Implications of Gronk not being ready

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Implications of Gronk not being ready

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    OMG, i dont know what's worse. Wozzy's absolute destruction of Rusty or PCMIV killing him with the face palm. Rusty i dont feel bad for piling on. I've been telling you the same for years. Tom Brady is never a problem.

    That was PCMIV's Buddhist Palm technique.

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

    Re: Implications of Gronk not being ready

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wow man you really love to hear yourself talk. I added a few things as a response.

    There are many reasons why the Pats' offense has sputtered in the postseason. Injury is a big part of it . . . to linemen, to Gronk, to key receivers (i.e., Welker in 2009).  Lack of diversity and inconsistent quality at some positions has also been an issue, in particular having only average running backs prior to Ridley and weak outside receivers ever since Moss began to decline in 2009.  Brady has, of course, made mistakes too, but to blame everything on him is silly.  For the most part, he's been a strength of the team and--even in the postseason--not a weakness. Sounds like you have all the bases covered. The problem is some of this, some of that, and some of the other thing. Check!

    The postseason losses also have something to do with a defense that is prone to giving up big plays at inopportune times. It's not all on the offense. Sure, the current rules make it tough for this defense to play like our dynasty defense. It is not because BB isn't a good talent evaluator as you suggest, nor is it because BB inherited his SB defense's as you agree with. It is becasue this LG is not the same LG as it was 10 years ago.

    As far as game planning and play calling, the use of the shotgun is the result of the type of players we've had more than Brady's preferences. Well you are on the record as saying we do not have talented receivers so how the heck is shotgun the result of our players? Last time I checked the shotgun offense needs talented receivers to work.

    Sure, most QBs like the shotgun.  It makes it easier for them to survey the field and get the ball off fast.  Although it may "tip off" a pass play, it  can make the opponent's pass rush less effective, since the QB starts further back and doesn't have to monitor the rush while dropping back.  Overall, it's a better passing formation than a drop back, Says who?

    and if a team can also run at least reasonably well from it, it's not quite as one-dimensional as some think. How? So, yeah, Brady like any good passing QB tends to like the shotgun. He likes the SG because that's what our coaches have been running since the 07 season. Read Mike Reiss's recent articles on how the SG has been used over the last years.

    But the reason the coaches (and it's the coaches, not Brady) choose to run the shotgun a lot (though on less than half the plays, still) is because it works with the short, quick passing game that, for better or worse, has been the Patriots' offense's primary strength the past few years.  Welker is effective primarily if he gets open fast and gets the ball in 2 or 2.5 seconds. That type of speedy release is almost impossible without the shotgun.  Since short, fast passes to Welker (or to the TEs) have been the mainstay of the Pats' offense, the shotgun has been utilized heavily.

    How many SB's has that offense performed well in? Note: I didn't say how many did they win? It wouldn't be a fair question. I said how many have they even performed well in? Answer that, then tell me what's wrong with the coaching philosophy on offense...

    Would the Pats' offense be better if it were more diverse?  I think so No, you know so. Take a stance and stop living on the fence

    --but given the players the Pats have had on offense, I don't think it would be better if they tried to run a different kind of offense.When did you become so proficient at judging NFL personnel and how to use it? 

    Running a lot requires great run blocking and good backs. Top 5 run blocking o-line in the LG, per football outsiders/profootball focus/ others

    Passing from under center requires a receivers who can get separation further downfield as well as strong pass blocking.It also requires the QB to actually be under center. 

    The Pats just haven't had these players.Branch and Givens were better then Moss and Welker were they?

    Rather than criticize our coaching staff for calling the wrong plays, I'm more prone to praise them for figuing out a way to turn such an oddly limited set of offensive players into a league leading offense.Wow, you really don't think much of Bill Belichick the GM do you? His offensive talent just isn't up to par hey? It's all his fault. Unreal.

      And rather than criticizing Brady, I can only admire his ability to make the offense work thanks to his super-quick and reliable decision-making on almost every play. Yeah, imagine the poor bastrd who was forced to throw to Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez? Especially when he already proved he can succeed with jags like Caldwell,Gabriel, and Watson.

    With most coaches and QBs, an offense that relies so heavily on players like Danny Woodhead and Wes Welker would be at best an average one.  With Belichick, his coaching staff, and Brady, it's been one of the best offenses in the league. yeah, if only they had drafted better right? Oh wait, these guys were undrafted and the COACH chose them as contributors.

