Re: 2nd Half Collapses
posted at 1/22/2013 11:46 AM EST
In response to PatsEng's comment:
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
It's not just "starting calibre" it's also the mix of players and the number who are involved in the passing game. Once again, we have no receivers who can run a post route! I don't think of the Ravens as a great passing team, but Flacco on 36 passes was able to target nine guys:
Brady threw 54 passes to just six:
You can't have multiple top-rate starters everywhere, but if you're going to rely on your passing game for offense, you should have more than three active wide receivers, one of whom (Branch) is past his prime and was cut multiple times during the year, one of whom is a tiny slot guy, and one of whom can apparently only run one route.
I agree except they didn't start the season like how they ended it. When you add in Gronk it makes a huge difference, more then you give it credit for. You also forgot about Edelman going into the season. If Edelman stayed healthy he's a much better option then Branch but Branch was the only option that late into the season. Gronk, Hern, Welker, Lloyd, Vereen, Woodhead, Edelman is a better deeper receiving core then most teams have. Now you take away Gronk and Edelman and it's thin but that's how it happens in the NFL. There are only so many slots to fill a roster and if a couple of injures happen you are going to get screwed. Now if you want to say they should of had a better TE receiving options then Fells (who I think gave less then Hooman this year) then I agree and that they should have had a better 4th WR option then I agree but really you are talking the 4th WR, who are you going to get to fill that role? What I see as being more important is we have practicully the same types of players on the roster over and over again. Other then Gronk there was no one to fight for a ball when the other teams narrows the window for Brady to throw. But hindsight after injures at the end of the year is unjust when at the stat of the year the receiving core looked deep.
Eng, I have been saying all along that Gronk would have made a huge difference. I said that last year, too, after the Super Bowl, where his absence was, in my opinion, a huge problem.
My problem is Gronk is one guy and when he's out, the offense really suffers. We need more diversity in our receivers so losing one of them doesn't limit the offense so much.
And whatever Edelman might bring to the offense, he's another guy who works short routes more than long ones and doesn't have size. We need at least one more receiver who is a serious downfield threat with either the size or the speed (or both) to force safeties to think about what's happening in the deep middle of the field.