Armstead Unlikely To Play

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

    Armstead Unlikely To Play

    http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/patriots/content/20131111-armstead-unlikely-to-play-this-season.ece

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    Must be some hack with an anti-BB agenda.

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    I meant the writer, not Armstead.

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    I wonder how the writer can state that the infection is "apparently" related to his heart issues? That is either a typo or there is some new information that I haven't seen reported anywhere. Or the writer is making it up on his own.

    The only statement I'm aware of was when Armstead had the surgery and BB said then that it wasn't related.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I wonder how the writer can state that the infection is "apparently" related to his heart issues? That is either a typo or there is some new information that I haven't seen reported anywhere. Or the writer is making it up on his own.

    The only statement I'm aware of was when Armstead had the surgery and BB said then that it wasn't related.

    [/QUOTE]


    Nothing new, BB said it had to do with his heart when they NFI him.

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:

    Nothing new, BB said it had to do with his heart when they NFI him.



    Pretty sure he specifically said it had nothing to do with his heart or at least he said it didn't have anything to do with his previous heart problems. Link here

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Nothing new, BB said it had to do with his heart when they NFI him.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Pretty sure he specifically said it had nothing to do with his heart or at least he said it didn't have anything to do with his previous heart problems. Link here

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    my bad, misread it.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    So our savior isn't coming?

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I wonder how the writer can state that the infection is "apparently" related to his heart issues? That is either a typo or there is some new information that I haven't seen reported anywhere. Or the writer is making it up on his own.

    The only statement I'm aware of was when Armstead had the surgery and BB said then that it wasn't related.

    [/QUOTE]

    Is it Jim Donaldson?  I'll wait for Perillo, Curran or Reiss to report it before buying this piece of propaganda from Donaldson.  Guy is infamous as the Borges of the Providence Journal.

    [/QUOTE]

    Just ask rkarp. I'm sure he could fill you in if you will just listen.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    So our savior isn't coming?

    [/QUOTE]


    I've been here for years, brah. I'm saving you guys from boredom.

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    So our savior isn't coming?

    [/QUOTE]


    No.  Does this surprise you?  Were people on here calling this an epic signing when it happened?  I'm sure there were some who did.

    There was a reason he was not in the NFL.  Did Bill not get the memo?  Or was it stuck to the Hernandez draft notes that didn't get looked at.

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    It might have been a great signing had he actually played.

    The surgery was for an 'infection'.  I may be that the doctors just don't want to okay him especially if this was a heart infection like endocarditis.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jetsbarf. Show jetsbarf's posts

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play


    Hey Fletcherbrook...isn't Uncle Rico your real uncle?...Is he still on the "bracelet" and does he still have to stay away from kids? When does he go back for his arraingment?  Did the DA tell you the difference in charges between "pedophilia" and "pederasty"? It must be awful not being able to take him to Jets games, I know how much you and your family love them...

    Tata for now!!!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcherbrook. Show Fletcherbrook's posts

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to jetsbarf's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Hey Fletcherbrook...isn't Uncle Rico your real uncle?...Is he still on the "bracelet" and does he still have to stay away from kids? When does he go back for his arraingment?  Did the DA tell you the difference in charges between "pedophilia" and "pederasty"? It must be awful not being able to take him to Jets games, I know how much you and your family love them...

    Tata for now!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Hey Harvey 2...or is it 3...4...5...6....

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to stillgridlocked's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It might have been a great signing had he actually played.

    The surgery was for an 'infection'.  I may be that the doctors just don't want to okay him especially if this was a heart infection like endocarditis.

    [/QUOTE]

    Who knows. BB's statement at the time was that the infection was a "different situation" when asked whether it was related to his heart condition.  It could be that it's MRSA, just like the infection which ended Carl Nicks' and Lawrence Tynes' seasons and maybe their careers, and has ended other careers and left other people dead. 

    Regardless, for this writer to make that connection when no such information has been released by the team or the player or anybody else, is incredibly irresponsible. 

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play


    What an idiot BB is. He pinned his hopes and dreams on this kid, spent multiple 1st rd draft picks on him and forked over our remaining 4.1 million in cap room to get him. No chance we make the playoffs without him. Another example of how little BB knows about talent evaluation.  

