"You don't say that if New England's not offering more money". That's still speculating and assuming. Again, shouldn't be hard to prove if he actually said it.
And furthermore people were quoting $30mil/year as the figure. If that's what he told the interviewer why not include it in article?
For fucksake, man. Take the L and move on.
As soon as someone shows Godwin quoting that amount. Otherwise you're just putting words in his mouth and hoping everyone just accepts the lies.
Y'alls relationship with honesty is shaky at best. Just like you telling me to move on from a conversation someone else quoted today.
"You don't say that if New England's not offering more money". That's still speculating and assuming. Again, shouldn't be hard to prove if he actually said it.
And furthermore people were quoting $30mil/year as the figure. If that's what he told the interviewer why not include it in article?
For fucksake, man. Take the L and move on.
it's not in his genes. he should change his name to SalmonBootz.. just always against the current-of-the-"casuals"
Quote is in the article actually as much as you don't want it to be:
You don't say that if New England's not offering more money.
Combine that coming from Godwin and multiple New England sources saying the Patriots offered more money than the Bucs in addition to other reporting on a national level hard to not conclude the story's true.
And as we've seen this season, teams will trade for players on IR who obviously can't pass a physical at the time of the trade.
"You don't say that if New England's not offering more money". That's still speculating and assuming. Again, shouldn't be hard to prove if he actually said it.
And furthermore people were quoting $30mil/year as the figure. If that's what he told the interviewer why not include it in article?
It's in quotes. From Godwin. Once again the quote from Godwin:
Godwin deeply appreciates all he has in Tampa. “If I ended up going to New England, it would have been solely based off money because everything else was telling me to stay here,” he says.
Grammar lesson: the 'he' in 'he says' is Godwin, we know this because of his name being used in the previous sentence and the use of 'I' in the quote. It's certainly not his agent, his wife or the journalist. Ergo, Godwin chose to stay in Tampa even though he could have gotten more money in New England because basic logic would tell most of us that when he says 'solely based off money' it means New England was offering him more as no one would go somewhere 'solely based off money' if they were going to be getting paid less.
And frankly, the amount doesn't matter. Godwin clearly states if it was about money, he'd be in New England. HE clearly sees it as he left money on the table to stay in Tampa.
"You don't say that if New England's not offering more money". That's still speculating and assuming. Again, shouldn't be hard to prove if he actually said it.
And furthermore people were quoting $30mil/year as the figure. If that's what he told the interviewer why not include it in article?
It's in quotes. From Godwin. Once again the quote from Godwin:
Godwin deeply appreciates all he has in Tampa. “If I ended up going to New England, it would have been solely based off money because everything else was telling me to stay here,” he says.
Grammar lesson: the 'he' in 'he says' is Godwin, we know this because of his name being used in the previous sentence and the use of 'I' in the quote. It's certainly not his agent, his wife or the journalist. Ergo, Godwin chose to stay in Tampa even though he could have gotten more money in New England because basic logic would tell most of us that when he says 'solely based off money' it means New England was offering him more as no one would go somewhere 'solely based off money' if they were going to be getting paid less.
And frankly, the amount doesn't matter. Godwin clearly states if it was about money, he'd be in New England. HE clearly sees it as he left money on the table to stay in Tampa.
So where is it quoted that he was offered more by New England? Not your speculating and assuming. Where did he say that for certain? Or are you admitting you're just assuming that's what he meant? It's very easy to prove he said it if he did.
And I'll say again, it's not even a discussion I quoted today. So you're barking up the wrong tree, kiddo.
Doesn't matter. You are a participant, are you not, kiddo?
And that's your problem. You dont believe in honesty. Because if we're being honest, I was done with the conversation yesterday. Someone else quoted it today and you're directing your energy towards me to move on from something I was done with.
So yes, it does matter, kiddo. Now if you want to continue playing stupid I can treat you exactly how you're acting.
haven't had a chance to read through this thread, so this is probably a lot of repetition. So excuse me if this has all been said before.
I think the biggest concern for me is Aiden Hutchinson. he wrecked our OL, particularly the RT last year, and well, Heck isn't even in the same zip code as Skule. So this is going to be a big problem. Hopefully we have some kind of plan for Hutch, something better than 'let's see if heck can block Hutchinson 1v1, because I have a feeling that's not going to work out very well.
But let's assume that we have a plan and that it mostly works for a minute. If we can keep Baker somewhat clean, I think we might have a chance, mostly because DET secondary is banged up and Branch is suspended. Even then, it'll be tough sledding because Sterling might be our WR1 and Kam or Tez will then be our WR2 on Monday. That's obviously not ideal.
But DET's OL is dinged up, and if KC's DL could hold the Lions' run game down to a crawl, TB's ought to be able to do at least as well, I would think. And that could be enough to give TB a solid chance to steal this game. Obviously, our STs can't get blocked and/or give up TDs, and they can't miss FGs. Heck, we're going to have to play pretty clean football to have a legit chance in this one. But we've been playing relatively clean the last two weeks, so why not?
hopefully, Baker won't need to pull another '3rd-and-Bake' type play (he can't be asked to pull those out every game, right???), otherwise Baker needs to bake, Sterling will need to step up a bit more, and we're probably going to need at least one other WR/TE to make a couple plays. But I think this is a winnable game, especially if Tb can keep it within a score going into the 4th quarter.
Doesn't matter. You are a participant, are you not, kiddo?
You know you’re getting to Bootz when he whips out the “kiddo” card.