    To get back to the main theme of this thread--Gronk--it is worth pointing out than in the past two postseasons the absence of Gronk has had a huge impact on the offense's success.  Gronk when healthly is a true impact player, a guy who single-handly transforms the Pats' offense from average to exceptional.  He's a great blocker in the running game and a great receiver, almost impossible to cover, particularly in the red zone.  With his size and athleticism, he adds a very different dimension to our passing offense than we have without him.  Take him out, and we fall back on quick passes to Welker, Hernandez, and occasionally someone else. Blame Brady, blame the shotgun, blame Welker--whatever you want.  But not having a healthy Gronk was probably the most significant problem for the offense in the past two postseason defeats.  

    Our offense has scored 14.5 ppg in our last AFC championship and 2 super bowls. You blame 1 player for that?

    [/QUOTE

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

    Re: Implications of Gronk not being ready

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    I need to address your other arrogant word choice of "nonsensical" on a separate response.

    Here's how it's VERY, very sensical:

    Welker has short legs. Welker's entire skill set is about quick cuts and short routes.  If Brady is dropping back from under Center, the time he would be using to hit Welker when he sees Welker's release in the shotgun, he throws quicker.

    If he's dropping back into a pocket, thoese 2-3 seconds tick away and Welker's route running range is compromised by that time because he isn't effective the longer the route is. It's also why his YAC is only tied to situations when he's taking the ball in a screen. He has short legs, not his fault. But this is the truth.

    So, yes, Welker was only effective in the shotgun spreads.   Go look at games where he didn't do much.  What's funny is, we actually WON those games.  2010 is a good place to look.

    Sort of ironic that there are two Welkers in the shotgun, isn't it?

    1. Welker's great stats against bad or mediocre D in the shotgun = Easy win.

    2. Welker's good great stats in games vs good or great Ds = Loss.

    His other main flaw due to his size is he's not  red zone threat. So, he can put up 8 grabs for a 100 yards, but we might only score 14 points, so what good is that production 

     



    And this is commonly referred to as junk science...

     

     




    Hmm. Your post is what is obviously known as a backpedal.

     

    I come with substantial evidence and fact and Wozzy calls up his cousin True Champ to hope they can find one last way to not admit that Tom Brady needs to get back under Center and simply stop throwing 40+ times with leads, from the shotgun.

    lol




    Brady doesn't call the plays. Game, set, match. Nothing to discuss. As much as you agree with me, it seems strange to hear you now.

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

    Re: Implications of Gronk not being ready

    We won two Super Bowls with a slot receiver (Brown, Branch) as our leading receiver and another with David Givens, maybe having Wes Welker as the #1 option isn't as bad as people make it out to be, maybe it's something more than just one player?

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

    Re: Implications of Gronk not being ready

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    We won two Super Bowls with a slot receiver (Brown, Branch) as our leading receiver and another with David Givens, maybe having Wes Welker as the #1 option isn't as bad as people make it out to be, maybe it's something more than just one player?

     



    The problem it`s in the system not in a unique piece

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Implications of Gronk not being ready

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    I need to address your other arrogant word choice of "nonsensical" on a separate response.

    Here's how it's VERY, very sensical:

    Welker has short legs. Welker's entire skill set is about quick cuts and short routes.  If Brady is dropping back from under Center, the time he would be using to hit Welker when he sees Welker's release in the shotgun, he throws quicker.

    If he's dropping back into a pocket, thoese 2-3 seconds tick away and Welker's route running range is compromised by that time because he isn't effective the longer the route is. It's also why his YAC is only tied to situations when he's taking the ball in a screen. He has short legs, not his fault. But this is the truth.

    So, yes, Welker was only effective in the shotgun spreads.   Go look at games where he didn't do much.  What's funny is, we actually WON those games.  2010 is a good place to look.

    Sort of ironic that there are two Welkers in the shotgun, isn't it?

    1. Welker's great stats against bad or mediocre D in the shotgun = Easy win.

    2. Welker's good great stats in games vs good or great Ds = Loss.

    His other main flaw due to his size is he's not  red zone threat. So, he can put up 8 grabs for a 100 yards, but we might only score 14 points, so what good is that production 

     



    And this is commonly referred to as junk science...

     

     




    Hmm. Your post is what is obviously known as a backpedal.

