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

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

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

    Old fool that I am, I'm going to take a wait and see approach to the offense.  If by week 3 we don't see some offensive production then I'll get concerned.  Otherwise I'm not losing much sleep over this line up.

     
  2. 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 ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Old fool that I am, I'm going to take a wait and see approach to the offense.  If by week 3 we don't see some offensive production then I'll get concerned.  Otherwise I'm not losing much sleep over this line up.

    [/QUOTE]


    If the offense we had last year got us to the AFCCG and our D was depleted I dont see the Big Concern knowing that our D should be Much Better and the WR corp should be improved a year later. One thing the Pats have shown is their ability to morph into Any kind of offense based on their personnel so Im gonna let that play out. Only concerns we Should have is.....Age....I'll be looking to see if Brady still has his midseason form in training camp as he has displayed in the past. Is Wilfork/Kelly 100%?, Do we have a healthy, cohesive O line?(Dante gone, injuries) Is Mayo back to his old self? Is Dennard showing any rust?  Who is playing at the safety spots...and has BB found a guy he can trust to spell Nink/Jones?

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

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

    Teams that made the playoffs that had a "#1" outside receiver:

    Denver, Philly, Cincy, Green Bay

    Teams that made the playoffs that didn't have a "#1" outside receiver:

    NE, NO, Seattle, KC, SF, Indy (once Wayne tore his ACL)

    Not sure:

    SD since I didn't watch Keenan Allen enough to know how he was used


    The point here is that this obsession over the prototypical "#1" outside receiver is misguided.  Is it nice to have?  Sure, but it isn't essential to be a playoff team.  And just to be clear I don't consider Boldin (SF) or Hilton (Indy) to be #1 outside receivers (at least not in the sense that they are defined here and elsewhere). 

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

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

    In response to TripleOG's comment:


    If the offense we had last year got us to the AFCCG and our D was depleted I dont see the Big Concern knowing that our D should be Much Better and the WR corp should be improved a year later. One thing the Pats have shown is their ability to morph into Any kind of offense based on their personnel so Im gonna let that play out.




    This.

     
  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?

    Sure you can make the playoffs and even win the championship without a top receiver.  You can also do the same without a top RB, a top TE, a top OT, a top guard, a top centre, a top DT, a top DE, a top OLB, a top ILB, a top safety, a top CB, a top punter, a top kicker, a top punt returner, a top kick returner, a top gunner . . . or even without a top QB. 

    That doesn't mean getting quality in as many of those positions as possible isn't important  . . . 

     

     

     
  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 pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Teams that made the playoffs that had a "#1" outside receiver:

    Denver, Philly, Cincy, Green Bay

    Teams that made the playoffs that didn't have a "#1" outside receiver:

    NE, NO, Seattle, KC, SF, Indy (once Wayne tore his ACL)

    Not sure:

    SD since I didn't watch Keenan Allen enough to know how he was used


    The point here is that this obsession over the prototypical "#1" outside receiver is misguided.  Is it nice to have?  Sure, but it isn't essential to be a playoff team.  And just to be clear I don't consider Boldin (SF) or Hilton (Indy) to be #1 outside receivers (at least not in the sense that they are defined here and elsewhere). 

    [/QUOTE]


    Call him a number 2 if you want, but his 85 receptions for over 1,000 yards was about double what Dobson produced.  Boldin was 13th in receptions, 15th in yards receiving, and 18th in TDs, so that puts him pretty squarely near the top of the league in production. 

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

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

    I think there certainly is some serious question marks...tightend, right now we really don't have one, I'd consider that a problem. Now we may not have to go back to the double tightend offense, but we need someone to be a little bit of a redzone threat. Our starting backs have questions - Ridley fumbles like it's his job, Vareen gets hurt like it's his and Blount is gone. Dobson needs to make that second year leap, but with the foot injury that certainly puts water on that fire. Our two best receivers are slot guys who are known for getting hurt.

    Having said that, if the receivers they drafted last year take that next step we will be doing good. If Lafell comes in and gives us a threat in the redzone and the outside, it will gives us a dynamic we didn't have last year. If Gronk comes back healthy - and stays that way - our offense will be fine no matter what happens.

    That's a lot of ifs in my opinion.

     
  8. 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]

    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]

    exactly the last several years.

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

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

    Patriots still need a TE! 


     


    Was one of their top needs in the draft.  If you don't believe me then let me show you!


     


    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=patriots+need+a+TE


     


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


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

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

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

    Well, last season we were tied for 2nd in points scored per game with no Welker, Hernandez, barely any Gronk, 3 rookies and an injured Amendola. History shows that our offense is more then likely to improve with another year of experience and health. 

