Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ultpatfan. Show ultpatfan's posts

    Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    Besides Gronk and Edelman, do we really know what we'll see lining at WR/TE up come September?  The Pats lost two games for sure last year because of a lack of offensive talent.  I believe our defense will be opportunistic and top 5 this year (Revis and Browner along with Dennard, Ryan and McCourty) will be ball-hawking the best of teams.  However, I'm still concerned about offense.  Even in the glory years (when our D was great) we had the likes of Moss, Welker, Brown, Givens and Branch.   

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    I'm going to be very disappointed if we don't sign Dustin Keller on June 1st or 2nd when the Compensatory pick formula is not affected by signing Free agents anymore. According to Reiss this is why teams are holding off on F.A.s right now. But No, you can't be alone on this feeling. But Keller is #1 on my wish list as he was productive within a bad offense with bad QBs throwing him the ball. I figure he can step right in and fill the void that Hernandez left and will certainly be better than what we are looking at right now.( Gronk aside of course )

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mbeaulieu07. Show mbeaulieu07's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    I think addressing the OL (with added size and power) should, by default, improve the offense as it should give TB more time to locate receivers and help improve the run game.  Games are won and lost up front and it's clear that TB is not at his best when pressured up the middle, as is the case with a lot of QB's.


    As far as skill players go, they have talent on the roster, the key or should I say
    "challenge", is keeping it healthy.  They've also added LaFell and White to the WR/RB corps, which should help.


     


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from APpats22. Show APpats22's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    I'm content right now. If we sign Keller even better. TE is the only spot that really worries me.

     

     

    "I don’t know. I think Tom is probably the best leader I’ve ever been around so I wouldn’t be too critical of him. " - BB

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    this offense improves if the OL gives Brady additional time and the WR's additional time to seperate

    this offense improves as the WR's have a better and deeper understanding of the playbook

    this offesne improves if Vereen, Amendola and Gronk remain healthy

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    Good post OP! 

    I think the offense needs a TE badly, not sold on Keller being that guy coming back from his injury.  He might work out a year from now but if Gronk goes down and Hooman or one of the UDFA's has to fill in then that hurts.  Currently you take Gronk away and the Pats have the worst TE position in the league.

    I really wanted Moreno brought in as a RB, I think a solid vet needs to still be added.  

    Not as concerned at WR as I am at TE and RB but I wouldn't complain if they brought in a proven WR.

    I really don't see anyone out there in any of these 3 positions that can be brought in to really help out in year 1.

     

    *******************************

    Be a Fan!  But don't be a Homer Fan!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    You have to be a bit concerned. Some say you can't expect anything from 2nd round picks in their first year and yet there are hopes that 4th and 6th round OL are going to immediately step in this year and improve the OL right away? They will help long term but rooks make mistakes and even adding more size might not translate to immediate production this year.

    Without Gronk this TE core was bad. To the point they were pulling whoever they could off the streets. The RZ suffered greatly to the point it was one of the worst RZ O's in BB tenure. This is the same core as the end of last season. So, not sure how it improved other than hoping Gronk can stay healthy?

    At WR we got a full season out of Edelman but can that be counted on again? It was the first in his career and I hope by dear lord he stays healthy because I don't think Amendola will. The addition of LaFell helps as a #3 and maybe with the RZ but if Boyce, Thompkins, and Dobson don't get on the same page as Brady and stay healthy that won't improve.

    White gives some hope to the RB core but the loss of Blount will hurt. I don't think Vereen can stay healthy and unless BB learns to trust Ridley or Ridley learns to hold onto the ball this RB core might take a step backwards while our rooks catch up to speed.

    It's a lot to ask of 1st and 2nd year players and a big gamble that guys will stay healthy. I'm not sure they did enough to improve the O from last year. They need another starting caliber TE and either a more consistent WR than LaFell or a vet threat at RB. Another vet OL would have helped too. We'll have to wait and see but this is essentially the same O as last year with LaFell added to the mix and some rooks who have to come back from injures before even getting a shot at starting.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mbeaulieu07. Show mbeaulieu07's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Good post OP! 

