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

  1. 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 rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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!

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Here's some interesting stats:

    Points per game
    Final '13 ranking: 3rd (27.75)
    Last season: 1st (34.8)

    A full TD lower than previous year

    Third-down offense
    Final '13 ranking: 16th (83 of 221, 37.6 percent)
    Last season: 1st (110 of 226, 48.7 percent)

    A drop of over 10% from the previous year

    Red zone offense (based on TD percentage)
    Final '13 ranking: 15th (36 of 65)
    Last season: 1st (49 of 70)

    a full 15% drop

    Most of those numbers come from a handful of games which Gronk was playing. In games Gronk played they averaged 32 points per game and both 3rd down efficiency and RZ efficiency went from bottom 1/3rd of the league to top 5 in the league. When Gronk wasn't playing they averaged 21 points per game (which puts them in the bottom 1/3rd of the league and the 3rd down and RZ efficiency dropped like a rock. With Gronk this was a top of the league O, without Gronk this team was a bottom 1/3rd of the league O. Stay for the blowouts at the end of the year against the Ravens and the nothing to win for Bills the numbers would shift even further. This was not a #3 O in the league last year. At it's best it was but for half the season it was a below average O.

     

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

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

    We messed up by not drafting a WR we need a tall physical healthy receiver.

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

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

    In response to PatsEng's comment:


    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    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!





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Here's some interesting stats:


    Points per game
    Final '13 ranking: 3rd (27.75)
    Last season: 1st (34.8)


    A full TD lower than previous year


    Third-down offense
    Final '13 ranking: 16th (83 of 221, 37.6 percent)
    Last season: 1st (110 of 226, 48.7 percent)


    A drop of over 10% from the previous year


    Red zone offense (based on TD percentage)
    Final '13 ranking: 15th (36 of 65)
    Last season: 1st (49 of 70)


    a full 15% drop


    Most of those numbers come from a handful of games which Gronk was playing. In games Gronk played they averaged 32 points per game and both 3rd down efficiency and RZ efficiency went from bottom 1/3rd of the league to top 5 in the league. When Gronk wasn't playing they averaged 21 points per game (which puts them in the bottom 1/3rd of the league and the 3rd down and RZ efficiency dropped like a rock. With Gronk this was a top of the league O, without Gronk this team was a bottom 1/3rd of the league O. Stay for the blowouts at the end of the year against the Ravens and the nothing to win for Bills the numbers would shift even further. This was not a #3 O in the league last year. At it's best it was but for half the season it was a below average O.


     


    [/QUOTE]


    Last year we also led the league in FGs made (38, tied with the Ravens for most).  We were tied for 7th in offensive TDs with 44, and were way down at 13th in receiving TDs (with 25).  Over the past few years, we've been a team that gets 35 or more receiving TDs a year and gets well over 50 offensive TDs a year, so the drop in TDs was significant and offset primarily by our success with FGs (up by about 10 over past years).  Of course, FGs don't fully offset TDs, which is why points per game dropped as Eng points out. 


     


    The Gronk stats that Eng quotes are particularly telling.  Remember, he may be out to start the season.  That, more than anything, defines the potential problem if other receivers don't step up.


     

     
  4. 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]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    Dobson had a far superior rookie year than Marvin Jones did and a similar year to Marlon Brown

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

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

     

    Probably worth pointing out that Gronk was third in receiving yards on the team, despite playing in only 7 games.  He was second in receiving TDs scored and he had the most yards per catch of anyone with more than four receptions.  

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

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

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    Dobson had a far superior rookie year than Marvin Jones did and a similar year to Marlon Brown

    [/QUOTE]


    Dobson did fine for a rookie. The problem, though, is that the Pats lack a true number one outside receiver.  Dobson wasn't that last year. Maybe he'll be it this year, but until he shows he can do that, we still lack that number one outside receiver. 

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG'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]


    I agree. Its too simple to just say the O line needs to protect longer and we are fine. Last year there were plenty of times when Brady had all day to throw yet no one ever came open and he had to take the sack. His sack #'s were as high as they have been in years and that was due to little to no chemistry early on and the lack of talent at wideout when Collie and Amendola were in there.

