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

  1. 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 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

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes Brady had Dobson, Thompkins, Boyce, Amendola, Vereen, Edelman, Gronk And Hooman. That group of receivers is more talented than the group he had from 2003-2006.  He also started the year with accuracy problems and I'm not so sure he ever really fixed that. You can call me rusty all you want but it doesn't change the fact he was off last year.

    BTW The Pats never had a true #1 WR till Moss got picked up. What's the superbowl situation since then?

    I still long for the days when Brady made superstars out of jag receivers. 

     
  2. 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]

     

    Yes Brady had Dobson, Thompkins, Boyce, Amendola, Vereen, Edelman, Gronk And Hooman. That group of receivers is more talented than the group he had from 2003-2006.  He also started the year with accuracy problems and I'm not so sure he ever really fixed that. You can call me rusty all you want but it doesn't change the fact he was off last year.

    BTW The Pats never had a true #1 WR till Moss got picked up. What's the superbowl situation since then?

    I still long for the days when Brady made superstars out of jag receivers. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I thought the SB years receivers were much better than this group. Nice how you tossed in 06' btw since many compared last years group to that group who could have been the worst group in Brady's career.

     
  3. 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 PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]



    Brother from another Mother!  Amazing how much we see eye to eye on things here.

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

    Re: 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."   

    In New England's Superbowl Winning "Glory Years", We had the unimaginable Offensive Weapons from the likes of:

    -Deion Branch, Jermaine Wiggins, David Patten, Patrick Pass, David Givens, Heath Evans, Christian Fauria, Kevin Faulk, JR Redmond, Troy Brown, PK Sam, David, JJ Stokes, Corey Dillon, Antwoine Womack/Fred Baxster, Daniel Graham, Bethel Johnson, and Adam Vinnatieri....   + Tom Brady   + A Really stout Offensive Line  {and a superb and aggressive defense}

    ~Let us not glorify the past Patriot Superbowl Winning Offenses being something they were just the opposite of...

    This year, we have:

    Tom Brady + What appears to be a Really stout Offensive Line {and a superb and aggressive defense} + The Weapons of:

    Stevan Ridley, Rob Gronkowski, Shane Vareen, Julian Edelman, Michael Hoomanawanui, Aaron Dobson, Kembrall Thompkins, Brandon LaFell, Brandon Bolden/James White, Danny Amendola, and Stephen Gostkowski...

    ...At least on paper, the top 1 shouldn't have won any superbowls, in simple and base comparative to the bottom 1 here... 

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

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

    My bar is the playoffs. Yes we scored a ton in the regular season and were one of the top rated offenses, but we were anemic last year against Denver. What happened? Brady with a few misfires, bad online protection, receivers not getting open? 

    PI don't know. What I do know is you can field a playoff offense throwing to the likes of slater, with amendola who was healthy enough only catching 1 ball, Gronk out, Dobson hurt, thompkins missing. I will give a pass to the rookies, but to me, other than Gronk getting hurt again, the biggest disappointment was amendola given what we paid him.

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

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

    If our roster is good enough to go to 3 straight afc championship games then they are good enough to win superbowls no? And if the answer to why they didn't get over the hump is because of injuries to dominate players like Gronk, or Wilfork etc... then obviously the team was talented enough. Unless you think we should have pro bowl players backing up pro bowl players at every position, and if you think that, you are an idiot.

    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  7. 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 TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If our roster is good enough to go to 3 straight afc championship games then they are good enough to win superbowls no? And if the answer to why they didn't get over the hump is because of injuries to dominate players like Gronk, or Wilfork etc... then obviously the team was talented enough. Unless you think we should have pro bowl players backing up pro bowl players at every position, and if you think that, you are an idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry, gotta disagree with you.  They were talented enough to beat teams that didn't make the playoffs but when it came down to playing the best teams in the playoffs they weren't talented enough.  Weren't talented enough to beat Denver in the playoffs this season (you can say what you want about them beating the Broncos in the regular season but that was crazy weather, Broncos changed their game, just crazy circumstances) and the Pats weren't talented enough the season before losing to the Ravens in the playoffs.  Those two teams had more talent on the field then the Pats had. 