     

    I come with substantial evidence and fact and Wozzy calls up his cousin True Champ to hope they can find one last way to not admit that Tom Brady needs to get back under Center and simply stop throwing 40+ times with leads, from the shotgun.

    lol

     




    Brady doesn't call the plays. Game, set, match. Nothing to discuss. As much as you agree with me, it seems strange to hear you now.

     

     




    Brady has full autonomy like Gomer does.  Their OCs aren't as important as other QBs OCs.

     

    You're starting to teeter a bit.  As much as you can't admit Brady prefers the shotgun and gimmick offensive formations, it seems "strange" another subpar performance from him supports my premise over yours.

    Or, maybe it really isn't so strange? Maybe Brady's announced preferece was dumb to announce and defenses love to know what Brady prefers?

     

    you remind me of that old Springsteen song in this thread Russ:

     

    "I'm going down down down down down..."

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Implications of Gronk not being ready

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    I need to address your other arrogant word choice of "nonsensical" on a separate response.

    Here's how it's VERY, very sensical:

    Welker has short legs. Welker's entire skill set is about quick cuts and short routes.  If Brady is dropping back from under Center, the time he would be using to hit Welker when he sees Welker's release in the shotgun, he throws quicker.

    If he's dropping back into a pocket, thoese 2-3 seconds tick away and Welker's route running range is compromised by that time because he isn't effective the longer the route is. It's also why his YAC is only tied to situations when he's taking the ball in a screen. He has short legs, not his fault. But this is the truth.

    So, yes, Welker was only effective in the shotgun spreads.   Go look at games where he didn't do much.  What's funny is, we actually WON those games.  2010 is a good place to look.

    Sort of ironic that there are two Welkers in the shotgun, isn't it?

    1. Welker's great stats against bad or mediocre D in the shotgun = Easy win.

    2. Welker's good great stats in games vs good or great Ds = Loss.

    His other main flaw due to his size is he's not  red zone threat. So, he can put up 8 grabs for a 100 yards, but we might only score 14 points, so what good is that production 

     



    And this is commonly referred to as junk science...

     

     




    Hmm. Your post is what is obviously known as a backpedal.

     

    I come with substantial evidence and fact and Wozzy calls up his cousin True Champ to hope they can find one last way to not admit that Tom Brady needs to get back under Center and simply stop throwing 40+ times with leads, from the shotgun.

    lol

     




    Brady doesn't call the plays. Game, set, match. Nothing to discuss. As much as you agree with me, it seems strange to hear you now.

     

     




    Brady has full autonomy like Gomer does.  Their OCs aren't as important as other QBs OCs.

     

    You're starting to teeter a bit.  As much as you can't admit Brady prefers the shotgun and gimmick offensive formations, it seems "strange" another subpar performance from him supports my premise over yours.

    Or, maybe it really isn't so strange? Maybe Brady's announced preferece was dumb to announce and defenses love to know what Brady prefers?

     

     

     

    you remind me of that old Springsteen song in this thread Russ:

     

    "I'm going down down down down down..."

     



    Sure. Sure. Nevermind Springsteen is so overrated and annoying who hasn't done anything creatively for 25 years with you being from NJ. Sure.

     

    NEWSFLASH: The whole reason why you enjoy Brady sucking for us in the postseason is because it enhances your chances if you were to meet us again in the SB.

    The difference is, I readily admit Brady has got to be better, why you secretly hope he's average or subpar if the Giants meet the Pats in another SB.




    i am not from NJ and not much of a Springsteen fan

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Implications of Gronk not being ready

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    I need to address your other arrogant word choice of "nonsensical" on a separate response.

    Here's how it's VERY, very sensical:

    Welker has short legs. Welker's entire skill set is about quick cuts and short routes.  If Brady is dropping back from under Center, the time he would be using to hit Welker when he sees Welker's release in the shotgun, he throws quicker.

    If he's dropping back into a pocket, thoese 2-3 seconds tick away and Welker's route running range is compromised by that time because he isn't effective the longer the route is. It's also why his YAC is only tied to situations when he's taking the ball in a screen. He has short legs, not his fault. But this is the truth.

    So, yes, Welker was only effective in the shotgun spreads.   Go look at games where he didn't do much.  What's funny is, we actually WON those games.  2010 is a good place to look.

    Sort of ironic that there are two Welkers in the shotgun, isn't it?

