Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Will Ocho be back?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
113 replies to this topic

#51 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28210 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 09:59 AM

I think he's gone. I get that the Pats playbook is complicated, but Chad showed no progress during the season. He behaved, but his talent level no longer justifies the potential distraction. He's old. Where is the upside here? I think the Pats would be best served moving on.

#52 collings94

  • PipPip
  • 1182 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:13 PM

I can't see how, Tiquan Underwood virtually played him to a draw.

#53 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 5104 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 08:21 PM

I don't buy that he's gone or its a foregone conclusion that he's lost a step. However I do not have a good alternative explanation as to why he was so rarely utilized.

It's possible that without a normal offseason he was never comfortable with the playbook and the adjustments that come with it. While I don't believe he doesn't know the plays, I do buy that he and Brady may have never worked enough to get on the same page as far as adjustments go. Take that and couple it with the amount of no huddle we ran, where if he wasn't on the field for play #1, he wasn't getting on for anything in the no huddle string of plays.

I really do believe that he became Branch insurance as the season wore on, and that for some reason Underwood saw some meaningful snaps that should have been Chad's. I do know that the few times on the final drive that he ran the out, Brady didn't look that way, but he was open. What happens to Chad will largely be determined by how he looked in practice this year. I know, I know, if he looked that good in practice, where was he on gameday? But if we keep him BB knows something we didn't see. I just don't think its foregone that he's lost a step.

#54 pappymojo

  • 1438 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 08:48 PM

Depending on his cap impact, do they have to cut him if they don't want him? Would another team be willing to trade maybe a 6th round pick to try him out in a different situation?

#55 Salva135


  • Cassandra


  • 1143 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 09:30 PM

I don't buy that he's gone or its a foregone conclusion that he's lost a step. However I do not have a good alternative explanation as to why he was so rarely utilized.

It's possible that without a normal offseason he was never comfortable with the playbook and the adjustments that come with it. While I don't believe he doesn't know the plays, I do buy that he and Brady may have never worked enough to get on the same page as far as adjustments go. Take that and couple it with the amount of no huddle we ran, where if he wasn't on the field for play #1, he wasn't getting on for anything in the no huddle string of plays.

I really do believe that he became Branch insurance as the season wore on, and that for some reason Underwood saw some meaningful snaps that should have been Chad's. I do know that the few times on the final drive that he ran the out, Brady didn't look that way, but he was open. What happens to Chad will largely be determined by how he looked in practice this year. I know, I know, if he looked that good in practice, where was he on gameday? But if we keep him BB knows something we didn't see. I just don't think its foregone that he's lost a step.


Enough with the excuses, he had plenty of time all season long to become even moderately productive. People wanting to give Chad more time sound like Jets fans wanting to give Sanchez more time because he's "still developing." You're wishing on a star.

#56 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 5104 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 10:50 PM

I'm not making excuses. I just don't feel his lack of playing time was because he lost a step. I don't know why, doubt I ever will, but this isn't a case of an ops of 850 going to 650 on back to back 500 AB seasons.
I'm sure he'll play somewhere next year, we'll know more in 10 months...

#57 ZP1

  • 184 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:48 AM

Honestly, I think Ocho's lack of playing time stemmed from two main factors:

1.) A horrible early start in terms of learning the system/building up Brady's trust.

2.) Deion Branch and the Gronk/Hernandez super combo.

In order for Ocho to become one of Brady's favorite targets, he would have needed to grasp the system and immediately start playing as well as Randy Moss did back in 2007. The fact that he had a rough start meant that even when he did get the hang of things, Brady would be more keyed in on what he knew was working as opposed to taking chances with Ocho.

Whether or not Ocho stays depends a lot on if BB thinks that Ocho can be better than Branch if given a full off season to iron things out with Brady. Personally, I think at this point Ocho can do more for the Patriots that Branch, and do it cheaper at the same time. I expect some sort of mega contract restructuring for Ocho, or a cut and resign type of arrangement being worked out. Ocho still has a lot of talent - it was simply given crappy circumstances in which to develop this year.