    With that said, on paper they look like they have the talent going into this season.  I still question the TE position.  Major weakness, IMO!  Would like to see some added vet depth to LB, RB and I wouldn't complain seeing a vet WR join the team. Not sure who is playing safety with DMC.  Other then TE, I really like what I am seeing. (That is praise to BB I am giving so the few who think all I do is bad mouth BB take note.)

     
  8. 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]

    If our roster is good enough to go to 3 straight afc championship games then they are good enough to win superbowls no? And if the answer to why they didn't get over the hump is because of injuries to dominate players like Gronk, or Wilfork etc... then obviously the team was talented enough. Unless you think we should have pro bowl players backing up pro bowl players at every position, and if you think that, you are an idiot.

    [object HTMLDivElement]

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I'll agree when fully healthy this team is completely different, however, when you have guys consistently getting hurt can you rely on them in the playoffs every year? We could have the most talented team in the league but if 6 starters who are known to get hurt, get hurt..... you can't use that as an excuse period. When you have injury prone and aging players you have two choices, either 1 decide they don't provide enough to warrent them getting injured and get someone of equal talent but more durable/younger (ala leaving Talib and getting Revis) or you decide they are too good of a talent to give up (ala Gronk) so you have to provide them with a better backup than you do at other positions or people because you know there is a very good shot they could get injured. Last year they didn't have a proper backup for Vereen, Amendola, or Gronk. You can't say it's hindsight because others including myself said they would most likely get hurt. We aren't Nostradamus, we are just smart enough to look at history and predict based on that. This year hopefully Boyce can be that guy (though not much from last year strikes confidence) with Amendola but at least they got a dependable vet in LaFell. I don't think LaFell is much more than a #3/4 but at least he's better than having to go out and pull whatever is off the street like last year. Vereen, BB just drafted his replacement in White. You listen to BB's comments and he says they are very much a like. BB knows Vereen is too injury prone and is already getting ready to replace him. But, Gronk is our biggest weapon right now and he didn't touch the position. All the playoff woes on O, some of which can be associated with Gronk not being there, and it's a barren wasteland behind Gronk this year? Last year I could understand with the Hern situation but why this year when it was such an obvious weakness last year?

     
  9. 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 LazarusintheSanatorium's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "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."   

    In New England's Superbowl Winning "Glory Years", We had the unimaginable Offensive Weapons from the likes of:

    -Deion Branch, Jermaine Wiggins, David Patten, Patrick Pass, David Givens, Heath Evans, Christian Fauria, Kevin Faulk, JR Redmond, Troy Brown, PK Sam, David, JJ Stokes, Corey Dillon, Antwoine Womack/Fred Baxster, Daniel Graham, Bethel Johnson, and Adam Vinnatieri....   + Tom Brady   + A Really stout Offensive Line  {and a superb and aggressive defense}

    ~Let us not glorify the past Patriot Superbowl Winning Offenses being something they were just the opposite of...

    This year, we have:

    Tom Brady + What appears to be a Really stout Offensive Line {and a superb and aggressive defense} + The Weapons of:

    Stevan Ridley, Rob Gronkowski, Shane Vareen, Julian Edelman, Michael Hoomanawanui, Aaron Dobson, Kembrall Thompkins, Brandon LaFell, Brandon Bolden/James White, Danny Amendola, and Stephen Gostkowski...

    ...At least on paper, the top 1 shouldn't have won any superbowls, in simple and base comparative to the bottom 1 here... 

    [/QUOTE]

    Pretty much what I was saying Laz!

     
  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 LazarusintheSanatorium's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "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."   

    In New England's Superbowl Winning "Glory Years", We had the unimaginable Offensive Weapons from the likes of:

    -Deion Branch, Jermaine Wiggins, David Patten, Patrick Pass, David Givens, Heath Evans, Christian Fauria, Kevin Faulk, JR Redmond, Troy Brown, PK Sam, David, JJ Stokes, Corey Dillon, Antwoine Womack/Fred Baxster, Daniel Graham, Bethel Johnson, and Adam Vinnatieri....   + Tom Brady   + A Really stout Offensive Line  {and a superb and aggressive defense}

    ~Let us not glorify the past Patriot Superbowl Winning Offenses being something they were just the opposite of...