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

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

    About the only conclusion that I can really draw from this thread is that some people are just natural complainers.  I won't mention any names but it is pretty obvious if you just read the posts.  Some people just are not happy unless they can whine and complain about something.  Last year the same people were complaining that Bill Belichick did not sign a big name free-agent.  They all screamed that the only thing they wanted was one big time player to help make an impact.  This year they got exactly that.  Darrelle Revis is as big time as they come.  So now of course the whiners are complaining about not also adding a number one receiver and a blue-chip tight end as well.  Good times on the patriots forum in the dead of May!  Rkarp and Wozzy have made some great points in this thread.  No team is perfect and everyone is dealing with limited resources.  The bottom line is that the patriots are once again going to put a very competitive team on the field this year.  Even as the roster stands now there is no doubt that this team is good enough to win the Super Bowl.  Of course we will need to have a little luck go our way to do it, as will any eventual winner, but this patriots team has as good of chance as anyone. that's really all you can ask... If you are a reasonable fan.  

     
  9. 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]


    Dobson had a far superior rookie year than Marvin Jones did and a similar year to Marlon Brown

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Because there was no one else to throw to. It isn't an apples to apples comparison when you are forced to throw to someone more often because you have no other options. When looking at how Dobson performed would you say you were happy overall or would you say there is a lot to work on. I'd say the latter, his hands were horrible, his route running was sloppy, the game is moving way to fast for him, he had issues gaining separation, and didn't fight well off the line or for the ball. Doesn't mean he can't improve but there was a lot to be critical of his play last year to the point where you would have to wonder if they had a more reliable vet or heck even a LaFell who could stay healthy on the team how much play Dobson would have had. The lack of any options isn't including in stats but something that needs to be considered

     
  10. 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 WazzuWheatfarmer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    About the only conclusion that I can really draw from this thread is that some people are just natural complainers.  I won't mention any names but it is pretty obvious if you just read the posts.  Some people just are not happy unless they can whine and complain about something.  Last year the same people were complaining that Bill Belichick did not sign a big name free-agent.  They all screamed that the only thing they wanted was one big time player to help make an impact.  This year they got exactly that.  Darrelle Revis is as big time as they come.  So now of course the whiners are complaining about not also adding a number one receiver and a blue-chip tight end as well.  Good times on the patriots forum in the dead of May!  Rkarp and Wozzy have made some great points in this thread.  No team is perfect and everyone is dealing with limited resources.  The bottom line is that the patriots are once again going to put a very competitive team on the field this year.  Even as the roster stands now there is no doubt that this team is good enough to win the Super Bowl.  Of course we will need to have a little luck go our way to do it, as will any eventual winner, but this patriots team has as good of chance as anyone. that's really all you can ask... If you are a reasonable fan.  

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Sorry Wazz I'm one of those people who see an issue and try to find ways to fix it. I don't think I could be happy with just being good enough, I like to strive to be the best and push myself for better. I know it's rough having to listen to those who only want to improve the team who had issues last season and who are desiring better. Unfortunately, I think Brady and Kraft would be more like those complainers in the life. Good just wasn't good enough for them and they wanted more. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila'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]


    Dobson had a far superior rookie year than Marvin Jones did and a similar year to Marlon Brown

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Because there was no one else to throw to. It isn't an apples to apples comparison when you are forced to throw to someone more often because you have no other options. When looking at how Dobson performed would you say you were happy overall or would you say there is a lot to work on. I'd say the latter, his hands were horrible, his route running was sloppy, the game is moving way to fast for him, he had issues gaining separation, and didn't fight well off the line or for the ball. Doesn't mean he can't improve but there was a lot to be critical of his play last year to the point where you would have to wonder if they had a more reliable vet or heck even a LaFell who could stay healthy on the team how much play Dobson would have had. The lack of any options isn't including in stats but something that needs to be considered

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady has plenty of options to throw to and they get just as open as the guys that played from 2000 - 2004. All the stats you quoted about Gronk just shows Brady is too dependent on him. Probably because he didn't have time to do anything else. And no, I'm not Rusty but I do miss the time when Brady could make scrubs into good WRs.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer'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]


    Dobson had a far superior rookie year than Marvin Jones did and a similar year to Marlon Brown

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Because there was no one else to throw to. It isn't an apples to apples comparison when you are forced to throw to someone more often because you have no other options. When looking at how Dobson performed would you say you were happy overall or would you say there is a lot to work on. I'd say the latter, his hands were horrible, his route running was sloppy, the game is moving way to fast for him, he had issues gaining separation, and didn't fight well off the line or for the ball. Doesn't mean he can't improve but there was a lot to be critical of his play last year to the point where you would have to wonder if they had a more reliable vet or heck even a LaFell who could stay healthy on the team how much play Dobson would have had. The lack of any options isn't including in stats but something that needs to be considered

    [/QUOTE]

    Fair, but Dobson can only control what Dobson does. Not his fault we didn't have Danny or Gronk most of the year. I think he was forced into action early due to injury and not properly addressing the WR situation in the offseason. What concerns me most is his transition to playing receiver in the nfl. I think he needs more time. Maybe this year it will click for him. Last years mental mistakes need to stop. The game should slow down for him. I think the Lafell signing was a partial hedge on Dobson. More about injury than capability, but Lafell can play outside and we should be able to rely on him. 