    I think the offense needs a TE badly, not sold on Keller being that guy coming back from his injury.  He might work out a year from now but if Gronk goes down and Hooman or one of the UDFA's has to fill in then that hurts.  Currently you take Gronk away and the Pats have the worst TE position in the league.

    I really wanted Moreno brought in as a RB, I think a solid vet needs to still be added.  

    Not as concerned at WR as I am at TE and RB but I wouldn't complain if they brought in a proven WR.

    I really don't see anyone out there in any of these 3 positions that can be brought in to really help out in year 1.

     

    *******************************

    Be a Fan!  But don't be a Homer Fan!

    [/QUOTE]


    Ridley and Vereen will both be in their 4th seasons and Bolden would be in his 3rd, so they do have some veteran RB depth on the roster as things stand today.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    I don't think time to throw was Brady's main problem last year. Sure, the interior O line needs to be better (and so does the blocking at the TE spot when Gronk is out), but with Gronk hurt, the receiving corp (both WR and TE--and, to an extent when Vereen is out, the backs) just wasn't good enough.  Maybe there will be enough improvement in last year's rookies to get use where we need to be, but I do think talent in the so-called skill positions is still an issue, at least based on what we saw last year when Gronk was on the bench. 

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to mbeaulieu07's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Ridley and Vereen will both be in their 4th seasons and Bolden would be in his 3rd, so they do have some veteran RB depth on the roster as things stand today.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, I know but I still see another RB needed and I would still like one with more experience then 4 years.  I can see Ridley in the dog house again during the season.  Who knows what will be going on with Boulden, I like the kid and think he could do well but he just doesn't get any time.  Maybe this is the season he does. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to mbeaulieu07's comment:


    I think addressing the OL (with added size and power) should, by default, improve the offense as it should give TB more time to locate receivers and help improve the run game.  Games are won and lost up front and it's clear that TB is not at his best when pressured up the middle, as is the case with a lot of QB's.


    As far as skill players go, they have talent on the roster, the key or should I say
    "challenge", is keeping it healthy.  They've also added LaFell and White to the WR/RB corps, which should help.


     




    Good post and I agree.  The size added along the interior is pretty substantial, if I'm wrong about this center from Florida State and he is such a technician that he can win battles despite limited athleticism (has happened before) he is still big, the Halapio kid is 323 pounds, crazy strong and can move large boulders in the run game.  With monsters like these and Cannon as options you have to say we likely have the best O Line in football health provided, especially considering we always have; thanks again Scar.  


    Our O line is reaching 90's Cowboys size proportions, add more young running backs and let them go, play action will be deadly with no interior pressure and the threat of a balanced offense.  We need both offensive and interior defensive lineman to stay healthy, that's true of every team.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    TE could always be looked at.. There will be cuts in August for TE. Actually the Seahawks cut a decent guy the other day I'm pretty sure.. there will be TEs... hopefully.

     

    RB is no worry. Ridley is gonna kill it this year just like 2012. White and Bolden will be great spell's too.

    WR. Can be good can be busts. I'm positive with the group because there are so many. but Andre Johnson would be nice

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mbeaulieu07's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I think addressing the OL (with added size and power) should, by default, improve the offense as it should give TB more time to locate receivers and help improve the run game.  Games are won and lost up front and it's clear that TB is not at his best when pressured up the middle, as is the case with a lot of QB's.

     

    As far as skill players go, they have talent on the roster, the key or should I say
    "challenge", is keeping it healthy.  They've also added LaFell and White to the WR/RB corps, which should help.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good post and I agree.  The size added along the interior is pretty substantial, if I'm wrong about this center from Florida State and he is such a technician that he can win battles despite limited athleticism (has happened before) he is still big, the Halapio kid is 323 pounds, crazy strong and can move large boulders in the run game.  With monsters like these and Cannon as options you have to say we likely have the best O Line in football health provided, especially considering we always have; thanks again Scar.  

