Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    Amendola had a fine year, similar to what a Patten might do for the Pats, production wise, back when Brady was a better QB, sadly enough.



    This post is insane.  Danny did not have a fine year.  He was great in the first game of the season.  After that he was simply inconsistent.  That being said Welker would not have saved this team and it's not like he made any difference in the outcome yesterday other than taking out Talib.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from aussiewill2. Show aussiewill2's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Back to the destructive Amendola contract. It always seems to come back to that. But can someone please tell us how it's so awful? How did a $3.5 mil cap hit cripple this team?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It;s the little things that kill muzz. What is Amendola going to cost this season? What does a guy like Vollmer cost, because he signed a reasonable deal too, yet he didn't help one bit. Then you have Adrian Wilson...didn't cost much of anything, yet he never made it past camp. Tommy Kelly was awesome for two games, then him and his little contract did nothing to help this team. Talib is a relative bargain, yet you can count on him to go down in the biggest game of the season (and many others)...how did his "cheap" five million dollar deal help us yesterday? Or last January against Baltimore? I'm going to be driving in my car today and I'm going to hear the exact same radio people talk about the exact same stuff regarding Talib as they did last year...imagine that? We signed a injury prone corner and what happened? He got injured every single time we needed him.

    What do all these reasonable contracts add up to? Garbage...expensive garbage. I'm not an expert in contract totals, but by my count that is 17 million dollars in cap money for this season and this season only. Now that is how the little things kill, because 17 million could of bought us at least one player that could of helped us win yesterday, and I'd be willing to bet two. We just spent 17 million dollars on 5 players THAT DID VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO HELP US THIS YEAR. I'll say Talib helped when he was healthy, but it's a guarantee he won't stay healthy.  

    [/QUOTE]

    BB passed on Dez Bryant, gave him to Jerry Jones for a 4 th round pick, how's that one working out. I think Bryant had some minor character issues, but he was then and is now one heck of a receiver. I remember at the time when Bryant was still on the board when the Pats pick was up, I said wow now we get the receiver we need. Bingo BB trades the pick. The guy will be in Canton when he's done, and who do we get Amendola. 

    For those who say he wasn't a cap buster or who try to justify Amendola, the facts are he played 12 games in two years for St Louis, hurt all the time. That should have been enough info to pass on the guy. 

    BB isn't expected to know when he's signing a closet thug, or one who beats his dog, or one who associates after dark with criminals, but he should be able to read a medical report. LEOPARDS DO NOT CHANGE THIER SPOTS.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jozee76. Show jozee76's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another in a long long long long list of poor decisions by the GM.

    [/QUOTE]


    THIS is the Elephant in the room!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jozee76. Show jozee76's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    In response to Footballexpert45's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We traded the Patterson pick away for picks that produced Collins, Ryan, and Boyce, plus a seventh round pick that was eventually part of the Blount deal.  Now I like Collins and Ryan, but I think we could have gotten them in other ways, and really, don't we desperately need a top-quality bigger, faster WR? We had one right there in the draft, but let him walk so we could go fishing for depth in late rounds.  At some point, we need impact players.  Value and depth are great things, but ultimately, talent wins championships and we need some of that too.

     

    Cordarrelle Patterson to Pro Bowl Updated: January 3, 2014, 11:42 AM ET ESPN.com news services

    Minnesota Vikings rookie Cordarrelle Patterson has been added to the Pro Bowl as a return specialist, the team announced Friday.

     

    Patterson Patterson

     

    Patterson will replace the Steelers' Antonio Brown, who was voted to the game at two different positions. Brown, however, will still play wide receiver, as he got more votes at that position.

    Patterson is a candidate for offensive rookie of the year after becoming the first NFL player to record four receiving, three rushing and two kick returns in a season. He added 469 receiving yards and 158 rushing yards. He also averaged 32.4 yards per kickoff return, third highest in league history since the 1970 merger.

    The game will be played Jan. 26.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pats draft value, not talent.

    [/QUOTE]


    How's that working out for us!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever


    Amendola caught 67% of his targets, he improved Brady's completion % for the year. Maybe he should have had more then 1 target yesterday.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    Yep.  Brady wasn't all that accurate or good yesterday.  That's the bottom line.

     



    Only in your little world.  The whole team sucked.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    Where is rallyc? Lol

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    I actually assume that Amendola can and will replicate the stats Edelman put up this year. I see the issue as too much duplication between Edelman, Amendola, Collie. Team needs a WR that can go up and get the ball over or thru a CB. Maybe down the road, that is Dobson.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Amendola caught 67% of his targets, he improved Brady's completion % for the year. Maybe he should have had more then 1 target yesterday.

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe he should have gotten open yesterday too but nether happened

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    I think Amendola is worth keeping - you can't cut him or trade him anyhow.

    He had a terrible injury and wasn't the same; played hurt. 

    I say he has a great year next year. 

    then people will claim they were with him "all the time" and knew he "would produce if healthy!"

    That's usually how it works around here.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think Amendola is worth keeping - you can't cut him or trade him anyhow.

    He had a terrible injury and wasn't the same; played hurt. 