    PI get what folks are saying about a true number 1 WR..but we haven't had that since moss. Welker was the pinball wizard who caught a lot of balls, but not a true 1 in the sense of an outside the nu,ber, demand double coverage, physical WR. We could argue Gronk is, but I personally wouldn't want my number 1 option in the TE position. Ask me why.

     
  13. 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 PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Fair, but Dobson can only control what Dobson does. Not his fault we didn't have Danny or Gronk most of the year. I think he was forced into action early due to injury and not properly addressing the WR situation in the offseason. What concerns me most is his transition to playing receiver in the nfl. I think he needs more time. Maybe this year it will click for him. Last years mental mistakes need to stop. The game should slow down for him. I think the Lafell signing was a partial hedge on Dobson. More about injury than capability, but Lafell can play outside and we should be able to rely on him. 

    PI get what folks are saying about a true number 1 WR..but we haven't had that since moss. Welker was the pinball wizard who caught a lot of balls, but not a true 1 in the sense of an outside the nu,ber, demand double coverage, physical WR. We could argue Gronk is, but I personally wouldn't want my number 1 option in the TE position. Ask me why.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I was talking directly about comparing stats to players. Of course Dobson can control any of that but nether could Jones or Brown. What they can control is their play. And we need a Jones or Brown type who can fight for a ball and in the RZ get open for TD's. That is in Dobson's control.

     
  14. 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 rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Brady has plenty of options to throw to and they get just as open as the guys that played from 2000 - 2004. All the stats you quoted about Gronk just shows Brady is too dependent on him. Probably because he didn't have time to do anything else. And no, I'm not Rusty but I do miss the time when Brady could make scrubs into good WRs.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Plenty to throw too? Who? Thompkins who BB benched because he wasn't doing his job? Boyce who couldn't stay on the field? Hooman who is lucky to catch a cold? Amendola who spends more time in the ice bath than the field? I'd take the 01-05 receiver core over last years any day of the week and twice on leap years. It's not even a comparison.

    But, good point on Gronk so lets not use him and force Brady to throw to less talented receivers who don't get open, that will fix the O....... You are starting to sound like Rusty

     
  15. 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 PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WazzuWheatfarmer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    About the only conclusion that I can really draw from this thread is that some people are just natural complainers.  I won't mention any names but it is pretty obvious if you just read the posts.  Some people just are not happy unless they can whine and complain about something.  Last year the same people were complaining that Bill Belichick did not sign a big name free-agent.  They all screamed that the only thing they wanted was one big time player to help make an impact.  This year they got exactly that.  Darrelle Revis is as big time as they come.  So now of course the whiners are complaining about not also adding a number one receiver and a blue-chip tight end as well.  Good times on the patriots forum in the dead of May!  Rkarp and Wozzy have made some great points in this thread.  No team is perfect and everyone is dealing with limited resources.  The bottom line is that the patriots are once again going to put a very competitive team on the field this year.  Even as the roster stands now there is no doubt that this team is good enough to win the Super Bowl.  Of course we will need to have a little luck go our way to do it, as will any eventual winner, but this patriots team has as good of chance as anyone. that's really all you can ask... If you are a reasonable fan.  

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Sorry Wazz I'm one of those people who see an issue and try to find ways to fix it. I don't think I could be happy with just being good enough, I like to strive to be the best and push myself for better. I know it's rough having to listen to those who only want to improve the team who had issues last season and who are desiring better. Unfortunately, I think Brady and Kraft would be more like those complainers in the life. Good just wasn't good enough for them and they wanted more. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Believe me, I want to see NE field the best possible team, too.  But we need to be reasonable.  Give the young guys a chance before you start wanting to replace them.  Do you really think Scott Chandler would have been a game changing acquisition?  For all we know Justin Jones could be better.  It's way to early to be freaking out about our offense.  

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from agill1970. Show agill1970's posts

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

    I never thought I'd say Dustin Keller is the missing ingredient to our offense, but I think he is.  BB over the last several years has revolutionized offenses around the league to incorporate 1 or 2 TE's to create mismatches.  It's a copy cat league and you can see it all over now, except here in NE.  With a huge question mark over Gronks head, and no one else that can really create those mismatches in the lineup, we've taken a massive step back. 