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    Oh no.  An undrafted player from the Canadian League isn't going to suit up.

    How will they ever win now?

    The way this guy is talked about around here, you'd think it was Suh's twin brother minus the extra dirty play.

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to Uncle Rico's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    No.  Does this surprise you?  Were people on here calling this an epic signing when it happened?  I'm sure there were some who did.

    There was a reason he was not in the NFL.  Did Bill not get the memo?  Or was it stuck to the Hernandez draft notes that didn't get looked at.

    [/QUOTE]

    It was a good signing honestly. Almost no cost and worth the risk, provided it didn't prevent them from wanting to get one early in the draft or signing a vet in FA. If it did then it's a face palm, as you said some on here thought he'd be like an extra 2nd round pick and contribute right out of the gate.

    This offseason is really starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth and some of it is bad decisions while others is just bad luck.

    • Washington for Woodhead just a bad decision
    • Amendola for Welker another bad decision (2 good games out of 9 for almost the same price doesn't add up)
    • A. Wilson seriously bad decision. Still wonder why so many jumped on me for seeing the obvious with him
    • Kelly just bad luck
    • Armstead is a bad decision if it affected their decision making regarding DT's for the rest of the offseason, bad luck otherwise
    • Arrington.......... yeah that money could have been better spent

    Looking at it was there any moves they made this offseason that actually worked out this year whether from bad luck, injury, or bad decision making? Oh Blount worked out pretty well and for what they paid for Edelman on PR alone worked out well but he was one guy I did want back and had people ask why after getting Amendola :p

     

     

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Uncle Rico's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    No.  Does this surprise you?  Were people on here calling this an epic signing when it happened?  I'm sure there were some who did.

    There was a reason he was not in the NFL.  Did Bill not get the memo?  Or was it stuck to the Hernandez draft notes that didn't get looked at.

    [/QUOTE]

    It was a good signing honestly. Almost no cost and worth the risk, provided it didn't prevent them from wanting to get one early in the draft or signing a vet in FA. If it did then it's a face palm, as you said some on here thought he'd be like an extra 2nd round pick and contribute right out of the gate.

    This offseason is really starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth and some of it is bad decisions while others is just bad luck.

    • Washington for Woodhead just a bad decision
    • Amendola for Welker another bad decision (2 good games out of 9 for almost the same price doesn't add up)
    • A. Wilson seriously bad decision. Still wonder why so many jumped on me for seeing the obvious with him
    • Kelly just bad luck
    • Armstead is a bad decision if it affected their decision making regarding DT's for the rest of the offseason, bad luck otherwise
    • Arrington.......... yeah that money could have been better spent

    Looking at it was there any moves they made this offseason that actually worked out this year whether from bad luck, injury, or bad decision making? Oh Blount worked out pretty well and for what they paid for Edelman on PR alone worked out well but he was one guy I did want back and had people ask why after getting Amendola :p

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It wasn't washington for woodhead, it was vareen for woodhead, and it was a no brainer.

    WW chose to leave the team for less money? Should BB have forced him to stay? Amendola isn't a bad consolation prize either.

    Adrian Wilson was well worth the shot in preseason as we needed a physical presence and obviously needed d back depth as we drafted 3 more of them. Im sure you would have solved the problem easily by signing Goldson as you already taught us how 4 million in salaRy cap room is actually a whole bunch....well as long as you rearrange the entire roster to free up more space, then it's a whole bunch, but as it is its 4.1 million.

    How would armstead affect the roster decision when he was an injury case and never even practiced?

    Arrington has already proven he is a great slot cb, just has trouble playing out of position, which further reinforces the need for d back depth which BB took care of this year.....Good try today eng, you worked reall y hard at trying to make BB look bad. It just didn't work....again.

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Uncle Rico's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    No.  Does this surprise you?  Were people on here calling this an epic signing when it happened?  I'm sure there were some who did.

    There was a reason he was not in the NFL.  Did Bill not get the memo?  Or was it stuck to the Hernandez draft notes that didn't get looked at.

    [/QUOTE]

    It was a good signing honestly. Almost no cost and worth the risk, provided it didn't prevent them from wanting to get one early in the draft or signing a vet in FA. If it did then it's a face palm, as you said some on here thought he'd be like an extra 2nd round pick and contribute right out of the gate.