    This year, we have:

    Tom Brady + What appears to be a Really stout Offensive Line {and a superb and aggressive defense} + The Weapons of:

    Stevan Ridley, Rob Gronkowski, Shane Vareen, Julian Edelman, Michael Hoomanawanui, Aaron Dobson, Kembrall Thompkins, Brandon LaFell, Brandon Bolden/James White, Danny Amendola, and Stephen Gostkowski...

    ...At least on paper, the top 1 shouldn't have won any superbowls, in simple and base comparative to the bottom 1 here... 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Branch - Edelman -> Who would take Edelman in this case?

    Brown - Amendola -> Brown is consistent and performed when you needed him to no chance I'd take Amendola over him

    Givens - Dobson -> Dobson is a rook so this could change but as of right now Brady trusted Givens and Givens was productive, Dobson has a lot to learn

    Dillon/Smith - Ridley -> considering BB trusted Dillon and Smith not to mention both performed in the post-season I'd take either over Ridley right now

    Faulk - Vereen -> One performed on the field one watched from an ice tube, easily take Faulk

    Kickers -> Wash

    Fauria/Wiggens - Hooman -> Hooman is a good blocker but so was Fauria and Wiggens except both could catch

    Gronk -> Can you really count him since he is never in the playoffs?

    Does the current O have higher potential, absolutely but the SB years O's were much more consistent, performed under the lights, and most importantly were on the field to perform in the playoffs. Give me 01-05's O's and I think we'd have a better shot at beating Den in the playoffs than last years team who couldn't get out of their own way.

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

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

    rtuinila~

    Thanx man...gotta go with now over then...

    PatsEng~

    Forgot to add in 1 small thing-  I'm counting that 1st group over a 5 year period...  Per Example:  We only had Dillon for 1 outta those 3 Superbowls.  Per #2 Example:  I can't even recall more than a handful of playoff games ever, where we saw the full breath of:  Branch AND Brown AND Givens... Likewise: There were SB years where someone "AS good" AS Antwain Smith (let alone Dillon) contributed at RB, nor someone "AS good" as Christian Fauria (let alone Daniel Graham) was at TightEnd.

    Like I said, THAT wasn't our Offensive weapons for 1 game...or for 1 Superbowl...That:  Was NE's Offensive weapons over the span of 5 years, which won us 3 Superbowls.  Granting that, the simple fact of the guys in example #1 being the playmakers for a half of a decade vs. 'these are their counterparts THIS year', makes a huge difference. 

    On paper at least...The Pats SB Offenses more often than not, looked like the Offense of a team that shouldn't have even made the playoffs.  Tom Brady + A Kicker + Excellent teamplayers and Stellar Role Players.  Good grief...does anyone here believe Deion Branch would've jettisoned to Seattle for mullah $ as some sorta pseudo perennial All-Pro game-changing game-breaking WR, save for his huge MVP SB performance...  Branch was solid...but STELLAR?!?  Man, the way that O ran things, there's a decent argument that could've been Christian Fauria IF that "Tuck Rule" Oakland Game had been the actual SB...  NE had-  No frills, base-line talent yet simply EXCEPTIONAL Teammates and Role Players, IN Depth.  ...And they have the same depth, yet with a little more overall talent comparative to just 1 SB winning roster, This year.  '05 may be the lone equal.  ...And with that O and an aging Dillon, NE managed to be the #1 Rushing Offense that season, and I'm pretty sure 1-2 of either Brown, Patten, Branch, Givens, were out for that Superbowl (IF I recall correctly...and the 1 year they had a list like that at wr).  After Dillon, there was Pass...and after Graham there was Mortenson I believe (or someone?).  Either way, that was THE full zenith of their SB Rosters and skills.