    I'm not overly worried, plenty of offenses in the past have made it to the SB without major TE help.  I think our RB group is solid, our O line should be solid, and the receivers will shake themselves out to make a solid group providing good health is a factor.  But we sure could use another TE to give our playbook that much more flexibility and increase our redzone production and moving the chains production.

     

     
  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?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Dobson had a far superior rookie year than Marvin Jones did and a similar year to Marlon Brown

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Because there was no one else to throw to. It isn't an apples to apples comparison when you are forced to throw to someone more often because you have no other options. When looking at how Dobson performed would you say you were happy overall or would you say there is a lot to work on. I'd say the latter, his hands were horrible, his route running was sloppy, the game is moving way to fast for him, he had issues gaining separation, and didn't fight well off the line or for the ball. Doesn't mean he can't improve but there was a lot to be critical of his play last year to the point where you would have to wonder if they had a more reliable vet or heck even a LaFell who could stay healthy on the team how much play Dobson would have had. The lack of any options isn't including in stats but something that needs to be considered

    [/QUOTE]

    your assessment is fair on Dobson. But you are missing the point of what I am saying. Short of the Pats using a #1 top 15 draft choice, I think any WR they drafted this year would have a similar year to Dobson last year, or worse. Certainly if they used a draft choice on a WR this year, they would be behind Dobson on the depth chart, as well as JE and DA.

     
  18. 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 WazzuWheatfarmer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Believe me, I want to see NE field the best possible team, too.  But we need to be reasonable.  Give the young guys a chance before you start wanting to replace them.  Do you really think Scott Chandler would have been a game changing acquisition?  For all we know Justin Jones could be better.  It's way to early to be freaking out about our offense.  

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Do I think Scott would be better than Hooman or Willaims and could help when Gronk isn't there, yep don't you? Give the young guys a chance, sure but where is the rule that says you can't get them a chance while also enhancing your team? We aren't talking about throwing out all the players from last year we are talking about adding 1-2 players who have a more consistent track record to improve a spot that was clearly a weak position last year. If the rooks improve GREAT, that means your team is even better but every team should take a chance to improve their team in weak areas if their is a chance.

    Yes for all we know Jones could be that guy but the odds say different. As far as we know Chris Jones could be the next great pass rushers but they felt the need to go get Easley in this draft too. Hedging your bets in a position of weakness is always a smart move.

     
  19. 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 rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Dobson had a far superior rookie year than Marvin Jones did and a similar year to Marlon Brown

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Because there was no one else to throw to. It isn't an apples to apples comparison when you are forced to throw to someone more often because you have no other options. When looking at how Dobson performed would you say you were happy overall or would you say there is a lot to work on. I'd say the latter, his hands were horrible, his route running was sloppy, the game is moving way to fast for him, he had issues gaining separation, and didn't fight well off the line or for the ball. Doesn't mean he can't improve but there was a lot to be critical of his play last year to the point where you would have to wonder if they had a more reliable vet or heck even a LaFell who could stay healthy on the team how much play Dobson would have had. The lack of any options isn't including in stats but something that needs to be considered

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady has plenty of options to throw to and they get just as open as the guys that played from 2000 - 2004. All the stats you quoted about Gronk just shows Brady is too dependent on him. Probably because he didn't have time to do anything else. And no, I'm not Rusty but I do miss the time when Brady could make scrubs into good WRs.

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady can still make scrubs into good WR's. He just can't make rookies into good WR's

     
  20. 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]

    your assessment is fair on Dobson. But you are missing the point of what I am saying. Short of the Pats using a #1 top 15 draft choice, I think any WR they drafted this year would have a similar year to Dobson last year, or worse. Certainly if they used a draft choice on a WR this year, they would be behind Dobson on the depth chart, as well as JE and DA.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    If we had a WR who had similar stats as Dobson (minus the drops) and that was with having Edelman, Boyce, Dobson, and LaFell catching passes I'd be ecstatic. But last year there was Dobson and Edelman for a large portion of the year. If it was a rook and Edelman again and they came out with those numbers well I'd be less than thrilled as we all should.

