Re: Game observations
posted at 12/16/2013 11:24 AM EST
In response to pezz4pats' comment:
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
A few myths I'm hearing that need to be debunked:
- We didn't run enough. We ran a lot in that game and did a very good job establishing the run. In fact, I thought the utilization of the run was among the best we've seen all season.
- We passed too much. The high number of passes was mostly dictated by the game situations. And several of our scoring drives were pass heavy, so when we did pass more, we weren't hurt by it.
- The play calling was bad, especially in the red zone. Actually, this was a pretty well called game, I think. There were times when we threw a lot in the red zone, but unfortunately, we weren't in great running situations. Again, game situations dictated a lot of the calls.
- Brady was the problem. Get real. Brady had a great game. He was accurate and quick to release the ball. With the receivers he had, he did a remarkable job.
The real problem with the game was twofold:
- First, the defense is really bad. This, I believe, is mostly because of injury (it has nothing to do with BB's skills as GM). But the front seven isn't good, and the secondary struggled a bit. Dennard and Talib, I think, are both less than 100%.
- Second, we are back to a duct tape and paper clip offense. The O-line has gone from a slight weakness (with Wendell and Connolly) to a real problem thanks to injury. And, most important, the lack of big, quality WRs and TEs is killing us. At the end of the game, we had three Welker replacements and little else. That's not a collection of weapons that can do much in the red zone.
Well Pro, the only thing I would disagree with is that the D is bad because of injuries AND BB's lack of GM skills.
The only equalizer of rookies is depth. How many rookies and UDFA's are we starting this year? If past acquisitions had panned out, would that be the case?
If Love, Deadrick, Cunningham, Beguette and 95% of the past few year DB's had worked out, would their depth be rookies and UDFA's? If Vet FA's had worked out, would they be starting rookies?
Don't even get me started on the receivers, who instead of being replaced through out the past 3 years, were replaced all at once. 3 rookie wr's, Who does that?
LOL. right now it's currently Brady and a few vets and last years Rutger's team, against the NFL.
That ought to get us far.
Thank God for TB. He deserves a medal.
I've never agreed with Rusty that BB is basically infallible as a GM, but I think without the injuries this year's team would be a championship calibre one, so I don't think team make-up is really the issue. Are there things that could have been done differently to create more depth or more quality at certain positions? Probably. But overall, the team was pretty strong before the injuries, so I wouldn't say team-building was a major issue. Remember, the team has done a great job staying competitive even with the injuries, so even the depth wasn't that big a problem. However, you can lose only so many top starters before it becomes a problem. We've lost for the season two starting DTs, our best starting LB, our best TE (and best offensive weapon after Brady), and our starting RT. On top of that, we've had multiple starting or key rotational players out with injuries for multi-game stretches (Thompkins, Dobson, Amendola, Hoomanawanui, Vereen, Bolden, Ridley, Cannon, Talib, Dennard, Gregory, etc.).