    Health and depth and this year can be that years equal...  RB does scare, and I still have no idea why NE didn't either sign that monster Oakland RB from 'bama in Free Agency, or just keep Blount.  I recognize and have expressed that same uncertainty. 

     
  12. 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 LazarusintheSanatorium's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "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."   

    In New England's Superbowl Winning "Glory Years", We had the unimaginable Offensive Weapons from the likes of:

    -Deion Branch, Jermaine Wiggins, David Patten, Patrick Pass, David Givens, Heath Evans, Christian Fauria, Kevin Faulk, JR Redmond, Troy Brown, PK Sam, David, JJ Stokes, Corey Dillon, Antwoine Womack/Fred Baxster, Daniel Graham, Bethel Johnson, and Adam Vinnatieri....   + Tom Brady   + A Really stout Offensive Line  {and a superb and aggressive defense}

    ~Let us not glorify the past Patriot Superbowl Winning Offenses being something they were just the opposite of...

    This year, we have:

    Tom Brady + What appears to be a Really stout Offensive Line {and a superb and aggressive defense} + The Weapons of:

    Stevan Ridley, Rob Gronkowski, Shane Vareen, Julian Edelman, Michael Hoomanawanui, Aaron Dobson, Kembrall Thompkins, Brandon LaFell, Brandon Bolden/James White, Danny Amendola, and Stephen Gostkowski...

    ...At least on paper, the top 1 shouldn't have won any superbowls, in simple and base comparative to the bottom 1 here... 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Branch - Edelman -> Who would take Edelman in this case?

    Brown - Amendola -> Brown is consistent and performed when you needed him to no chance I'd take Amendola over him

    Givens - Dobson -> Dobson is a rook so this could change but as of right now Brady trusted Givens and Givens was productive, Dobson has a lot to learn

    Dillon/Smith - Ridley -> considering BB trusted Dillon and Smith not to mention both performed in the post-season I'd take either over Ridley right now

    Faulk - Vereen -> One performed on the field one watched from an ice tube, easily take Faulk

    Kickers -> Wash

    Fauria/Wiggens - Hooman -> Hooman is a good blocker but so was Fauria and Wiggens except both could catch

    Gronk -> Can you really count him since he is never in the playoffs?

    Does the current O have higher potential, absolutely but the SB years O's were much more consistent, performed under the lights, and most importantly were on the field to perform in the playoffs. Give me 01-05's O's and I think we'd have a better shot at beating Den in the playoffs than last years team who couldn't get out of their own way.

    [/QUOTE]

    Given 01-05s Offense and the game would have gotten out of hand even faster. What you aren't taking into your account was the D from 01-05. That D was what allowed Brady to have a few (2-3) non-scoring drives or "three and outs" yet still be able to score more than the opponent. The other thing lacking last year was stout o-line. I don't know and can't count how many times I watched the real, good D's of the league just collapse the middle of the pocket in a two count. They didn't need to get near Brady, just needed to be on the ground in front of him and that ball was coming out whether Brady or the receiver were ready or not.  

     
  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 rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Given 01-05s Offense and the game would have gotten out of hand even faster. What you aren't taking into your account was the D from 01-05. That D was what allowed Brady to have a few (2-3) non-scoring drives or "three and outs" yet still be able to score more than the opponent. The other thing lacking last year was stout o-line. I don't know and can't count how many times I watched the real, good D's of the league just collapse the middle of the pocket in a two count. They didn't need to get near Brady, just needed to be on the ground in front of him and that ball was coming out whether Brady or the receiver were ready or not.  

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Oh, so they didn't have any 3 and outs against Den and the OL doesn't count as part of the O..... I guess you are going to say next Amendola looked better than he did against Den and the WR and TE core as a whole performed great that game too huh?

    I understand you want to protect everyone on the current team but this is getting silly. The O was manhandled in all aspects. The TE's were useless, the receivers couldn't get open, and the OL fell apart but you are willing to fight tooth and nail to say they are better than the consistent O's we had back in the day....

    Alright go down the same list I did and honestly answer which players would you rather have right now and yes take into account post season performance and injury prone as factors because you can't just forget those inconvenient things when we are talking about which O's we'd rather have.

