Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

 

The numbers simply don't support that.

 

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2017/12/6/16740258/patriots-defense-improvement

 

"Stephon Gilmore’s improvement in that stretch has been a major factor for the defense’s overall jump forward, too. During the team’s first four games, he surrendered nine catches on 13 targets for 151 yards, one touchdown, and one pick for a 101.8 passer rating against (74th). In his five games since (he missed weeks 6-8 with a concussion and ankle injury), he’s given up just 18 catches for 164 yards, one touchdown, and one pick for a 67.7 rating—15th best."

 

That means that after allowing 9 receptions on 13 targets for 151 yards and 1 TD for a 101.8 rating in his first 4 games, Gilmore went on to allow 39 receptions on 69 targets for 459 yards and 2 TDs for a passer rating of 77.2 in his final 9 games, including the playoffs.

 

He was actually really, really good after the first month of the season.

I get that I am using eye test and perception over numbers.

 

But to be clear no one in NE was happy with Gilmore early on as the numbers attest and he was singled out as liability. Yes he got it together and played better in last 9 games he played and made a heck of a play to save the Jags game for them. That pic of him selling out to tip that ball was a thing of beauty and something he never did in Buffalo.

 

You are correct he played better then I implied. The facts don't lie. I was biased I admit.

3 hours ago, Turk71 said:

I think Gronk becomes a clown in the WWE before that happens.

Pats treat players like packages of hamburger in the freezer with a sell by date.

 

It would not surprise me if they traded Gronk. He is injured all the time and getting old fast and talking about retirement. May be time to dump him.

Edited by cba fan
Posted
15 minutes ago, cba fan said:

I get that I am using eye test and perception over numbers.

 

But to be clear no one in NE was happy with Gilmore early on as the numbers attest and he was singled out as liability. Yes he got it together and played better in last 9 games he played and made a heck of a play to save the Jags game for them. That pic of him selling out to tip that ball was a thing of beauty and something he never did in Buffalo.

 

You are correct he played better then I implied. The facts don't lie. I was biased I admit.

Pats treat players like packages of hamburger in the freezer with a sell by date.

 

It would not surprise me if they traded Gronk. He is injured all the time and getting old fast and talking about retirement. May be time to dump him.

I fully understand the Pats are not sentimental. My point was I think Gronk would move on to other things before playing somewhere else.

Posted

Report: Seahawks to release Richard Sherman in next two days
Seahawks to allow star defensive back to get a head-start on free agency

 

"They're doing that because they feel so highly about him and what he's meant to the organization," Silver said on NFL Total Access. "They want to give him a jump on free agency. I'm told that if the market is not great, they are open to bringing him back at a lower salary. 

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/Bolt/Report-Seattle-Seahawks-to-release-Richard-Sherman-in-next-two-days-115954445

Posted

Can’t stand him. Glad to see him cut. 

 

With that, I’m surprised to see the Seahawks clean house like this. 

 

With new coaches and a fairly overhauled roster, I think we will finally see the kind of coach Carroll is 

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Doc said:

Gilmore was another good let-go.

 

 

 

For the Pats he was. 

 

For the Bills, letting him go was forced on them by the awful salary cap situation the last GM left. A salary cap situation which has been greatly improved but is still tight enough this year to make acquiring Sherman unlikely and difficult even if they did want him as a 30 year old CB.

Edited by Thurman#1
Posted
53 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

For the Pats he was. 

 

For the Bills, letting him go was forced on them by the awful salary cap situation the last GM left. A salary cap situation which has been greatly improved but is still tight enough this year to make acquiring Sherman unlikely and difficult even if they did want him as a 30 year old CB.

 

The Bills weren't going to re-sign him even if they had loads of cap room.  Pretty much a similar situation to Sammy except they were able to get something for Sammy.  And they got a better, younger, and cheaper player in White. 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

The Bills weren't going to re-sign him even if they had loads of cap room.  Pretty much a similar situation to Sammy except they were able to get something for Sammy.  And they got a better, younger, and cheaper player in White. 

 

 

There's no particular reason to think this is so. With either guy, Sammy or Gilmore. But yes, a pretty similar situation. We would probably like to have re-signed them in ideal circumstances but terrible cap management made it punitive to do so. Gilmore had already performed well and was considered an excellent CB, while Sammy was more considered a guy with the potential to be an excellent WR. Couldn't afford either one, though.

 

And yeah, the Sammy decision was made easier by being able to get the pick and Gaines in exchange.

 

When there is a guy the Bills have problems with it doesn't seem to be real hard to notice. Look at Dareus. Everyone knew about the problems. Strangely, nobody did or does with Sammy or Gilmore except fans. 

Edited by Thurman#1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

There's no particular reason to think this is so. With either guy, Sammy or Gilmore. But yes, a pretty similar situation. We would probably like to have re-signed them in ideal circumstances but terrible cap management made it punitive to do so. Gilmore had already performed well and was considered an excellent CB, while Sammy was more considered a guy with the potential to be an excellent WR. Couldn't afford either one, though.

 

And yeah, the Sammy decision was made easier by being able to get the pick and Gaines in exchange.

 

When there is a guy the Bills have problems with it doesn't seem to be real hard to notice. Look at Dareus. Everyone knew about the problems. Strangely, nobody did or does with Sammy or Gilmore except fans. 

 

With Sammy there is/was.  He even admitted it himself that he was a bad teammate and focused more on his stats than winning.  And his production didn't match his contract demands. 

 

As for Gilmore, I think they'd have re-signed him for $7-8M/year.  But that wasn't going to happen.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

As for Gilmore, I think they'd have re-signed him for $7-8M/year.  But that wasn't going to happen.

 

They offered him $11M AAV...he rejected it.

×
×
  • Create New...