    This offseason is really starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth and some of it is bad decisions while others is just bad luck.

    • Washington for Woodhead just a bad decision
    • Amendola for Welker another bad decision (2 good games out of 9 for almost the same price doesn't add up)
    • A. Wilson seriously bad decision. Still wonder why so many jumped on me for seeing the obvious with him
    • Kelly just bad luck
    • Armstead is a bad decision if it affected their decision making regarding DT's for the rest of the offseason, bad luck otherwise
    • Arrington.......... yeah that money could have been better spent

    Looking at it was there any moves they made this offseason that actually worked out this year whether from bad luck, injury, or bad decision making? Oh Blount worked out pretty well and for what they paid for Edelman on PR alone worked out well but he was one guy I did want back and had people ask why after getting Amendola :p

    [/QUOTE]

    PatsEng is one of the best posters, IMO. He presents exactly what a forum comment should present, for discussion. A clarified opening statement, 6 points of interest and a closing statement.

    Just discuss the subject matter, if you have a dispute. PatsEng is not a troll nor a Bellichick basher. He is among many other solid posters whom discuss moves, positive/negative of our GM, That's all.

    Armstead was just unfortunate, like he says. I'm fairly sure Jenkins was still on the draft board or another good DT. I Won't go into the Woodhead release. Woody played with Vareen last year, why not both? Too bad Talib has concerns, etc

    Good Post PatsEng

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to palookaski's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Uncle Rico's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    No.  Does this surprise you?  Were people on here calling this an epic signing when it happened?  I'm sure there were some who did.

    There was a reason he was not in the NFL.  Did Bill not get the memo?  Or was it stuck to the Hernandez draft notes that didn't get looked at.

    [/QUOTE]

    It was a good signing honestly. Almost no cost and worth the risk, provided it didn't prevent them from wanting to get one early in the draft or signing a vet in FA. If it did then it's a face palm, as you said some on here thought he'd be like an extra 2nd round pick and contribute right out of the gate.

    This offseason is really starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth and some of it is bad decisions while others is just bad luck.

    • Washington for Woodhead just a bad decision
    • Amendola for Welker another bad decision (2 good games out of 9 for almost the same price doesn't add up)
    • A. Wilson seriously bad decision. Still wonder why so many jumped on me for seeing the obvious with him
    • Kelly just bad luck
    • Armstead is a bad decision if it affected their decision making regarding DT's for the rest of the offseason, bad luck otherwise
    • Arrington.......... yeah that money could have been better spent

    Looking at it was there any moves they made this offseason that actually worked out this year whether from bad luck, injury, or bad decision making? Oh Blount worked out pretty well and for what they paid for Edelman on PR alone worked out well but he was one guy I did want back and had people ask why after getting Amendola :p

    [/QUOTE]

    PatsEng is one of the best posters, IMO. He presents exactly what a forum comment should present, for discussion. A clarified opening statement, 6 points of interest and a closing statement.

    Just discuss the subject matter, if you have a dispute. PatsEng is not a troll nor a Bellichick basher. He is among many other solid posters whom discuss moves, positive/negative of our GM, That's all.

    Armstead was just unfortunate, like he says. I'm fairly sure Jenkins was still on the draft board or another good DT. I Won't go into the Woodhead release. Woody played with Vareen last year, why not both? Too bad Talib has concerns, etc

    Good Post PatsEng

    [/QUOTE]

    Once Vareen was healthy, he took the majority of Woodhead's snap counts.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to palookaski's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Uncle Rico's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    No.  Does this surprise you?  Were people on here calling this an epic signing when it happened?  I'm sure there were some who did.

    There was a reason he was not in the NFL.  Did Bill not get the memo?  Or was it stuck to the Hernandez draft notes that didn't get looked at.

    [/QUOTE]

    It was a good signing honestly. Almost no cost and worth the risk, provided it didn't prevent them from wanting to get one early in the draft or signing a vet in FA. If it did then it's a face palm, as you said some on here thought he'd be like an extra 2nd round pick and contribute right out of the gate.

    This offseason is really starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth and some of it is bad decisions while others is just bad luck.