     
  14. 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 must of fell down and hit my head and just read some of the previous posts wrong regarding the talent of our Super Bowl offenses vs. the one we have now. The Super Bowl offenses I remember had Troy Brown on it - who would never, ever drop a pass in the Super Bowl (or playoffs for that matter). This was a guy who came up with more clutch plays (not just catches) than just about anyone I can remember...certainly more clutch that anyone on our receiving core right now. We also had Branch, who was very difficult to cover seeing how he had the ability to get open short or deep...he could also catch a quick screen and the first guy who tried to tackle him wouldn't even touch him. You can throw in Patten too - people forget that this guy was a ligit 4.3 speed player - add in the fact that he too would burn you short or deep. Then there was Givens...the bigger/tougher receiver who developed into a very very solid player. Oh and we also had this guy named Kevin Faulk (in his prime by the way) who was a dynamic receiving and running threat, especially on third down where he gave us the element of surprise...how many screens did he catch? How many draws did he run for first downs? How many times did he line up wide and catch the thing over a linebacker? How many key blocks did this smaller player come up with? The answer is more than Vareen can dream of. We also had Dillon at one point...the guy was pretty good. And we usually had two tightends that could block...anyone remember Graham? He was pretty good, certainly better than the garbage undrafted free agents who will be competing for a job on our offense right now that is "better than the one we won Super Bowls with".

    You know, koolaid tastes good...I know that...you know that, but lets not guzzle so much of it that our brain cells fall out of our ears. 

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

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

    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Oh, so they didn't have any 3 and outs against Den and the OL doesn't count as part of the O..... I guess you are going to say next Amendola looked better than he did against Den and the WR and TE core as a whole performed great that game too huh?

    I understand you want to protect everyone on the current team but this is getting silly. The O was manhandled in all aspects. The TE's were useless, the receivers couldn't get open, and the OL fell apart but you are willing to fight tooth and nail to say they are better than the consistent O's we had back in the day....

    Alright go down the same list I did and honestly answer which players would you rather have right now and yes take into account post season performance and injury prone as factors because you can't just forget those inconvenient things when we are talking about which O's we'd rather have.

    [/QUOTE]

    PatsEng~

    I'll answer and beat a really, really dead, dead-horse:

    ~I'd rather have either any SB Winning Pats Offense or The Current 2014 Pats Offense equally + either of any Pats SB Winning Defenses or I'll even take my chances with The Current 2014 Pats Offense, And likewise I'd rather have The Pats AFCCG Denver loss Offense or any of the above + The Pats AFCCG Denver loss Defense or any of the above...PLUS:

    The same Regular Season and Playoff Games and SB Winning Games GAMEPLANS that did not pass the ball 38X to running the ball 14X with each of NE's RB by committee members (Ridley, Vareen, and Blount), touching the rock 5X each...or less.  In otherwords, a balanced attack with a non-predetermined unaltering gameplan to pass throughout the game.

    ...uggh, please don't let this start a mess.  But at mere face-value, NE's 2014 Offense trumps the 1st 2 SB Offenses in depth overall quality throughout AND greater skill...and vs. the '05 Offense, NE's '14 Offensive Roster trumps it easily in depth of overall quality and is pretty darn close in skill once one grants that I believe either 1-2 of Branch, Givens, Patten, and Brown, were injured that SB day, and so other than that the comparative is: 3 of 4 of those guys vs. Edelman, LaFell, Amendola, Dobson, and Thompkins.  Then there's Gronk and Hoom being the superiors to Graham.  Faulk and Dillon being the superiors to Vareen and Ridley.  Tom Brady and Tom Brady.  Ghost and Adam V. being awash.  ...It's not that far off.

    It'll be How we use it and health...And given the sheer depth this year, minus some freakishly larger than any seen before (even last year now) slew of injuries...it just might be solely How We Use it.

    ...still wish we kept Blount...or Oakland's FA RB from 'bama...was it Turner, his name keeps escaping me...?  This is the 1 area for me.

     
  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?

