, trying to marginalize gronks greatness by saying the pats won a bunch without him is just asinine. BB completely changed up their game plans with gronk out and adapted as such. Gronks injuries are the only reason Eli has any rings, as those Giants teams couldn't defend te at all.

How about you get your head out of your own ass. "And yes, Brady and the Patriots won the Super Bowl two years ago without Gronkowski playing (coming from 28-3 in case you haven’t heard). Even with those games included, here are the splits for Brady with and without Gronkowski since the latter entered the league in 2010: With Gronkowski: 113 games, 2771 of 4332 (65.5%), 33217 pass yards (7.85 YPA), 255 pass TDs, 55 INTs Without Gronkowski: 30 games, 711 of 1182 (60.2%), 8198 pass yards, 51 pass TDs, 22 INTs If we translate that to a per-16-game rate for each, we get the following: With Gronkowski: 392 of 599, 4703 pass yards, 36 TD, 8 INT Without Gronkowski: 379 of 630, 4372 pass yards, 27 TD, 12 INT Okay, but it may be hard to put those numbers in context. The “With Gronkowski” numbers are basically identical to Aaron Rodgers since the start of his career. The “Without Gronkowski” numbers are similar to Ryan Tannehill, if he completed fewer passes but threw for slightly more touchdowns" So Aaron Rodgers vs tannehill numbers with and without him on the field. Maybe you should really do your research before you start running your mouth.

What's the odds that Kiko and Barr are two of the 38 "dislikes" on the YouTube video??