It truly baffles me that he has dug in so hard on this particular topic. Well known and well respected journalists have spoken to the 30M offer, and it's come from the horse's mouth; but he quintuples down on it being speculation.
TBH, I'm impressed with how he's hunkered down into what he thinks is some form of impenetrable position, completely unaware of the bunker busters falling from the sky.
But on the other hand, this is my guy. Driver of discussions, captain of contortion, ruler of rabbit holes. Has some great takes; and wears egg on his face like it aint there in other circumstances. A true legend of the forums.
It's in quotes. From Godwin. Once again the quote from Godwin:
Grammar lesson: the 'he' in 'he says' is Godwin, we know this because of his name being used in the previous sentence and the use of 'I' in the quote. It's certainly not his agent, his wife or the journalist. Ergo, Godwin chose to stay in Tampa even though he could have gotten more money in New England because basic logic would tell most of us that when he says 'solely based off money' it means New England was offering him more as no one would go somewhere 'solely based off money' if they were going to be getting paid less.
And frankly, the amount doesn't matter. Godwin clearly states if it was about money, he'd be in New England. HE clearly sees it as he left money on the table to stay in Tampa.
So where is it quoted that he was offered more by New England? Not your speculating and assuming. Where did he say that for certain? Or are you admitting you're just assuming that's what he meant? It's very easy to prove he said it if he did.
Bootz, I get that you are stubborn and do your damndest to never admit you are mistaken, but c’mon man. Not even mcb is this dense.
He said if he signed with New England it was solely for the money because everything else was keeping him here.
This isn’t bizzaro world. If New England’s selling point for him was the money, there’s no way on God’s Green Earth they were offering the same or less. They’d have no selling point if that was the case.
You can stick your fingers in your ears, dig your heels in and keep moving the goal posts on what you want him to have said exactly word for word, but even you know you are wrong. You aren’t even putting up the usual Bootz fight or distraction from the topic.
So where is it quoted that he was offered more by New England? Not your speculating and assuming. Where did he say that for certain? Or are you admitting you're just assuming that's what he meant? It's very easy to prove he said it if he did.
Bootz, I get that you are stubborn and do your damndest to never admit you are mistaken, but c’mon man. Not even mcb is this dense.
He said if he signed with New England it was solely for the money because everything else was keeping him here.
This isn’t bizzaro world. If New England’s selling point for him was the money, there’s no way on God’s Green Earth they were offering the same or less. They’d have no selling point if that was the case.
You can stick your fingers in your ears, dig your heels in and keep moving the goal posts on what you want him to have said exactly word for word, but even you know you are wrong. You aren’t even putting up the usual Bootz fight or distraction from the topic.
I'm just asking you to show me. Shouldn't be hard. You're using a word salad to dodge showing me.
If Evans is near 100% and we also get bac McCollum and Morrison, I really like our odds. Detroit will be a tough out but I think we have the horses.
I don't know if any of the younger WR's are ready to be the #1 on a daily basis but they did show out last week. With the return of Alpha Dog Evans and the current state of their secondary, that's a very favorably matchup for us. Even without Bucky, we have enough backs to threaten a run game. We just need to give help against Hutch when he lines up on the right. Will it make us a bit predictable, yeah. But the other option is much worse.
Defensively, that lack of a pass rush is still an issue but with those CB's back, we have a lot of talent in the secondary. Maybe we can't stop them but we can slow them enough to win a shootout.
Sooner06 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 6:57 pm
haven't had a chance to read through this thread, so this is probably a lot of repetition. So excuse me if this has all been said before.
I think the biggest concern for me is Aiden Hutchinson. he wrecked our OL, particularly the RT last year, and well, Heck isn't even in the same zip code as Skule. So this is going to be a big problem. Hopefully we have some kind of plan for Hutch, something better than 'let's see if heck can block Hutchinson 1v1, because I have a feeling that's not going to work out very well.
But let's assume that we have a plan and that it mostly works for a minute. If we can keep Baker somewhat clean, I think we might have a chance, mostly because DET secondary is banged up and Branch is suspended. Even then, it'll be tough sledding because Sterling might be our WR1 and Kam or Tez will then be our WR2 on Monday. That's obviously not ideal.
But DET's OL is dinged up, and if KC's DL could hold the Lions' run game down to a crawl, TB's ought to be able to do at least as well, I would think. And that could be enough to give TB a solid chance to steal this game. Obviously, our STs can't get blocked and/or give up TDs, and they can't miss FGs. Heck, we're going to have to play pretty clean football to have a legit chance in this one. But we've been playing relatively clean the last two weeks, so why not?
hopefully, Baker won't need to pull another '3rd-and-Bake' type play (he can't be asked to pull those out every game, right???), otherwise Baker needs to bake, Sterling will need to step up a bit more, and we're probably going to need at least one other WR/TE to make a couple plays. But I think this is a winnable game, especially if Tb can keep it within a score going into the 4th quarter.
What changes for you if Evans is healthy and plays on Monday?
I said what I said
I've got a soft heart and a savage mouth.
I'm like a Hallmark card written by Tupac.
Hi guys. Long time PewterReport member here, was briefly a part of this community too before the address switch. I browse here from time to time but forgot my password til now and couldn't recover it. I already know who many of you are. Hey Pewterslimisme (moozician now, i think?!) Hey Bootz, Hey Babeinbucland, noles etc. Doubt many of you remember me, but here we are.