    So, the offense should be where they always are. 

    Let's just hope they can score more then the 15.5 ppg they have put up in our last 6 consecutive playoff losses. 

    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  11. 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 TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, last season we were tied for 2nd in points scored per game with no Welker, Hernandez, barely any Gronk, 3 rookies and an injured Amendola. History shows that our offense is more then likely to improve with another year of experience and health. 

    So, the offense should be where they always are. 

    Let's just hope they can score more then the 15.5 ppg they have put up in our last 6 consecutive playoff losses. 

    [object HTMLDivElement]

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Without Gronk we were in the bottom 1/3rd of the league, averaged 21 points per game (that includes two blow outs at the end of the year), with Gronk we averaged 32 points per game. On the year we were a full TD below last years average. It seems without those guys we were bottom 3rd of the league. That means without those guys we're a full 2 TDs+ worse on O then with those guys. So, no they aren't where they should be if we have to rely on Amendola and those 3 rooks.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

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

    I think it very odd that anyone would have a problem with the running backs on this roster. When contracts are up that is another thing but for this year it is a very good group.

    I can better understand the concern about WR but, in spite of Babe's constant flow are one line denigration of almost everyone in a Pats uni besides TB, I do think we have a reasonable group that has a ton of upside. Edleman is sound. Amendola is better if he is healthy. LaFell is not here to be a go to guy but to be a role player like Givens was and he seems to fit. Dobson has flashes of being a good WR and compared to many on other teams had a pretty good rookie season - just not a break out. Both Thompkins and Boyce showed some possibilities. If one of them can be reliable it will be a good group made great by TB - IF THE OLINE PLAYS A LITTLE BETTER AGAINST TOP COMPETITION. 

    TE is a real cause for concern. Gronk is a great player. Truly the best in the league. But there is nothing behind him either catching or blocking. ANd Gronk is off the field too much. I was one of the very many here who hoped they would get someone to add depth with real talent at least at one of the skills of blocking or receiving if not both. I would like Keller is he can play (but he is not a long term answer). I do not have much faith in the UDFAs but you never know. We can hope but I would not be counting on them. THe film of Jones showed an athletic guy but painfully slow past 4 yards downfield. After a catch he might be able to pick up another yard. And he would be easily covered (size notwithstanding) downfield by any LB who has a clue. A guy like Collins would likely shut him down.

    THe O line got some meat to compete but my expectations are muted here. If Cannon can move to RG and the rookie OT can be a solid backup at T then Connolly, Wendell and the rookie C can all compete for starting C. If everyone is healthy on the o line it could be solid. But it had trouble against good pass rushers and good run Ds last year especially in the Denver playoff game. So it is not something I want to play with. Perhaps Kline will step up and be some sort of upgrade. 

    Overall I think this is a good O that will be very good in helping deliver another division title and a 1st or 2nd seed if healthy. But against the best front 7s in pass rush or run D I am not sure there is enough. And if Gronk is not on the field we are playing with 10 players. That is a real handicap when you are trying to win a SB.

     

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

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

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    Call him a number 2 if you want, but his 85 receptions for over 1,000 yards was about double what Dobson produced.  Boldin was 13th in receptions, 15th in yards receiving, and 18th in TDs, so that puts him pretty squarely near the top of the league in production. 




    Boldin had a monster game against GB the first week of the season (over 200 yards) and then didn't crack 100 until week 17.  Outside of that outlier game the guy hasn't had an 1000 yard season since 2009.  Look he is a fine player, but I don't think he represents the kind of threat that most people are referring to when they talk about that "#1" guy.

     
  14. 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:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, last season we were tied for 2nd in points scored per game with no Welker, Hernandez, barely any Gronk, 3 rookies and an injured Amendola. History shows that our offense is more then likely to improve with another year of experience and health. 

    So, the offense should be where they always are. 

    Let's just hope they can score more then the 15.5 ppg they have put up in our last 6 consecutive playoff losses. 

    [object HTMLDivElement]

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Without Gronk we were in the bottom 1/3rd of the league, averaged 21 points per game (that includes two blow outs at the end of the year), with Gronk we averaged 32 points per game. On the year we were a full TD below last years average. It seems without those guys we were bottom 3rd of the league. That means without those guys we're a full 2 TDs+ worse on O then with those guys. So, no they aren't where they should be if we have to rely on Amendola and those 3 rooks.

    [/QUOTE]


    Belichick, Brady, and the offensive coaches do such a great job, I think people fail to see the talent weaknesses in the offense.  Then they have to create crazy theories to explain why the offense sputters in the playoffs (typically when Gronk is out).  It's Brady's ego or it's too much shotgun and not enough runnning.  

