Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

PatsFanCT

Members
  • Content Count

    4,089
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

44 Excellent

About PatsFanCT

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday 03/31/1966

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Shelton, CT

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    New England Patriots

Recent Profile Visitors

6,957 profile views
  1. You didn't know who the reigning Super Bowl MVP was in 2002?
  2. I'm the one with the straw man. Recruit what other talent? The Bucs haven't had a free agency period SINCE HE'S BEEN ON THE TEAM. They also have 24M in cap room this year, with his contract already accounted for. Seriously what are you talking about. Ok you are right. They are a much better team with him despite what their record says. And the Jets are much worse off without him despite what their record says. So Gerald McCoy is a bad player because he's on a bad team too? This is so stupid I can't believe I'm even addressing it. God. This is nuts. Revis is still an elite CB. I can't believe PatsFan doesn't want him. Who is PatsFan, Robert Kraft? Seriously? Who wants to overpay for a schmuck who holds out every year for more money, then comes back out of shape, only to get hurt for most of the season. As I said, if they can get him cheap, and only pay on incentives, I'd be all for it. But the guy isn't worth the money that comes with him.
  3. Much more than they'd be willing to part with. God I hope so. As a Pats Fan, I want nothing to do with Revis. Unless they can get him for a 5th, and give him an incentive laden contract.
  4. Well, in a little over a quarter, he already has twice as many TD's than Weeden. So, there's that.
  5. Fair enough....to the bold, do we have actual numbers on this anywhere? I know there are individuals in very high positions within the tribal nation that have raised the lawsuits etc. Was that a personal motivation on their part or was there outcry from their tribes to represent them? Everything I find is anecdotal at this point. One blog will say it's terrible, another laughs at them and doesn't see the big deal. Are these folks raising the issue on their own and using titles to seem more important or are they acting on behalf of their tribes because the tribe members have come to them? Genuine question..... No idea, but I'm fairly comfortable assuming that it's more than just a small handful of crazy people, and that's enough for me. There's several Nations and lobbying organizations opposed to it, and I'm pretty sure they're not just speaking for one or two people. I don't know...that's why I'm asking. I find it odd that we don't really hear from folks outside the tribal leaders. That's not to say they're "crazy" by any stretch. My understanding is the community is divided. Some think it's nothing, some are offended. But really is it appropriate regardless? Not really. As a person with native blood it isn't the biggest agenda issue but then I wasn't raised on a reservation, I don't come from a family who had children stolen from them so they could be programmed to be white, etc. I am a related to someone who walked the Trail of Tears though according to genealogist. This is a good point. It may be that those born into a world that already had a football team named The Redskins aren't the ones being offended.
  6. What in God's name are you talking about? just trying to understand the line you've drawn...doesn't make sense to me either To me, names,mascots, and nicknames go hand in hand when it comes to team identification. If any of the three are deemed offensive, then change it. Doesn't seem to be that way for you. I haven't drawn a line, so maybe that's the source of your confusion? But if you insist on finding one, try out the one used by the Oneida chief as mentioned in the Zirin column. if you wouldn't use the name in front of a member of the minority group to describe one of their grandchildren, it's probably a slur and shouldn't be a team name. I seriously doubt anyone would have a problem describing Irish grandchildren as Irish. And by the way, let's stop with this ridiculous idea that "Fighting Irish" refers to drunken Irishmen starting bar brawls and is therefore a slur. That's total nonsense. Lots of team names/mascots include the adjective "fighting." It's just meant to toughen up an otherwise kinda dull description. No it's the picture of the mascot with his fists up in the fighting position and the expression of anger on his face that tends to lend to the slur more than anything else. With that said, I'm not sure how one can determine that it's "bad" or "good" without drawing a line, but whatever....carry on. I was just wondering what your personal opinion was on this stuff not other people's. I can see that you don't want to go there, so I'll stop asking. My personal opinion is that I think the Fighting Irish name is just fine, as is the mascot, although it is kind of a weird, creepy mascot. If there are Irish people don't like it, I've never heard about them. If I did hear about them I might change my mind, but I suspect that day will never come. My personal opinion is that the Redskins should change their name because there are a decent number of Native Americans who find it offensive. It does strike me as disrespectful to refer to a race as the "____skins" based on an exaggeration of their skin tone, but I care about what Native Americans think more than my gut reaction. Plus selfishly, I'm just tired of hearing about it, and if by some miracle they make it back to the Super Bowl, I want to spend two weeks reading about my favorite team and its players and coaches and fans, not a name controversy. Because Irish people don't get offended at stupid things. In fact, we don't really get offended about anything. The Redskins should stay the Redskins, and this topic should just go away. It's really pretty ridiculous. And I know that's going to offend many people here, all of which are not even Indian... I mean Native American. Notre Dame Pasty White Irish wouldn't last as a nickname. Not because it was offensive.