    The 2003 and 2004 teams won with excellent defense, but I think there's some revisionist history on how "bad" the offense was.  It wasn't as high-scoring an offense as recent ones (at least when Gronk is in), but it wasn't a bad offense.  In the 2003 Super Bowl, Branch had 143 yards receiving, Brown 86, Givens 69, Graham 46, and Faulk 19.  Smith had 83 yards rushing and Faulk added another 42. That was all against a good defense.  What was nice about that particular group of receivers was its diversity.  Branch brought quickness and the ability to get open anywhere on the field, Brown was an excellent possession receiver in the slot, Givens was a big guy who could work the edges, Faulk was excellent out of the backfield, and Graham was a decent all-round TE.  They didn't catch anything that day, but you also had Bethel Johnson (field stretcher), Fauria, and Patrick Pass.  These may not have been the best receivers in the league, but it was a good mix of skills that allowed the Pats to attack all parts of the field. 


    In 2004, the offense had a similar receiving group--Branch (who again had over 100 yards in the Super Bowl), Givens, Brown, Johnson, Patten, Graham, Fauria, Faulk--plus Corey Dillon. Again, not super stars (though Branch was pretty good in the Pats system), but a nice diverse mix of reasonable talent. 


    If you compare those receiving groups to what we had last year against Denver, would anyone take Edelman over Branch? Collie or one-catch Amendola over Brown? Dobson over Givens? Vereen over Faulk?  Hoomanawanui and Mulligan over Graham and Fauria? Slater over Johnson and Patten? I don't think it's even close when you take into account talent, experience, athleticism, and maybe most important, the diversity of skills in the group.  Let's face it: Collie, Amendola, and Edelman are all the same type receiver.  Dobson was the only guy that gave us any kind of diversity in that receiving line up and he was a rookie who was only moderately productive last year.  Those who dismiss the WR position as irrelevant because we won without a superstar receiver in 2003 and 2004 are not looking closely at the full picture.  It's not just star power that matters, it's diversity and depth of quality talent.  By the time we got to the AFC Championship game last year, we were lacking both diversity and quality depth.    Add Gronk back into the mix, and the offense would have been much better (Gronk is that good), but without Gronk it really was a greatly subpar receiving group, significantly below what we had on the field in the 2003 and 2004 Super Bowls. 


    If you don't believe me, just watch the tape of Denver's defense and ask why they were so comfortable playing one-deep safety much of the first half and leaving 8 or 9 in the box even against passing formations.


     

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

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

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If our roster is good enough to go to 3 straight afc championship games then they are good enough to win superbowls no? And if the answer to why they didn't get over the hump is because of injuries to dominate players like Gronk, or Wilfork etc... then obviously the team was talented enough. Unless you think we should have pro bowl players backing up pro bowl players at every position, and if you think that, you are an idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry, gotta disagree with you.  They were talented enough to beat teams that didn't make the playoffs but when it came down to playing the best teams in the playoffs they weren't talented enough.  Weren't talented enough to beat Denver in the playoffs this season (you can say what you want about them beating the Broncos in the regular season but that was crazy weather, Broncos changed their game, just crazy circumstances) and the Pats weren't talented enough the season before losing to the Ravens in the playoffs.  Those two teams had more talent on the field then the Pats had. 

    With that said, on paper they look like they have the talent going into this season.  I still question the TE position.  Major weakness, IMO!  Would like to see some added vet depth to LB, RB and I wouldn't complain seeing a vet WR join the team. Not sure who is playing safety with DMC.  Other then TE, I really like what I am seeing. (That is praise to BB I am giving so the few who think all I do is bad mouth BB take note.)

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry but I will disagree with you. And for the following reasons:

    1. they made it to TWO SBs in the last 7 seasons

    2. In BOTH SBs they had leads late in the game

    When you are that close it is the hieght of abusrdity to say the team was not good enough. 

    1. A magic helmet(!) means we didnt have enough talent?! Remember who was covering the magic helmet? RODNEY. And there is NO question that he was an exceptional player.