    Really, though, it's mostly not enough Gronk and not enough talent behind him in the skill positions other than QB.

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

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

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    Sure you can make the playoffs and even win the championship without a top receiver.  You can also do the same without a top RB, a top TE, a top OT, a top guard, a top centre, a top DT, a top DE, a top OLB, a top ILB, a top safety, a top CB, a top punter, a top kicker, a top punt returner, a top kick returner, a top gunner . . . or even without a top QB. 


    That doesn't mean getting quality in as many of those positions as possible isn't important  . . . 





    You're right.  I think my point was that you can have a WR corps that is playoff caliber without having a true protoypical "#1" guy.  Ever since we had Moss there is this sense that we need another guy like him to be a great offense.  I don't agree.  More importantly we drafted some receivers last year.  We need to give them some time to develop.  That is what Denver did.  Almost all the teams with "#1" guys got them by drafting them.  If we had drafted another guy who does he replace?  We already have Edelman, Lafell, Amendola, Dobson and Boyce.  Is there any rookie that is going to have a one up on learning the offense on any of those guys?  Maybe, but I don't think it is so clear particularly given the run on WR in the 1st round.  I think our draft resources were better spent addressing the lines.

     
  16. 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 pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Call him a number 2 if you want, but his 85 receptions for over 1,000 yards was about double what Dobson produced.  Boldin was 13th in receptions, 15th in yards receiving, and 18th in TDs, so that puts him pretty squarely near the top of the league in production. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Boldin had a monster game against GB the first week of the season (over 200 yards) and then didn't crack 100 until week 17.  Outside of that outlier game the guy hasn't had an 1000 yard season since 2009.  Look he is a fine player, but I don't think he represents the kind of threat that most people are referring to when they talk about that "#1" guy.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Personally, I think he's exactly the kind of guy the Pats need--a physically talented target, that defenders have to worry about away from the short middle portion of the field. He may have broken 100 yards only twice in the regular season (and once in the playoffs) but he broke 90 six times and averaged 73 per game.  His lower production in the three years prior to last season had more to do with the Ravens' offensive approach.  Even so, he was in the 800 and 900 yard range all those seasons he was with the Ravens, and had very good average yards per catch statistics. 

    Not to get all focused on Boldin though, my main point is that a guy who has the physical abilities, hands, and route running skills to seriously challenge defenders away from the short middle of the field would greatly improve our offensive firepower and help us avoid defensive conundrums like those presented by Denver in the playoffs or Cincinnati early season.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

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

    What I think about the O:






          • We didn't lack for O last year and won't this year. I'll leave it to that absolute MORON of a coach BB who has produced the greatest number of winning seasons this franchise has ever seen...improvements? Of course, better O line play, which I am confident we'll have after drafting young studs, vibrancy in the RB's with a fresh mix of vets and rooks, another year in the mix for a young group of WR's and the only real question mark is at TE. They should be fine on offense this year









          • Without Gronk, the TE's are not nearly what they were last year. They were not after his injury last year. What team in the current NFL would be? I have the answer, NONE! So we  lose the best TE in the game and, when no one near his talent is available in this draft, have to cry continually about not having TE's? Mortgage some part of the current team for what TE? Who should have been traded? What draft picks for what current TE's? What TE's should we have drafted where, even though we know this year's crop of TE's are a small and very flawed group? This is far from the first year on these threads that the "kid in a candy store" outlook has been exhibited. Ya can't get everything ya want just by pointing and saying "I Want!".







      • The offense changes in subtle ways each and every year. Players come and players go. They don't always stay at the same playing level ,- for some it's playing age, use on the body, for others it's the light clicking on and them "getting it". And for some we know they just never do. WE cannot know what the level of that process will be, at least not at this point, but we know it will be a factor. Guessing makes no sense because we all guessed about the draft and look how that turns out each year.







          • I'm not just a member of the "In BB I Trust" group, I'm also a member of the "In TB I Trust" group. I see nothing that tells me he's changed at all. New QB? Yeah, in about 5 or so years.









     
  18. 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 pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Sure you can make the playoffs and even win the championship without a top receiver.  You can also do the same without a top RB, a top TE, a top OT, a top guard, a top centre, a top DT, a top DE, a top OLB, a top ILB, a top safety, a top CB, a top punter, a top kicker, a top punt returner, a top kick returner, a top gunner . . . or even without a top QB. 