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

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

    In response to WazzuWheatfarmer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    About the only conclusion that I can really draw from this thread is that some people are just natural complainers.  I won't mention any names but it is pretty obvious if you just read the posts.  Some people just are not happy unless they can whine and complain about something.  Last year the same people were complaining that Bill Belichick did not sign a big name free-agent.  They all screamed that the only thing they wanted was one big time player to help make an impact.  This year they got exactly that.  Darrelle Revis is as big time as they come.  So now of course the whiners are complaining about not also adding a number one receiver and a blue-chip tight end as well.  Good times on the patriots forum in the dead of May!  Rkarp and Wozzy have made some great points in this thread.  No team is perfect and everyone is dealing with limited resources.  The bottom line is that the patriots are once again going to put a very competitive team on the field this year.  Even as the roster stands now there is no doubt that this team is good enough to win the Super Bowl.  Of course we will need to have a little luck go our way to do it, as will any eventual winner, but this patriots team has as good of chance as anyone. that's really all you can ask... If you are a reasonable fan.  

    [/QUOTE]

    +1

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

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

    I thought the OL did fine last year.  Penalties and time were not in question with me.  But the receiver corp was.  Gronk is out for half the season and no other TE.  New England has a history of using TEs as receivers.  This hurt. Amendola flopped.  The rookie WRs played like…well…rookies.  You guys can raise the bar on them now.  It takes a year and those of you who wanted a WR this draft just look at last year to see what would have happened.  Rookies for the most part are rookies.  They make mistakes.  It takes time to learn the pro game.  

    Although I thought TB was off a little at the beginning of the season his targets didn't help him much either.  The Pats didn't address the TE position and that will haunt them.  The Amendola experiment continues.

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

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

    The OL is one of the best every year until January rolls around and they open up all the  flood gates screwing the offense and this is where Rusty's brady blame comes from. Tough to play well when u have no OL... They need to show in January for once

    Check out my Pats/Sports Blog:

    http://joepatsfan.blogspot.com/

     
  24. 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 PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WazzuWheatfarmer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Believe me, I want to see NE field the best possible team, too.  But we need to be reasonable.  Give the young guys a chance before you start wanting to replace them.  Do you really think Scott Chandler would have been a game changing acquisition?  For all we know Justin Jones could be better.  It's way to early to be freaking out about our offense.  

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Do I think Scott would be better than Hooman or Willaims and could help when Gronk isn't there, yep don't you? Give the young guys a chance, sure but where is the rule that says you can't get them a chance while also enhancing your team? We aren't talking about throwing out all the players from last year we are talking about adding 1-2 players who have a more consistent track record to improve a spot that was clearly a weak position last year. If the rooks improve GREAT, that means your team is even better but every team should take a chance to improve their team in weak areas if their is a chance.

    Yes for all we know Jones could be that guy but the odds say different. As far as we know Chris Jones could be the next great pass rushers but they felt the need to go get Easley in this draft too. Hedging your bets in a position of weakness is always a smart move.

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess I just don't think Scott Chandler is all that great of a player.  He's okay, plenty serviceable, but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to spend money on him in free agency.  In my eyes, Keller is a better option than Chandler.  Both guys have health. ?s, but I think Keller is a much better receiver and more dangerous weapon and Chandler could be.  If we going to training camp with  Gronk, Hooman, Keller (hopefully we will actually sign him), Jones/Watson, I think that's a pretty good group at tight end.  

     
  25. 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 WazzuWheatfarmer's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I guess I just don't think Scott Chandler is all that great of a player.  He's okay, plenty serviceable, but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to spend money on him in free agency.  In my eyes, Keller is a better option than Chandler.  Both guys have health. ?s, but I think Keller is a much better receiver and more dangerous weapon and Chandler could be.  If we going to training camp with  Gronk, Hooman, Keller (hopefully we will actually sign him), Jones/Watson, I think that's a pretty good group at tight end.  

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    His pay this year is $1.75mil. It's not like Buf went out of their way either. 2/$4.75 mil for a serviceable TE that can provide some receiving threat to me isn't going out of their way and falls in line with what they gave Fells, who I think Chandler is a better overall TE. The issue I have with Keller is first he's more a slot WR than a TE which is fine because we need more of a receiving threat but second because he's more of a slot guy he relies almost solely on his explosiveness or which we have no clue if he retained after injury. That's putting a ton of faith into a guy coming back from a major injury that no other team is interested in signing because of that. If Gronk was more durable absolutely I would take Keller over Chandler but Gronk not being able to stay healthy changes the story. At that point you need someone you know what you are going to get than a bigger question mark. Even if they sign Keller, the difference this year between him and Chandler after week 1 would be what about $1 mil? Is that little bit of savings worth that kind of risk? 

    As for pretty good group, yep if healthy and all return to the same form prior to injury. But, it's more likely Gronk will miss time and Keller might or might not be ready and might not be the same Keller as before. If Keller isn't and Gronk is injured like last year are you still as confident with Hooman and Watson/Jones?

     

Share