    2. A dropped pass by a hugely dependable receiver off a less than stellar throw by the most accurate QB over 20 yards...

    No. We are disappointed but you cant blame it on BB (sorry Babe) or lack of talent. They fell short but they had a team in both those years that could have won it.

    You can make the case that if they had been healthy last year they might have beaten Denver. Look what they did in their record come back against them in Foxboro.

    Disagreeing is one thing but ranting and raving how bad they are... its ridiculous.

     

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

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

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    I do not agree.

    1. I think they have a very good group of RBs and that is a big part of that talent.
    2. I do think that with Danny A hurt they had to go to too many rookies so depth was not good at WR last year. HOWEVER - I think 1 to 3 of last years rookies will make significant strides as many decent and even very good WRs do in their second year. Dobson seems like the most likely but any and all 3 of them could. That will give us breadth and depth. And Danny A will have had a season just to get familiar so he should be very good if healthy.
    3. I do agree there is zero talent behind Gronk and that was HUGE issue
    4. I think the biggest problem was with the O line against superior pass rushes and superior run Ds. Especially when we did not have Gronk. It was almost like playing with 10 players on offense. But the line, especially C and RG, were overmatched. That made Mankins job that much harder. It also makes the tackles jobs harder because they get no inside help at all.
     
  19. 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 portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    I do not agree.

    1. I think they have a very good group of RBs and that is a big part of that talent.
    2. I do think that with Danny A hurt they had to go to too many rookies so depth was not good at WR last year. HOWEVER - I think 1 to 3 of last years rookies will make significant strides as many decent and even very good WRs do in their second year. Dobson seems like the most likely but any and all 3 of them could. That will give us breadth and depth. And Danny A will have had a season just to get familiar so he should be very good if healthy.
    3. I do agree there is zero talent behind Gronk and that was HUGE issue
    4. I think the biggest problem was with the O line against superior pass rushes and superior run Ds. Especially when we did not have Gronk. It was almost like playing with 10 players on offense. But the line, especially C and RG, were overmatched. That made Mankins job that much harder. It also makes the tackles jobs harder because they get no inside help at all.

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess I'd say you partially agree, partially disagree from what you said above.  Here are my thoughts:

    • RBs--potentially good, but unfortunately Ridley's fumbling issues have kept him off the field at times and Vereen has been hurt a lot.  I'm talking mostly about passing offense, though, and even here it would be nice to get more from the backs in the passing game.  Vereen has the potential to be very effective here, but so far he hasn't been able to stay healthy enough to really make the impact that Kevin Faulk was able to make.
    • I hope you're right about one of the rookies really making the leap to something special this year.  And I'm sure that's what the Pats are hoping for too.  But I'm basing my assessment on what we've actually seen to date, and I have a hard time saying last year's receiving corp (even with all healthy) was a particularly effective one.  And with the injuries that plagued it all season it was actually a pretty mediocre one in my opinion for many games.
    • We are almost in complete agreement about the TE position.  Gronk is great--a guy who single-handedly can and does transform this offense.  But he's hurt a lot and may not be 100% when he returns this season (whenever that is).  Hoomanawanui is an okay back-up in a one-TE offense.  We don't have the talent to run two TEs anymore, however, and honestly I'd consider using an extra O lineman over Hoomanawanui in short yardage situations.  I wasn't impressed with Hoo's blocking much of last year. 
    • Agree mostly on the O line.  I think it's a decent line, but it has weaknesses that can be exploited. I'm a big Mankins fan, but his one major weakness is a tendency to be beat by guys with quick lateral moves.  This happens against agile interior rushers a bit too often.  Wendell and Connolly are only average, and Wendell is also small, which is sometimes a problem.  Solder is a great athlete, but had a tendency to be beat more than I would like from an elite left tackle.  He's still developing, but he needs to get more consistency.  

     

     
  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 portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    I do not agree.