     

     

    Our O line is reaching 90's Cowboys size proportions, add more young running backs and let them go, play action will be deadly with no interior pressure and the threat of a balanced offense.  We need both offensive and interior defensive lineman to stay healthy, that's true of every team.

    [/QUOTE]

    Vollmer injury aside, you think the OL was the best in the NFL last year?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    Hell no. The homers will tell you Edelman, the always hurt Gronk and Amendola and a couple of clueless rookie types are world class receivers.

     

    ______________________________________________________

    Question: How can you tell when Rusty's lying?

    Answer: He typed something.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You have to be a bit concerned. Some say you can't expect anything from 2nd round picks in their first year and yet there are hopes that 4th and 6th round OL are going to immediately step in this year and improve the OL right away? They will help long term but rooks make mistakes and even adding more size might not translate to immediate production this year.

    Without Gronk this TE core was bad. To the point they were pulling whoever they could off the streets. The RZ suffered greatly to the point it was one of the worst RZ O's in BB tenure. This is the same core as the end of last season. So, not sure how it improved other than hoping Gronk can stay healthy?

    At WR we got a full season out of Edelman but can that be counted on again? It was the first in his career and I hope by dear lord he stays healthy because I don't think Amendola will. The addition of LaFell helps as a #3 and maybe with the RZ but if Boyce, Thompkins, and Dobson don't get on the same page as Brady and stay healthy that won't improve.

    White gives some hope to the RB core but the loss of Blount will hurt. I don't think Vereen can stay healthy and unless BB learns to trust Ridley or Ridley learns to hold onto the ball this RB core might take a step backwards while our rooks catch up to speed.

    It's a lot to ask of 1st and 2nd year players and a big gamble that guys will stay healthy. I'm not sure they did enough to improve the O from last year. They need another starting caliber TE and either a more consistent WR than LaFell or a vet threat at RB. Another vet OL would have helped too. We'll have to wait and see but this is essentially the same O as last year with LaFell added to the mix and some rooks who have to come back from injures before even getting a shot at starting.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

    [/QUOTE]

    as i have it and what i posted before the draft.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't think time to throw was Brady's main problem last year. Sure, the interior O line needs to be better (and so does the blocking at the TE spot when Gronk is out), but with Gronk hurt, the receiving corp (both WR and TE--and, to an extent when Vereen is out, the backs) just wasn't good enough.  Maybe there will be enough improvement in last year's rookies to get use where we need to be, but I do think talent in the so-called skill positions is still an issue, at least based on what we saw last year when Gronk was on the bench. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    +1 and even when hes on the filed.  we dont have the weapons to exploit that the other top teams in the league have (or that we could have, that could complement gronk. assuming our wrs perform is too risky a move for me. hell i picked dobson before last draft, but id like to feel i have something more reliable than we do to go for a sb while we have brady, and taller/bigger (other than gronk, jones [fingers crossed])

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    what were the options on offense that you are clamoring for?

    using #29 to draft a WR? would a WR in that spot have taken snaps from JE, DA or Dobson...or even Lafell?

    Reaching in rd 3 for a TE that they clearly didnt like?

    Using $$$ on FA Decker?

    This team clearly needed an upgrade in the interior OL, and they did just that. This team has ample WR depth, and I simply do not see a stud, put you over the top WR that was available given the Pats CAP SPACE and draft position/needs..why use a mid round draft choice on a WR that clearly would fall between #5 and #6 on the depth chart? 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from WazzuWheatfarmer. Show WazzuWheatfarmer's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    what were the options on offense that you are clamoring for?

    using #29 to draft a WR? would a WR in that spot have taken snaps from JE, DA or Dobson...or even Lafell?

    Reaching in rd 3 for a TE that they clearly didnt like?