#58 soxhop411


  • SoSH Member


  • 10090 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:54 PM


Christopher Price @capeleaguer

RT @SBJLizMullen: Source: New England Patriots have approached Chad Ochocinco about restructuring his contract. #NFL


Details


#59 drleather2001


  • given himself a skunk spot


  • 14290 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 09:22 AM

I'd be glad to see him back as a 3rd/4th WR. I assume this means Branch is gone.

#60 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 9756 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:26 AM

I'd be glad to see him back as a 3rd/4th WR. I assume this means Branch is gone.


Bedard seems to think he'll be back:

Branch can contribute on the cheap - no one else is going to sign him.

http://www.boston.co...ason/?page=full

Also, he spoke to Jason Cole of Yahoo.com:

Ran into Deion Branch at combine on Sat. He said he talked to Pats briefly, optimistic he'll be back. "Gotta retire as a Pat," he said.



#61 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8795 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:50 AM

I'd be glad to see him back as a 3rd/4th WR. I assume this means Branch is gone.


They're both going to be cheap so you bring them both in and you just see what happens in camp. Maybe you keep both and maybe you cut both; neither result would surprise me.

#62 bsj


  • Renegade Crazed Genius


  • 15447 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:02 AM

I can live with Ocho being back provided that

a) he is willing to restructure his contract to that of a #3/#4 WR
b) he is willing to BE a #3/#4 WR
c) bringing him back does not preclude us from keeping Welker (which I doubt it will)
d) bringing him back does not take us out of the picture for a #1 field stretching WR...

A 1-4 of Lloyd, Welker, Ocho, Branch would make me very happy

Edited by bsj, 29 February 2012 - 11:02 AM.


#63 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8795 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:06 AM

I can live with Ocho being back provided that

a) he is willing to restructure his contract to that of a #3/#4 WR
b) he is willing to BE a #3/#4 WR
c) bringing him back does not preclude us from keeping Welker (which I doubt it will)
d) bringing him back does not take us out of the picture for a #1 field stretching WR...

A 1-4 of Lloyd, Welker, Ocho, Branch would make me very happy


Lloyd is pretty good but at this point he's not the field stretching number one that you're thinking of-he's 31 and the wheels aren't what they once were.

#64 bsj


  • Renegade Crazed Genius


  • 15447 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:10 AM

Lloyd is pretty good but at this point he's not the field stretching number one that you're thinking of-he's 31 and the wheels aren't what they once were.


the thing is, with the TEs we have and Welker, the field is already being stretched in so many different directions....I dont think we need the exceptional deep thread others do...that said, I would prefer VJ if we can have anyone there, but I dont see how that happens.

#65 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8795 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:20 AM

the thing is, with the TEs we have and Welker, the field is already being stretched in so many different directions....I dont think we need the exceptional deep thread others do...that said, I would prefer VJ if we can have anyone there, but I dont see how that happens.


Agreed.

Personally I'm partial to adding young receivers rather than older guys; I'm a believer in the old Bill Walsh philosophy that you build offense through long term continuity, and the receivers are getting old. Give me Sanu or Randle or maybe K. Wright late in the first and Jarius Wright in the third and hopefully one of them is ready to contribute pretty early on and hopefully they both are able to turn into productive players for the long term.

Edited by Shelterdog, 29 February 2012 - 11:28 AM.


#66 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15003 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:52 PM

1. Branch will be back either for the vet minimum plus incentives, or for just over the vet minimum plus incentives. He has lost a step and half (or more) but still knows how to get open and run routes. If Welker is NOT back, I would expect Branch to slide into the slot and for his catch total to rise (not to Welker levels because Hernandez/Gronk will take some of that, plus RBs as check-downs, etc.)

2. Chad Johnson will be a Patriot (for the first time) after he restructures the contract. Bedard has the cap hit at $3.17M if he's cut - WAY too much to pay a guy to go away, unless he's 100% cooked. I think Chad will be more productive in 2012 and I'm not sure what else he has to do to "prove" he's willing to be the 3rd/4th WR - he's proven that, IMO.