    1. I think they have a very good group of RBs and that is a big part of that talent.

    REALLY HARD TO TELL HOW GOOD THE RB GROUP COULD HAVE BEEN, OR WILL BE RUNNING BEHIND THE OL AGAINST MANY DEFENSES. OL WAS SIMPLY OVER MATCHED IN MANY GAMES LAST YEAR, BOTH RUNNING THE BALL AND PROTECTING TB

    1. I do think that with Danny A hurt they had to go to too many rookies so depth was not good at WR last year. HOWEVER - I think 1 to 3 of last years rookies will make significant strides as many decent and even very good WRs do in their second year. Dobson seems like the most likely but any and all 3 of them could. That will give us breadth and depth. And Danny A will have had a season just to get familiar so he should be very good if healthy.

    I AGREE. I HAVE ALWAYS FELT DA WAS A STUD. JE WAS JUST AS APT TO BE INJURED AS DA, AND LAST YEAR JE LASTED THE SEASON. EXPECTING SIMILAR SEASON FROM DA AS JE HAD LAST YEAR

    1. I do agree there is zero talent behind Gronk and that was HUGE issue

    I DO NOT AGREE. I THINK HOOMAN IS A VERY GOOD 3RD OPTION AT TE. GOOD, NOT GREAT BLOCKER. CAN MAKE THE ROUTINE CATCH AND RUN. FINDING THAT 2ND OPTION AT TE IS WHAT IS GETTING TO MOST FANS HERE ON THE BOARD.

    1. I think the biggest problem was with the O line against superior pass rushes and superior run Ds. Especially when we did not have Gronk. It was almost like playing with 10 players on offense. But the line, especially C and RG, were overmatched. That made Mankins job that much harder. It also makes the tackles jobs harder because they get no inside help at all.

    WELL SAID

    [/QUOTE]


     
  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'll just add that I was not reassured by Amendola's inconsistent level of performance.  There were a few games where he looked very good, but too many where his impact was minimal.  Maybe that was because of injury, but I think the book is still out on him. 

     

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

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

    I would also add;

    I do agree there is zero talent behind Gronk and that was HUGE issue
    I DO NOT AGREE. I THINK HOOMAN IS A VERY GOOD 3RD OPTION AT TE. GOOD, NOT GREAT BLOCKER. CAN MAKE THE ROUTINE CATCH AND RUN. FINDING THAT 2ND OPTION AT TE IS WHAT IS GETTING TO MOST FANS HERE ON THE BOARD.

    I do feel that the DKeller we saw in his Jets days would be an excellent 2nd option at TE. All comes down to health and can he be that player again...

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

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

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I'll just add that I was not reassured by Amendola's inconsistent level of performance.  There were a few games where he looked very good, but too many where his impact was minimal.  Maybe that was because of injury, but I think the book is still out on him. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady sucked early last year and then the media tried to scapegoat the rookies and amendola.

    No more excuses for brady. I am tired of it.  Been going on in various forms for many years.

     
  24. 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 DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Brady sucked early last year and then the media tried to scapegoat the rookies and amendola.

    No more excuses for brady. I am tired of it.  Been going on in various forms for many years.

    [/QUOTE]

    If you mix heroin with your LSD, maybe the hallucinations won't be so upsetting to you . . . 

     

     

     
  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 rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I would also add;

    I do agree there is zero talent behind Gronk and that was HUGE issue
    I DO NOT AGREE. I THINK HOOMAN IS A VERY GOOD 3RD OPTION AT TE. GOOD, NOT GREAT BLOCKER. CAN MAKE THE ROUTINE CATCH AND RUN. FINDING THAT 2ND OPTION AT TE IS WHAT IS GETTING TO MOST FANS HERE ON THE BOARD.

    I do feel that the DKeller we saw in his Jets days would be an excellent 2nd option at TE. All comes down to health and can he be that player again...

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I agree I love Hooman as a 3rd option but currently he's not he's the 2nd option. As for Keller who knows what we'd get however, he's more a receiver than a TE and given Gronks injury history I'd be much more comfortable with a 'Y' type 2nd TE than more of a pure slot type. Keller would be icing imo not really a #2 TE. If Gronk could stay healthy Keller would make a good #2 (if healthy) but can you say both will be healthy? That's why I see #2 as a big hole regardless if they sign Keller or not

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share