     

    That doesn't mean getting quality in as many of those positions as possible isn't important  . . . 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You're right.  I think my point was that you can have a WR corps that is playoff caliber without having a true protoypical "#1" guy.  Ever since we had Moss there is this sense that we need another guy like him to be a great offense.  I don't agree.  More importantly we drafted some receivers last year.  We need to give them some time to develop.  That is what Denver did.  Almost all the teams with "#1" guys got them by drafting them.  If we had drafted another guy who does he replace?  We already have Edelman, Lafell, Amendola, Dobson and Boyce.  Is there any rookie that is going to have a one up on learning the offense on any of those guys?  Maybe, but I don't think it is so clear particularly given the run on WR in the 1st round.  I think our draft resources were better spent addressing the lines.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree with the general point that the whole is more important than any single part, and a "superstar" isn't necessarily the answer.  That said, the group needs to allow you to attack the whole field competently.  Last year, we were far too reliant on Edelman who isn't particularly effective downfield and on the perimeter.  If Dobson or Boyce develops, great.  If not, though, and Gronk is out, the offense looks less effective to me.  I'm not saying they should have drafted a WR or TE--they had other needs at least as important--but that doesn't mean I think the WR and TE positions are fine as is.  If all the rookies improve, they could end up great, but I can't say now that will happen and if it doesn't happen, the receivers could become a weak spot for the team, I think. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

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

    Give me a flippin break Mel. Gronk goes down and you think it's unreasonable to expect a little more production than 14 receptions from the tight ends? Gronk missed half a year and outside of him they had 14 receptions for 150 yards!! No one expects Gronk production but that is absolutely pathetic and nothing has been done to remedy it yet. People have every right to be concerned about it .

     
  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 prolate0spheroid's comment:


     




    Belichick, Brady, and the offensive coaches do such a great job, I think people fail to see the talent weaknesses in the offense.  Then they have to create crazy theories to explain why the offense sputters in the playoffs (typically when Gronk is out).  It's Brady's ego or it's too much shotgun and not enough runnning.  


    Really, though, it's mostly not enough Gronk and not enough talent behind him in the skill positions other than QB.





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    We don't have to wait till the playoffs it sputtered in the regular season without Gronk. Brady is fine, but without Gronk things start falling apart. The other TE's are no threat to catch so that means the opposing D can toss an extra player against the OL on every down. The WR group has issues getting open and was average at best last year so that extra guy being tossed against Brady reduces time for the WR's to get open, who had issues getting separation to begin with. Plenty of times Brady had all day to throw and no one to throw too so I don't put it all on the OL. Though in the playoffs against better front 7's the OL did have plenty of issues. Really the only thing that functioned well when Gronk was out last year was the saving grace the run game. However, they couldn't get it done in the RZ. Essentially without the threat of a impact receiver or big mismatch it through everything into the opposing teams D's power. It let them rush more often with more players and our receivers got singled up all year and still couldn't get open. That's why most people are uncomfortable because they didn't do anything to provide that threat. Hern, Gronk, Welker all provided that threat while they were here and healthy. It open a lot of stuff up for the other guys that right now isn't open and that's why personally I'm disappointed they didn't get a better weapon to open up that portion of the game in the offseason. I didn't expect another Gronk or Moss but you can get a guy who at least possess that threat of going down a seam without going overboard. Even a Chandler type would have provided more than what we currently have in that role.

     
  21. 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 portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think it very odd that anyone would have a problem with the running backs on this roster. When contracts are up that is another thing but for this year it is a very good group.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    The problem comes in that BB doesn't trust Ridley to give him enough consistent reps to get him going and Vereen gets injury picking up a penny, to the point BB went out and drafted his replacement (see BB's comments regarding the similarity of White to Vereen). Past that Blount was good but he's not here anymore and Bolden, regardless of all the love he gets here, isn't all that good. So, the RB core has some pretty big question marks as can they hold on to the ball, can they stay on the field, and can a rook step in right away and produce.

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

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

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, last season we were tied for 2nd in points scored per game with no Welker, Hernandez, barely any Gronk, 3 rookies and an injured Amendola. History shows that our offense is more then likely to improve with another year of experience and health. 

    So, the offense should be where they always are. 

    Let's just hope they can score more then the 15.5 ppg they have put up in our last 6 consecutive playoff losses. 

    [object HTMLDivElement]

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Without Gronk we were in the bottom 1/3rd of the league, averaged 21 points per game (that includes two blow outs at the end of the year), with Gronk we averaged 32 points per game. On the year we were a full TD below last years average. It seems without those guys we were bottom 3rd of the league. That means without those guys we're a full 2 TDs+ worse on O then with those guys. So, no they aren't where they should be if we have to rely on Amendola and those 3 rooks.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement

    Actually without Gronk we averaged 25.7 points per game also known as 2 ppg less then our season average, but I dont expect a fact like that to stop  you in your never ending conquest of telling us how bad we are.