3. I still maintain that Welker will not be franchised OR signed long term, that Lloyd is not coming to NE unless he switches agents and that spending a 1st round pick on anyone but Mike Wallace (i.e. a known impact player) is lunacy. Kendall Wright's 40-yard dash time was a great development for my theories - he's now a mid-2nd rounder and still a perfect fit - a big play WR who plays faster in pads & game situations than he does at dog & pony shows. Another veteran WR - Pierre Garcon, Mario Manningham - who is left looking for a chair after Jackson/Bowe/Welker/etc. find new homes is another addition. Add a UDFA and the position group is set for camp. YMMV but this remains the only scenario where the majority of available cap space isn't frittered away on the 3rd & 4th pass catching options.

#67 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 9756 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:41 PM


Chad Ochocinco @ochocinco

Restructuring is fine, the fun part is finding ways to make it back up during offseason RT @thusIsam: how's the restructuring contact going?

https://twitter.com/#!/ochocinco/status/174941652165722112
link to tweet

#68 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15003 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 03:01 PM

Welcome, Chad Johnson. New name, new season, new contract, new endorsement opportunities. I hope he sells the TV rights to his wedding for a couple million.

#69 crystalline

  • 2184 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 09:10 AM

From Bedard in the globe:

The more people I talk to about Ochocinco, the more convinced I am that itís never going to work for him in this offense. It just seems like heíll never get it. But depending on the other moves, he could be back under a restructured contract, then subject to a release. The team and players loved having him around. He was a terrific teammate, just not even close to being effective.


Coupled with 85's tweet and Caserio's comment about "he's under contract therefore he'll be here", this suggests the bestcase scenario for the Pats: he's back on a cheap contract and works his ass off this offseason.

I wonder why people think he'll never get the offense. Getting on the same page w/ Brady?

#70 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8795 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 09:26 AM

From Bedard in the globe:


Coupled with 85's tweet and Caserio's comment about "he's under contract therefore he'll be here", this suggests the bestcase scenario for the Pats: he's back on a cheap contract and works his ass off this offseason.

I wonder why people think he'll never get the offense. Getting on the same page w/ Brady?


In the never ending debate of "how hard is it to learn the Pats offense" one school of thought is that the offense is different enough from many other NFL offenses, in particular that it requires a lot of post snap adjustments, that some players (Donald Hayes and Joey Galloway stand out) can just never figure it out. It's like learning to speak french with a good accent; you can work all you want but some people just never get there.

The flip side is that other than Ben Watson, who was at least good enough in NE to start for years, no one has ever left NE and done better elsewhere, so "lack of physcial talent when at NE" is a plausible answer as well.

#71 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15003 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:28 AM

And Watson was Wonderlic Wonder - sharp guy.

But I agree with SD's assessment - and I think that if he doesn't have the accent by the end of camp, he'll be cut. No reason not to lower the cap hit and pay a roster bonus now, especially if you think he might not make it out of camp. Don't put off to tomorrow what you can pay for today.

#72 quint


  • I learned this face in prison


  • 2187 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:10 PM

You certainly went from new season, new name to cut by camp in no time flat.

#73 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15003 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:14 PM

Not if you've read the entire thread.

#74 quint


  • I learned this face in prison


  • 2187 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:24 PM

Meh. If you think I'm wading through the entirety of your ramblings for incidental coherence you're sorely mistaken.

#75 dbn

  • 3210 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:35 PM

I don't know. I suspect it isn't so much that he doesn't "get" the offense as much as his skill set doesn't fit well in the Patriots offense. If this is the case, he will probably never have much impact for this team. (Note that I'm a fan of his and continue to hope that he does play well for NE in 2012.)

#76 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15003 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:55 PM

Meh. If you think I'm wading through the entirety of your ramblings for incidental coherence you're sorely mistaken.


Yeah, it's totally out of line for me or anyone else to expect you to read the fucking thread, you lazy twat.

http://sonsofsamhorn...ost__p__3962771
http://sonsofsamhorn...ost__p__3962842

#77 dbn

  • 3210 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:01 PM

From a fanboy perspective I'd like to see both Branch and Ocho return. However, it may not be a wise use of roster space to have two receivers in the same-ish role: older guy who isn't a top-3 option, can give you some plays but can't play special teams.

I do think they should bring another (or two) receiver(s), either through the draft or free agency. So who goes? They had 5 WRs on the roster at years end (Underwood being the 6th if he hadn't been cut): Welker, Branch, Ochocinco, Edelman and Slater.