    I say he has a great year next year. 

    then people will claim they were with him "all the time" and knew he "would produce if healthy!"

    That's usually how it works around here.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Except he's always hurt so how do you know he wasn't the same? Injury prone player is yet again injured all year and you think it will change next year? I agree we can't cut him because the cap hit next year would be way too much but really you can't use the injury excuse when everyone knew coming in that he's injury prone.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Dobson and Thompkins are supposed to provide that, but are they really any good? Still to be seen . . . 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    And yet you think Cordarrelle Patterson is some great player because he made the pro bowl as an alternate KR.  Bethel freaking Johnson could return kicks and Patterson put up roughly the same numbers as Dobson while playing all 16 games.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure if Patterson will be a star, but I think he has more raw athletic talent than a lot of others.  He put up those numbers in Minnesota, which is a running team with a lousy QB. He also started to come on as a redzone receiver late in the year, where his size really made a difference. Put him with Brady and I bet he would be much more productive. 

    I'm not sure he's the answer, but during the draft this struck me as a move we could live to regret.  We'll see.  

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I'm not sure if Patterson will be a star, but I think he has more raw athletic talent than a lot of others. 



    Maybe, but so did Chad Jackson.  The knock on Patterson was that he was more of an athlete than a player.  I just think it's crazy to say Dobson is an unknown and Patterson isn't.  You're a good guy and now that I have read my past few posts I realize I might have been blasting you a bit too hard.  I guess we're all a bit frustrated with how the season ended.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    We traded the Patterson pick away for picks that produced Collins, Ryan, and Boyce, plus a seventh round pick that was eventually part of the Blount deal.  Now I like Collins and Ryan, but I think we could have gotten them in other ways,

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This is insane.  If Collins and Ryan sucked then everyone would be whining about how we traded Patterson for them.  If they don't suck "we could have gotten them anyways".  Basically you can spin the trade down as a bad deal no matter the outcome.  Great.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If you draft Patterson, you would likely have to forgo three middle round players from the group that included Collins, Dobson, Ryan, Harmon, and Boyce.  The question really comes down to weighing the value of five mid rounders against one top rounder and two mid rounders. You would have lost a seventh round pick too, but in the seventh round you're dealing with guys who are very likely available as UDFAs if you don't draft them. 

    I understand the fact that having a few extra picks in the mid rounds is good since many of those mid rounders are going to bust-out and more picks gives you better odds of finding a good guy, but at the same time I've seen an awful lot of Belichick's mid rounders end up on the cutting floor. 

     

     

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I'm not sure if Patterson will be a star, but I think he has more raw athletic talent than a lot of others. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe, but so did Chad Jackson.  The knock on Patterson was that he was more of an athlete than a player.  I just think it's crazy to say Dobson is an unknown and Patterson isn't.  You're a good guy and now that I have read my past few posts I realize I might have been blasting you a bit too hard.  I guess we're all a bit frustrated with how the season ended.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    We'll see, of course.  I'm not sure Patterson was the right guy, but Patterson was really looking strong by season end as a receiver, returner, and rusher (on end arounds). Dobson may have been more impressive if he weren't hampered by injury, but he wasn't all that big a contributor after mid season. 

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from stinkman. Show stinkman's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think Amendola is worth keeping - you can't cut him or trade him anyhow.

    He had a terrible injury and wasn't the same; played hurt. 

    I say he has a great year next year. 

    then people will claim they were with him "all the time" and knew he "would produce if healthy!"

    That's usually how it works around here.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course it is. They put no accountability on Brady and just run around trying to scapegoat.

    [/QUOTE]

    He played poorly too rusty .. Ill admit that. But it tough to run when u get the ball once in third quarter then in the fourth down 16 . They weren't going to run the ball DH yesterday. But yes u are right brady played poorly too. But the D was not good as well

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    Brady wasn't very good either Babe but of course you'll be leaving that out of your attack posts

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    Difficult to evaluate a player who played hurt all year. Still had better production than Harvin in Seattle this year (or 2012 with Vikes) anyone want to tell the 'Hawks it's time to get rid of him.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stinkman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think Amendola is worth keeping - you can't cut him or trade him anyhow.

    He had a terrible injury and wasn't the same; played hurt. 

    I say he has a great year next year. 

    then people will claim they were with him "all the time" and knew he "would produce if healthy!"

    That's usually how it works around here.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course it is. They put no accountability on Brady and just run around trying to scapegoat.

    [/QUOTE]

    He played poorly too rusty .. Ill admit that. But it tough to run when u get the ball once in third quarter then in the fourth down 16 . They weren't going to run the ball DH yesterday. But yes u are right brady played poorly too. But the D was not good as well

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude, the D has been decimated by injuries.  I just don't want 4 talented and healthy RBs standing on the sidelines fiddling with themselves against a weak Denver D like that.

    They were ripe for the picking.   We let them off the hook because they didn't come out pounding the rock early and often.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong. Blount was stonewalled early. Yesterday shouldn't have been a Blount day. We had no business trying to pound it up the gut of Denver's d. Yesterday should have been a Ridley and Vereen day, running off tackle and on the edges. Bad gameplan offensively by mcd and bb.

     

Share