    Using $$$ on FA Decker?

    This team clearly needed an upgrade in the interior OL, and they did just that. This team has ample WR depth, and I simply do not see a stud, put you over the top WR that was available given the Pats CAP SPACE and draft position/needs..why use a mid round draft choice on a WR that clearly would fall between #5 and #6 on the depth chart? 

    [/QUOTE]

    +1.  In the salary cap era, you can't have it all.  Signing Revis was huge after losing Talib.  That was where the money went.  I actually like our WR's.  Plenty of talent, and enough options and competition that a few of these guys are going to take a big 2nd year step forward.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    what were the options on offense that you are clamoring for?

    using #29 to draft a WR? would a WR in that spot have taken snaps from JE, DA or Dobson...or even Lafell?

    Reaching in rd 3 for a TE that they clearly didnt like?

    Using $$$ on FA Decker?

    This team clearly needed an upgrade in the interior OL, and they did just that. This team has ample WR depth, and I simply do not see a stud, put you over the top WR that was available given the Pats CAP SPACE and draft position/needs..why use a mid round draft choice on a WR that clearly would fall between #5 and #6 on the depth chart? 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Scott Chandler wasn't an option? Pettigrew? Graham who had a nice season? If they didn't like any of the TE's in the draft they must have known they didn't like any before the start of FA so why not even look into that position in FA? There were solid options out there, certainly better than the options now.

    As for WR, I'd be fine if they kept it the way it was if they got Brady a weapon at TE. Since they didn't, were you really that impressed with this WR core last year? LaFell is a nice player but do you think this core can get it done in the RZ, unlike last year? This year had some of the most talent WR's in the draft in years. Maybe last year wasn't the best year to double dip but it might have been worth while to grab one in the middle rounds (even if it means trading a pick from next year). As for them falling to #5 or #6 behind who? Amendola, for what half a season? LaFell, who might be down on the depth chart himself? Dobson, with his bad foot and was having issues syncing with Brady? Thompkins, who was benched at the end of the year? Boyce, who couldn't stay on the field? There is a difference between depth and quality depth. You can have a bunch of sub role players and call it depth but is that really talent?

    This seems like a broken record. Every year there is a weakness and it doesn't get addressed and people get upset and then people come out and say "well what would you like for them to do? You think you are smarter than they are?". Then it still is a weakness that year and if it's a big enough weakness they address it a year after the fact. They could make moves and should have made some moves.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    what were the options on offense that you are clamoring for?

    using #29 to draft a WR? would a WR in that spot have taken snaps from JE, DA or Dobson...or even Lafell?

    Reaching in rd 3 for a TE that they clearly didnt like?

    Using $$$ on FA Decker?

    This team clearly needed an upgrade in the interior OL, and they did just that. This team has ample WR depth, and I simply do not see a stud, put you over the top WR that was available given the Pats CAP SPACE and draft position/needs..why use a mid round draft choice on a WR that clearly would fall between #5 and #6 on the depth chart? 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Scott Chandler wasn't an option? Pettigrew? Graham who had a nice season? If they didn't like any of the TE's in the draft they must have known they didn't like any before the start of FA so why not even look into that position in FA? There were solid options out there, certainly better than the options now.

    As for WR, I'd be fine if they kept it the way it was if they got Brady a weapon at TE. Since they didn't, were you really that impressed with this WR core last year? LaFell is a nice player but do you think this core can get it done in the RZ, unlike last year? This year had some of the most talent WR's in the draft in years. Maybe last year wasn't the best year to double dip but it might have been worth while to grab one in the middle rounds (even if it means trading a pick from next year). As for them falling to #5 or #6 behind who? Amendola, for what half a season? LaFell, who might be down on the depth chart himself? Dobson, with his bad foot and was having issues syncing with Brady? Thompkins, who was benched at the end of the year? Boyce, who couldn't stay on the field? There is a difference between depth and quality depth. You can have a bunch of sub role players and call it depth but is that really talent?