    • Washington for Woodhead just a bad decision
    • Amendola for Welker another bad decision (2 good games out of 9 for almost the same price doesn't add up)
    • A. Wilson seriously bad decision. Still wonder why so many jumped on me for seeing the obvious with him
    • Kelly just bad luck
    • Armstead is a bad decision if it affected their decision making regarding DT's for the rest of the offseason, bad luck otherwise
    • Arrington.......... yeah that money could have been better spent

    Looking at it was there any moves they made this offseason that actually worked out this year whether from bad luck, injury, or bad decision making? Oh Blount worked out pretty well and for what they paid for Edelman on PR alone worked out well but he was one guy I did want back and had people ask why after getting Amendola :p

    [/QUOTE]

    PatsEng is one of the best posters, IMO. He presents exactly what a forum comment should present, for discussion. A clarified opening statement, 6 points of interest and a closing statement.

    Just discuss the subject matter, if you have a dispute. PatsEng is not a troll nor a Bellichick basher. He is among many other solid posters whom discuss moves, positive/negative of our GM, That's all.

    Armstead was just unfortunate, like he says. I'm fairly sure Jenkins was still on the draft board or another good DT. I Won't go into the Woodhead release. Woody played with Vareen last year, why not both? Too bad Talib has concerns, etc

    Good Post PatsEng

    [/QUOTE]


    PatsEng has been decidedly anti Pats front office for a while now. He tends to project things in the worst possible light. He also uses 20-20 hind sight like people can predict the future. Cases in point:

    Washington for Woodhead is rediculous.

    Amendola for Welker is also rediculous since Welker wasn't going to stay a Pat no matter how much money the Pats threw his way.

    A Wilson a seriously bad decision? He cost the team nothing and probably taught the young guys a thing or three while here.

    Kelly was good till he got injured, injuries happen and contrary to his belief, cannot be predicted. Actually using his logic, Mayo, Wilfork, Brady, Gronk and Vollmer were all bad decisions.

    Need I say more?

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    Not entirely certain what the major issue is here.  Armstead cost the Pats nothing and my very well produce quite a bit going forward.  I'd like to see him play this year but if he doesn't then we'll see him next year.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not entirely certain what the major issue is here.  Armstead cost the Pats nothing and my very well produce quite a bit going forward.  I'd like to see him play this year but if he doesn't then we'll see him next year.

    [/QUOTE]


    not if he has a heart attack....

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

    Re: Armstead Unlikely To Play

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    PatsEng has been decidedly anti Pats front office for a while now. He tends to project things in the worst possible light. He also uses 20-20 hind sight like people can predict the future. Cases in point:

    Washington for Woodhead is rediculous.

    Please explain how that is rediculous. Vereen and Woodhead were both around last year and Vereen hasn't been healthy during his time with the Pats. It's clear they wanted to get a backup for him which is why they got Washington so Washington for Woodhead is the right comparison to make.

    Amendola for Welker is also rediculous since Welker wasn't going to stay a Pat no matter how much money the Pats threw his way.

    Again please explain why this is rediculous. You have no more proof saying he wouldn't sign no matter what then I do if they made him a better offer. So if you judge that as rediculous then your statement is just as rediculous.

    A Wilson a seriously bad decision? He cost the team nothing and probably taught the young guys a thing or three while here.

    He cost the team $1.5mil in cap space and the potential of adding a different player to the roster that could have helped them. Not to mention dead money next year if they cut him. How is that nothing?

    Kelly was good till he got injured, injuries happen and contrary to his belief, cannot be predicted. Actually using his logic, Mayo, Wilfork, Brady, Gronk and Vollmer were all bad decisions.

    I said Kelly was just bad luck and have said it was a good signing

    Need I say more?

    [/QUOTE]

    Call it 20/20 but since this offseason I said repeatedly I thought A. Wilson wasn't a good signing, that I didn't like swapping Woodhead for Washington, and that Amendola was a bad signing over Welker because of injury concerns. I have no clue how you call it hindsight when I said this stuff last March before the start of the season but by all means if saying something before it happens is hindsight I guess I have hindsight. But, I have it out for the front office. Truthfully after all these years on this board and rooting for the Pats I'm negative not because I saw faults and mistakes which have hurt the team but because I have it out for the FO. Yep, you caught me

     

Share