You don't let Slater go (special teams ace) or cut Edelman (special teams, versatility) so that you can keep both Branch and Ochocinco. They can bring everyone back and add a WR if they keep 6 WRs. Might they? Maybe. However, I suspect they'll add two WRs and one or two of the 5 are danger of being left without a chair. I'd be surprised if Welker isn't with the Patriots in 2012. Edelman's cap hit (according to Miguel's page) is trivial. Slater is a FA; I suspect he'll be re-signed, but if he isn't it opens a spot for another WR (though it creates a hole on ST). It may be that one or both of Branch/Ocho don't return; Branch isn't under contract and it'd cost money to clip Ocho, but that has to be weighed against the Brady/Branch same wavelength thing (and the fact that Branch was the better receiver in 2011).

WWBBD? I have no idea.

#78 quint


  • I learned this face in prison


  • 2187 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:06 PM

Yeah, it's totally out of line for me or anyone else to expect you to read the fucking thread, you lazy twat.

http://sonsofsamhorn...ost__p__3962771
http://sonsofsamhorn...ost__p__3962842


Or you could just come to the realization that I was pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in your consecutive two posts of #'s 68 and 71.

My over all theme however was your posts aren't nearly as valuable as you believe them to be, so there is no real need for me to go back and read them.

#79 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8795 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:23 PM

Or you could just come to the realization that I was pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in your consecutive two posts of #'s 68 and 71.

My over all theme however was your posts aren't nearly as valuable as you believe them to be, so there is no real need for me to go back and read them.


There's no inconsistency between hoping a guy does well and saying he might get cut. And if you can't be bothered to read the thread, then don't bother to post in it.

I don't know why you need to be so nasty every time you post. It wouldn't bother me if you were smart or funny, but you are neither.

Fuck off and welcome to the pink.

#80 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 11091 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:25 PM

Or you could just come to the realization that I was pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in your consecutive two posts of #'s 68 and 71.

My over all theme however was your posts aren't nearly as valuable as you believe them to be, so there is no real need for me to go back and read them.


Are you telling me you don't think it's a good idea for the Patriots to let Welker/Ocho walk for nothing/3.6 mil and throw more to RB out of the backfield? If that's the case, you have another thing coming from Soxfan121.

Edited by Dogman2, 01 March 2012 - 03:26 PM.


#81 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 11091 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:30 PM

There's no inconsistency between hoping a guy does well and saying he might get cut. And if you can't be bothered to read the thread, then don't bother to post in it.

I don't know why you need to be so nasty every time you post. It wouldn't bother me if you were smart or funny, but you are neither.

Fuck off and welcome to the pink.


Wait, what?

Soxfan said in that first post he hopes he does well. In his second he says cut him and pay the 3.6 now. In the other WR threads he advocates not paying longterm or tagging Welker so the RB can catch more out of the backfield.

To sum up: Cut Ocho and pay the 3.6 now ( and hope he does well) and not sign or tag Welker becasue he is too expensive.

It's very inconsistent.

Edited by Dogman2, 01 March 2012 - 03:32 PM.


#82 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15003 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:32 PM

You might find the posts more useful if you did bother to read them. I've said: he wouldn't be cut now, the money didn't make sense and if he didn't perform in camp he'd be cut then.

Aside from not valuing my opinion or reading what I write - you got any other posting tips for me? Or, you know, any opinion on Chad Johnson?

#83 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8795 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:33 PM

Wait, what?

Soxfan said in that first post he hopes he does well. In his second he says cut him and pay the 3.6 now. In the other WR threads he advocates not paying longterm or tagging Welker so the RB can catch more out of the backfield.

To sum up: Cut Ocho and pay the 3.6 now and not sign or tag Welker becasue he is too expensive.

It's very inconsistent.


In the second he says cut him at the end of camp if he's not playing well. Now there's certainly some changes in SF121's thinking over time on Ocho but not in those two posts. But more to the point, it's just not cool to go apeshit for no reason.

Edited by Shelterdog, 01 March 2012 - 03:38 PM.