    And those " rooks" aren't rooks anymore. Only you could look at a team scoring the 2nd most points in the game with an entirely rebuilt offense and see it as a problem.

     
  23. 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 TrueChamp's comment:


     


    [Quote]


     


    Actually without Gronk we averaged 25.7 points per game also known as 2 ppg less then our season average, but I dont expect a fact like that to stop  you in your never ending conquest of telling us how bad we are.


     


    And those " rooks" aren't rooks anymore. Only you could look at a team scoring the 2nd most points in the game with an entirely rebuilt offense and see it as a problem.


     


    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


    Actually we were both wrong. In the regular season it's 24.4 without Gronk, with him it's 32 still a full TD higher and still 2 TD's less than the previous year. And two of those games against the Ravens and Buf at the end blew the average out of the water. The 21.1 came from when you take those 2 games away, I got a bit ahead of myself. So other than a meaningless game that clearly Buf didn't want to win and the Ravens game we were a sub par team. That's hard to deny 


    Btw I know I asked before but stop putting words in my mouth. Sign of a truly (bit of irony there) weak argument is when you has to discredit the other person by making things up that they said or think. 

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

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

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

     

    [Quote]

     

     

     

    Actually without Gronk we averaged 25.7 points per game also known as 2 ppg less then our season average, but I dont expect a fact like that to stop  you in your never ending conquest of telling us how bad we are.

     

     

     

    And those " rooks" aren't rooks anymore. Only you could look at a team scoring the 2nd most points in the game with an entirely rebuilt offense and see it as a problem.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

     

    Actually we were both wrong. In the regular season it's 24.4 without Gronk, with him it's 32 still a full TD higher and still 2 TD's less than the previous year. And two of those games against the Ravens and Buf at the end blew the average out of the water. The 21.1 came from when you take those 2 games away, I got a bit ahead of myself. So other than a meaningless game that clearly Buf didn't want to win and the Ravens game we were a sub par team. That's hard to deny 

     

    Btw I know I asked before but stop putting words in my mouth. Sign of a truly (bit of irony there) weak argument is when you has to discredit the other person by making things up that they said or think. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    What words have I put in your mouth now? 

    And I count 231 points scored in 9 games Gronk played. By my calculator that is 25.7 ppg. No? 2nd year for 3 receivers and a 2nd year for Amendola, plus a return of the Gronk, add on Edelman and Lafelle and yep...... Pretty damn good imo.

     
  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 TrueChamp's comment:


    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    [Quote]


    Actually without Gronk we averaged 25.7 points per game also known as 2 ppg less then our season average, but I dont expect a fact like that to stop  you in your never ending conquest of telling us how bad we are.


    And those " rooks" aren't rooks anymore. Only you could look at a team scoring the 2nd most points in the game with an entirely rebuilt offense and see it as a problem. 





    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


     


     


    Actually we were both wrong. In the regular season it's 24.4 without Gronk, with him it's 32 still a full TD higher and still 2 TD's less than the previous year. And two of those games against the Ravens and Buf at the end blew the average out of the water. The 21.1 came from when you take those 2 games away, I got a bit ahead of myself. So other than a meaningless game that clearly Buf didn't want to win and the Ravens game we were a sub par team. That's hard to deny 


     


    Btw I know I asked before but stop putting words in my mouth. Sign of a truly (bit of irony there) weak argument is when you has to discredit the other person by making things up that they said or think. 


    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]


    What words have I put in your mouth now? 


    And I count 231 points scored in 9 games Gronk played. By my calculator that is 25.7 ppg. No? 2nd year for 3 receivers and a 2nd year for Amendola, plus a return of the Gronk, add on Edelman and Lafelle and yep...... Pretty damn good imo.


    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]


    What words how about "you in your never ending conquest of telling us how bad we are" Please point out where I said how bad we are and I'll stand corrected. Pointing out weakness that need to be improved isn't saying you are bad. You can't call a team that wins the division bad but you can say they aren't good enough to win the championship and point out why. You know there is grey right? It's not all you either love everything the team does out you hate everything right? 


    As for your count, you need less fingers and toes: 23+13+23+30+6+30+20+41+34 = 220


    But, you have always been bad at math. Every time you try to use it your numbers are always higher than they really are.


    Please don't tell me you were one of those people who said Amendola was going to be great last year too. I caught a ton of flak from that from those who thought BB did no wrong and yet Amendola was anything but great, esp when we needed him most. 

     

Share