    This seems like a broken record. Every year there is a weakness and it doesn't get addressed and people get upset and then people come out and say "well what would you like for them to do? You think you are smarter than they are?". Then it still is a weakness that year and if it's a big enough weakness they address it a year after the fact. They could make moves and should have made some moves.

    [/QUOTE]

    Chandler signed for 2/$4.7M. He also seemed to want to stay in Buff.

    Outside of a top 15 first rd draft choice, I really do not see a drafted WR coming into this offense and setting the world on fire.  

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

     

    I'm not saying they should necessarily have picked a WR or a TE in the draft, but that doesn't mean that there aren't still some question marks at those positions.  With Gronk out, I don't think anyone can say the TE group is very good.  And the WRs last year were an average group at best. Maybe last year's rookies progress a lot this year or LaFell becomes more of an impact player here than he was in Carolina or Amendola stays healthy and delivers, but if none of that happens, I'm not terribly excited about a  WR group where Edelman is the primary weapon. 

     

    You can't solve all your problems in the draft and free agency--you just don't have the picks and money to do so . . . but that doesn't mean your unresolved problems stop being problems. 

     

     

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Chandler signed for 2/$4.7M. He also seemed to want to stay in Buff.

    Outside of a top 15 first rd draft choice, I really do not see a drafted WR coming into this offense and setting the world on fire.  

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    2/$4.7mil is nothing, and why is it when a player signs somewhere it's oh I think he wanted to stay there anyway? 

    As for the top 15, we don't need one to set the world on fire we need one that can get open and catch the ball. Preferable one that creates some sort of mismatch in the RZ and there were plenty this year. We aren't looking for a Moss but they couldn't find a Marvin Jones or Marlon Brown type?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    Correct me if I'm wrong but, aside from Blount, isn't all of last years O returning? Besides bolstering the O-line I don't think the Pats "need" anyone. They had the third ranked O last year, so they already have enough talent. How much better do you think they can get? 

    But then again, I am not a fan of fantasy football!

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I'm not saying they should necessarily have picked a WR or a TE in the draft, but that doesn't mean that there aren't still some question marks at those positions.  With Gronk out, I don't think anyone can say the TE group is very good.  And the WRs last year were an average group at best. Maybe last year's rookies progress a lot this year or LaFell becomes more of an impact player here than he was in Carolina or Amendola stays healthy and delivers, but if none of that happens, I'm not terribly excited about a  WR group where Edelman is the primary weapon. 

     

    You can't solve all your problems in the draft and free agency--you just don't have the picks and money to do so . . . but that doesn't mean your unresolved problems stop being problems. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    +1. You can't fix everything but if you have the resources to do so then you should at least try. I find it completely irrational to take a look at a big issue last year and write it off as simply, you can't sign every big name FA out there or they just didn't like anyone in the draft. How does that help with the issue. The issue still remains and you can't pretend that remaining stagnant fixed that issue because they didn't like anyone. You don't have to make gigantic signings everywhere but you can make smaller ones if it's even a slight improvement to what you had. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Am I the only one who thinks we still need OFFENSE?

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Vollmer injury aside, you think the OL was the best in the NFL last year?

    [/QUOTE]

    Considering we ranked the 7th in pass attempts, were 12th in sacks allowed and if you remember the beginning of the year than you remember Brady holding the ball forever, waiting for someone to come open to no avail.  By season's end the receivers were doing a better job and sacks shrunk, this despite Vollmer's injury.

    We were tied for 9th in rushing yards per carry and 9th in carries, we all agree the interior needed some muscle but a lot of the line's struggles were due to the other position groups struggling.  

    Our line in relation to the rest of the league is among the best, as Patriot fans we have high expectations.  The rotation of Vollmer, Solder and Cannon is easily the best rotation of tackles in the league, Mankins is a top three guard in the NFL.

    Show me the perfect team, it doesn't exist.

     

Share