#84 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 11091 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:36 PM

In the second he says cut him at the end of camp if he's not playing well. Now there's certainly some changes in SF121's thinking over time on Ocho but not in those two posts.

But the more important point is that Quint went apeshit on SF121 for no reason.


Yes he did say that. He also said cut him now and just pay the money because he won't learn the offense by the end of camp. His evidence is he didn't learn the offense after an entire season, so why keep him on through another camp. It doesn't jive with letting Welker go for nothing because of cost.

#85 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15003 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:38 PM

Soxfan said in that first post he hopes he does well. In his second he says cut him and pay the 3.6 now. In the other WR threads he advocates not paying longterm or tagging Welker so the RB can catch more out of the backfield.


Link, please. You are asserting something that is not true.

Second, that's an incredible over-simplification of the argument I made for allowing Welker to go. The primary reason never was "RB catch more" and stating it that way shows you also have reading comprehension difficulties. But at least you read it - one or two sentences out of the hundreds I written on that subject.

#86 SMU_Sox


  • loves his fluffykins


  • 5075 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:38 PM

I just want to add that changing your mind over time is not a crime. If your opinion evolves with more evidence or from someone else's ideas that's a good thing people. Why can't we all get along?

#87 quint


  • I learned this face in prison


  • 2187 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:38 PM

I'd like it explained how I went apeshit. Not here obviously, don't derail the thread entirely.

Edited by quint, 01 March 2012 - 03:39 PM.


#88 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 11091 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:41 PM

Link, please. You are asserting something that is not true.

Second, that's an incredible over-simplification of the argument I made for allowing Welker to go. The primary reason never was "RB catch more" and stating it that way shows you also have reading comprehension difficulties. But at least you read it - one or two sentences out of the hundreds I written on that subject.


http://sonsofsamhorn...ost__p__3996978

Bullshit on the oversimplification. You even said it's like I forgot Faulk was even on the team. I have reading comprehension difficulties when I read posts that make zero sense...like letting Welker go.

#89 Eck'sSneakyCheese


  • SoSH Member


  • 8612 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:42 PM

Maybe they're restructuring his contract so he can be traded? Because no one's going to want him for what he's being paid next year. Would he be worth a 4th rd pick to someone else?

That being said I still hope he sticks around. Having Chad as a 3rd or 4th option isn't terrible if the money ends up being right. I still don't know who stays and who goes.

I'd still like to bring in a FA and a draft pick but that would be 7 WR's (if Wes, Branch, Ocho, Edelman and Slater stay) and I don't see that happening. Someone's gotta go

#90 SMU_Sox


  • loves his fluffykins


  • 5075 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:43 PM

I'd like it explained how I went apeshit. Not here obviously, don't derail the thread entirely.


You could have been nicer about how you wrote this below.



Meh. If you think I'm wading through the entirety of your ramblings for incidental coherence you're sorely mistaken.


Was that really called for? I realize I'm on the side of being a care-bear here but the way you said that was antagonizing to 121. 121 qualifies a lot of his posts and opinions.

#91 SMU_Sox


  • loves his fluffykins


  • 5075 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:44 PM

Let me try this. Would most of us agree that if Ocho is struggling near the end of camp just getting the system he will be cut?

#92 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15003 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:47 PM

Yes he did say that. He also said cut him now and just pay the money because he won't learn the offense by the end of camp. His evidence is he didn't learn the offense after an entire season, so why keep him on through another camp. It doesn't jive with letting Welker go for nothing because of cost.


But I agree with SD's assessment - and I think that if he doesn't have the accent by the end of camp, he'll be cut. No reason not to lower the cap hit and pay a roster bonus now, especially if you think he might not make it out of camp. Don't put off to tomorrow what you can pay for today.


You're an idiot. There is no reason for the Pats to renegotiate his contract now and lower the cap hit and pay a roster bonus now in League Year 2011 unless he's going to camp. If you think he might NOT make it out of camp, then moving the cap hit to 2011/12 (and not into 2013, as any cut after June 1 would do) makes sense. Don't put off to tomorrow (2013) what you can pay today (2011's unused space, 2012's cap room).


The Pats keep Ocho, Branch leaves and another developmental WR is added.

