- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Worst ESPN.com article ever
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:09 pm to 1ranter1
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:09 pm to 1ranter1
quote:
But still the article is basically saying the Pats don't have the weapons they had last season (at least on paper) and Tebow won't be giving them another weapon.
Tebow has nothing to do with the weapons on offense for the Pats.
Dude is trolling for page views.
Tebow plus Patriots demise....lets mash it together and make a shitty uniformed article!!!
3
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:10 pm to Sanchito
quote:
So the offseason additions, the fact that they have now established a good running game, and arguably the best offensive line in the league will not allow the Patriots to put up offensive number similar to last year?
Consistency in the NFL is hard to accomplish.
Brady is so good his supporting cast may not matter, but I don't see a problem with having questions.
I mean your offseason additions are Danny Amondola. If he stays healthy he will more than replace Welker but he is injury prone so more than 8-10 games would be a good accomplishment for him.
Hernandez is also a injury risk, and Gronks recent issues are well documented.
I don't agree with the article but what you have quoted from a poster about they're being questions marks with the skill players seems reasonable to me.
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:10 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
Tebow has nothing to do with the weapons on offense for the Pats.
Doesn't he play offense?
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:14 pm to BarbeTiger
quote:
Doesn't he play offense?
So does LeGarret Blount who the Pats traded for, but i didnt see Mr Smith calling that a desperation move by the Pats trying to solidify their offensive weapons
This post was edited on 6/10/13 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:16 pm to boXerrumble
Still better than anything Jemele Hill strings together.
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:17 pm to jacks40
quote:
Consistency in the NFL is hard to accomplish. Brady is so good his supporting cast may not matter, but I don't see a problem with having questions. I mean your offseason additions are Danny Amondola. If he stays healthy he will more than replace Welker but he is injury prone so more than 8-10 games would be a good accomplishment for him. Hernandez is also a injury risk, and Gronks recent issues are well documented. I don't agree with the article but what you have quoted from a poster about they're being questions marks with the skill players seems reasonable to me.
Look at the Pats WR corp in 2006 and then tell me if youve got any worries about the Pats being able to move the ball
And theres a way to raise questions about a teams roster without putting in bad info, making bad connections, and making hyperbolic statements that make you look stupid
This post was edited on 6/10/13 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:18 pm to boXerrumble
quote:
Worst ESPN.com article ever
That would be the one where Jamelle Hill went off about how if Barry Bonds was white he never would've been accused of steroid use and everyone would love him
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:19 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
So does LeGarret Blount who the Pats traded for, but i didnt see Mr Smith calling that a desperation move by the Pats trying to solidify their offensive weapons
Doesn't change the fact that signing Tebow is a terrible decision
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:20 pm to BarbeTiger
quote:
Doesn't change the fact that signing Tebow is a terrible decision
I never disagreed with that.
I disagreed that signing Tebow was out of desperation and was due to the lack of weapons on offense
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:20 pm to boXerrumble
Article not exactly wrong minus the desperation and downfall of the patriots.
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:22 pm to wildtigercat93
You sound distraught
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:23 pm to Moneyball
So distraught
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:26 pm to wildtigercat93
Are you a Patriots fan?
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:28 pm to BarbeTiger
Yes
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:29 pm to jacks40
quote:Welker was nothing before he got to New England, while one person might not catch 112 balls NE won't quit throwing it. Lloyd was shite and over paid which ended up leaving him jobless. Gronk is a luxury but does not make the NE offense. Ballard is also a viable option at tight end. New England would still move the ball and score points without any of these dudes and it wouldn't really be with less efficiency.
I don't agree with the article but what you have quoted from a poster about they're being questions marks with the skill players seems reasonable to me.
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:29 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
Are you a Patriots fan?
quote:
Yes
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:30 pm to wildtigercat93
That explains a lot
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:33 pm to Fearthehat0307
Some ugly dude tried to jump on the wagon this season and we told that hippie to GTFO, he was grossing everyone out
This dude
This dude
This post was edited on 6/10/13 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:34 pm to BarbeTiger
I don't think it's a terrible decision. He's a good player. Just not a good QB. They'll find a use for him. And they probably got him dirt cheap.
Posted on 6/10/13 at 8:36 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
Dude is trolling for page views.
And this is different from all other ESPN.com columns how?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News