  7. What in God's name are you talking about? just trying to understand the line you've drawn...doesn't make sense to me either To me, names,mascots, and nicknames go hand in hand when it comes to team identification. If any of the three are deemed offensive, then change it. Doesn't seem to be that way for you. I haven't drawn a line, so maybe that's the source of your confusion? But if you insist on finding one, try out the one used by the Oneida chief as mentioned in the Zirin column. if you wouldn't use the name in front of a member of the minority group to describe one of their grandchildren, it's probably a slur and shouldn't be a team name. I seriously doubt anyone would have a problem describing Irish grandchildren as Irish. And by the way, let's stop with this ridiculous idea that "Fighting Irish" refers to drunken Irishmen starting bar brawls and is therefore a slur. That's total nonsense. Lots of team names/mascots include the adjective "fighting." It's just meant to toughen up an otherwise kinda dull description. No it's the picture of the mascot with his fists up in the fighting position and the expression of anger on his face that tends to lend to the slur more than anything else. With that said, I'm not sure how one can determine that it's "bad" or "good" without drawing a line, but whatever....carry on. I was just wondering what your personal opinion was on this stuff not other people's. I can see that you don't want to go there, so I'll stop asking. My personal opinion is that I think the Fighting Irish name is just fine, as is the mascot, although it is kind of a weird, creepy mascot. If there are Irish people don't like it, I've never heard about them. If I did hear about them I might change my mind, but I suspect that day will never come. My personal opinion is that the Redskins should change their name because there are a decent number of Native Americans who find it offensive. It does strike me as disrespectful to refer to a race as the "____skins" based on an exaggeration of their skin tone, but I care about what Native Americans think more than my gut reaction. Plus selfishly, I'm just tired of hearing about it, and if by some miracle they make it back to the Super Bowl, I want to spend two weeks reading about my favorite team and its players and coaches and fans, not a name controversy. Because Irish people don't get offended at stupid things. In fact, we don't really get offended about anything. The Redskins should stay the Redskins, and this topic should just go away. It's really pretty ridiculous. And I know that's going to offend many people here, all of which are not even Indian... I mean Native American. This is true. The Irish have long been known as a mellow, disinterested people, very difficult to agitate. Hey, I didn't say we didn't like to drink and fight.
  8. What in God's name are you talking about? just trying to understand the line you've drawn...doesn't make sense to me either To me, names,mascots, and nicknames go hand in hand when it comes to team identification. If any of the three are deemed offensive, then change it. Doesn't seem to be that way for you. I haven't drawn a line, so maybe that's the source of your confusion? But if you insist on finding one, try out the one used by the Oneida chief as mentioned in the Zirin column. if you wouldn't use the name in front of a member of the minority group to describe one of their grandchildren, it's probably a slur and shouldn't be a team name. I seriously doubt anyone would have a problem describing Irish grandchildren as Irish. And by the way, let's stop with this ridiculous idea that "Fighting Irish" refers to drunken Irishmen starting bar brawls and is therefore a slur. That's total nonsense. Lots of team names/mascots include the adjective "fighting." It's just meant to toughen up an otherwise kinda dull description. No it's the picture of the mascot with his fists up in the fighting position and the expression of anger on his face that tends to lend to the slur more than anything else. With that said, I'm not sure how one can determine that it's "bad" or "good" without drawing a line, but whatever....carry on. I was just wondering what your personal opinion was on this stuff not other people's. I can see that you don't want to go there, so I'll stop asking. My personal opinion is that I think the Fighting Irish name is just fine, as is the mascot, although it is kind of a weird, creepy mascot. If there are Irish people don't like it, I've never heard about them. If I did hear about them I might change my mind, but I suspect that day will never come. My personal opinion is that the Redskins should change their name because there are a decent number of Native Americans who find it offensive. It does strike me as disrespectful to refer to a race as the "____skins" based on an exaggeration of their skin tone, but I care about what Native Americans think more than my gut reaction. Plus selfishly, I'm just tired of hearing about it, and if by some miracle they make it back to the Super Bowl, I want to spend two weeks reading about my favorite team and its players and coaches and fans, not a name controversy. Because Irish people don't get offended at stupid things. In fact, we don't really get offended about anything. The Redskins should stay the Redskins, and this topic should just go away. It's really pretty ridiculous. And I know that's going to offend many people here, all of which are not even Indian... I mean Native American.
  9. I liked him a lot in NE. When he played, which was pretty much just the preseason. I liked him better than Cassel too. I don't think there's going to be a drop off from Weeden at all. But, I might be a little on the bias side.
  10. This is crazy talk. "NO" doubt?? Not even a little?? I can't call it any better than 50-50, and even at those odds I would bet he finishes outside the top 5. What would make him any worse than he has been the last half dozen years? Yes, I have NO doubt. He isn't worse, but his weapons are directly related to how good his stats can be. Gronk missing half the year hurts. Welker gone and Amendola is made of glass. Who knows on hernandez. It has nothing to do with whether or not Brady is a worse player or not, cause he isn't. Not to mention Manning looks like he will score better. Ryan also. SOme other guys can be top 5 pretty easily like Newton, Wilson, Kaepernick. Saying NO doubt means it's a sure thing. Sorry, it is NOT a sure thing A lot of assuming here. Gronk may not even miss a game. Amendola is healthy, younger and faster than Welker. And Hernandez is more likely to be there than not. They also have a bunch of very interesting rookie WR prospects in camp to go along with Donald Jones. Yeah, I have NO doubt Brady will be top 5. You can have all the doubt you want, but I don't have any. Any doubts yet, PatsFanCT?? Nope. Not at all.
  11. Word from the reporters on hand was that Gronk had a hard time moving around at the signing. Adjust your rankings accordingly. Drop him down to #5.
  12. I own him too and am the farthest thing from aBB supporter but every coach does that. Every coach doesn't run up the score. I disagree.IIRC, Gronk was hurt while attempting to put the 52nd point on the board while up 51-24. I'm pretty sure any other player could have stood on the end of the line in place of him. You're right. Every coach doesn't run up the score. No coach does. That's probably because there's no such thing as "running up the score" in professional sports. You're such a good disciple. Thanks. At least I don't believe silly little things like "Running up the score" and that Gronk shouldn't have been in the game for an extra point. Then I'd be an idiot.