If Chad is "struggling" with the offense in camp next summer, he might get cut. But they'll give him the off-season program and next season as it's the most cost-effective move.


No doubt - and they usually always structure deals so they can move on as quickly as possible if things go south. Haynesworth is a classic example.

If the money is that out of whack, Ocho will need to give back a significant portion to keep his roster spot. $2M or less would be fine with me, given the Pats RIDICULOUSLY good cap management.

Personally, I'd let Welker/Branch move on, lock up Ocho on a "we can dump you at the end of TC" reduced deal with incentives, draft a WR and throw the money at Mario Williams. Addressing the defensive problems should be where $ is allocated.

Seriously. Read the posts and argue what they SAY or don't and ignore me. This half-assed "inconsistency" crap and the gross over simplification of arguments is a waste of everyone's time.

Edited by soxfan121, 01 March 2012 - 03:48 PM.


#93 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 11091 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:47 PM

Let me try this. Would most of us agree that if Ocho is struggling near the end of camp just getting the system he will be cut?


Sure. Which means that he has all the leverage now to not restructure his deal. If he doesn't restructure and is cut he gets the 3.6. If he does restructure and gets cut he gets much less. He has the guarenteed deal, why would he restructure and potentially lose millions?

#94 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8795 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:50 PM

Sure. Which means that he has all the leverage now to not restructure his deal. If he doesn't restructure and is cut he gets the 3.6. If he does restructure and gets cut he gets much less. He has the guarenteed deal, why would he restructure and potentially lose millions?


I'm pretty sure his deal isn't guaranteed and he gets zero if he gets cut. There is a deferred component to his signing bonus but BbTL secret treasure Otto (who somehow has access to all kinds of crazy data) has said that that's truly deferred and already earned money.

Edited by Shelterdog, 01 March 2012 - 03:52 PM.


#95 quint


  • I learned this face in prison


  • 2187 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:57 PM

I realize I'm on the side of being a care-bear here but the way you said that was antagonizing to 121. 121 qualifies a lot of his posts and opinions.


This is where you and I are experiencing the disconnect. Most of what he writes is generally criticized for being ridiculous. The only reason all of it isn't is for the sheer volume he pumps out. The effort it would require to undertake such a task would be monumental, and really who cares that much?

No one, that's who.

#96 Mugsys Jock


  • Longtime Member


  • 4017 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:02 PM

Welcome, Chad Johnson. New name, new season, new contract, new endorsement opportunities. I hope he sells the TV rights to his wedding for a couple million.

Ocho (he's still Ocho) did a guest spot on Basketball Wives this weekend and had a very moving moment with Evelyn discussing his willingness to take a good hard shot at committing to her, and justifying her faith in him. I found him winning and convincing.

He may use the same speech on Brady.

PS. Evelyn is incredibly beautiful, so he's got that going for him.

#97 quint


  • I learned this face in prison


  • 2187 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:16 PM

Ocho (he's still Ocho).


This is another curiosity of mine as well. Is there any particular reason internet wunderkind soxfan121 insists on calling Chad Ochocinco, Chad Johnson? Was there some press release or tweet from Ocho stating that he was changing his last name back to the former?

I ask because I am legitimately amused by the potential responses, and sf has been beating this particular drum since Chad was acquired.

#98 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6733 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:17 PM

Chad said he was changing it back, supposedly for his wedding this summer

#99 bsartist618

  • 671 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:59 PM

This is another curiosity of mine as well. Is there any particular reason internet wunderkind soxfan121 insists on calling Chad Ochocinco, Chad Johnson? Was there some press release or tweet from Ocho stating that he was changing his last name back to the former?

I ask because I am legitimately amused by the potential responses, and sf has been beating this particular drum since Chad was acquired.

http://articles.bost...ozada-ochicinco
:c070:

#100 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15003 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 06:11 PM

This is another curiosity of mine as well. Is there any particular reason internet wunderkind soxfan121 insists on calling Chad Ochocinco, Chad Johnson? Was there some press release or tweet from Ocho stating that he was changing his last name back to the former?

I ask because I am legitimately amused by the potential responses, and sf has been beating this particular drum since Chad was acquired.


You add so much to this forum. I'll miss you.