rcaido
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2014
- Messages
- 2,394
- Reaction score
- 658
quadsas":bxm3awt6 said:rcaido":bxm3awt6 said:quadsas":bxm3awt6 said:rcaido":bxm3awt6 said:So you guys would rather have Wilson play somewhere else?
We had so many key injuries & had very respectable record & so close to beating a very healthy Packers team on the road.
Pete is fine, we just didn't have enough depth. Imagine we had Carson & Penny. Imagine Disley instead of Hollister. Imagine we had Josh Gordon instead of Turner. How about Britt instead of Hunt.
We win if the guys caught the ball or stop them on 3rd down. Its not pretty but we win way more than we lose.
We should be winning more
You think a coaching change would do that? Only Belicheat has more wins than Pete since Wilson arrived. Seahawks had the most playoff wins since Pete started for the Seahawks behind the Patriots. I think Pete is winning enough.
We don't know. But what I do know is that Wilson wins despite terrible rosters and piss poor gameday decisions. Brees, Rodgers etc have shown that they can't do it. Only Brady and Wilson have. And you will very rarely hear anyone say that Belichick didn't utilise Brady well.
So basically you have a full house but you willing to trade up your pair and hopefully get a 4 of a kind?
We have a very successful team. A very young team, that's only going to get better. Why not continue to build our defense. Wilson will handle the offense no matter what.
Changing Pete Carol just seem way too extreme & ridiculous to me.