    1. Welker's great stats against bad or mediocre D in the shotgun = Easy win.

    2. Welker's good great stats in games vs good or great Ds = Loss.

    His other main flaw due to his size is he's not  red zone threat. So, he can put up 8 grabs for a 100 yards, but we might only score 14 points, so what good is that production 

     



    And this is commonly referred to as junk science...

     

     




    Hmm. Your post is what is obviously known as a backpedal.

     

    I come with substantial evidence and fact and Wozzy calls up his cousin True Champ to hope they can find one last way to not admit that Tom Brady needs to get back under Center and simply stop throwing 40+ times with leads, from the shotgun.

    lol

     




    Brady doesn't call the plays. Game, set, match. Nothing to discuss. As much as you agree with me, it seems strange to hear you now.

     

     




    Brady has full autonomy like Gomer does.  Their OCs aren't as important as other QBs OCs.

     

    You're starting to teeter a bit.  As much as you can't admit Brady prefers the shotgun and gimmick offensive formations, it seems "strange" another subpar performance from him supports my premise over yours.

    Or, maybe it really isn't so strange? Maybe Brady's announced preferece was dumb to announce and defenses love to know what Brady prefers?

     

     

     

    you remind me of that old Springsteen song in this thread Russ:

     

    "I'm going down down down down down..."

     



    Sure. Sure. Nevermind Springsteen is so overrated and annoying who hasn't done anything creatively for 25 years with you being from NJ. Sure.

     

    NEWSFLASH: The whole reason why you enjoy Brady sucking for us in the postseason is because it enhances your chances if you were to meet us again in the SB.

    The difference is, I readily admit Brady has got to be better, why you secretly hope he's average or subpar if the Giants meet the Pats in another SB.

     




    i am not from NJ and not much of a Springsteen fan

     

     




    Yet you reference lyrics of his song in some weak azs troll retort?

     



    it fits

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Implications of Gronk not being ready

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wow man you really love to hear yourself talk. I added a few things as a response.

    There are many reasons why the Pats' offense has sputtered in the postseason. Injury is a big part of it . . . to linemen, to Gronk, to key receivers (i.e., Welker in 2009).  Lack of diversity and inconsistent quality at some positions has also been an issue, in particular having only average running backs prior to Ridley and weak outside receivers ever since Moss began to decline in 2009.  Brady has, of course, made mistakes too, but to blame everything on him is silly.  For the most part, he's been a strength of the team and--even in the postseason--not a weakness. Sounds like you have all the bases covered. The problem is some of this, some of that, and some of the other thing. Check!

    Exactly . . . football is more complex than the number of running plays called. 

     

    The postseason losses also have something to do with a defense that is prone to giving up big plays at inopportune times. It's not all on the offense. Sure, the current rules make it tough for this defense to play like our dynasty defense. It is not because BB isn't a good talent evaluator as you suggest, nor is it because BB inherited his SB defense's as you agree with. It is becasue this LG is not the same LG as it was 10 years ago.

    A change in the rules doesn't explain why other defenses (playing under the same rules as ours) perform much better.    

    As far as game planning and play calling, the use of the shotgun is the result of the type of players we've had more than Brady's preferences. Well you are on the record as saying we do not have talented receivers so how the heck is shotgun the result of our players? Last time I checked the shotgun offense needs talented receivers to work.

    Can you read?  The shotgun suits the skills of our players.  I don't buy for a minute your idea that O'Brien and McDaniels and Belichick are dumb coaches or Rusty's idea that Brady is out of control.  The Pats use the shotgun for one simple reason: it works with the players they have. We have the best coaches in the game and one of the best QBs ever.  Coaching and QBing aren't the problems.   

    Sure, most QBs like the shotgun.  It makes it easier for them to survey the field and get the ball off fast.  Although it may "tip off" a pass play, it  can make the opponent's pass rush less effective, since the QB starts further back and doesn't have to monitor the rush while dropping back.  Overall, it's a better passing formation than a drop back, Says who?

    Most QBs would agree it's easier to pass out of the shotgun.  It's all Brady was saying in that quote Rusty constantly refers to.  If you don't believe me, just listen to Brady. 

    and if a team can also run at least reasonably well from it, it's not quite as one-dimensional as some think. How?  Because the defense has to cover the run too, duh.  So, yeah, Brady like any good passing QB tends to like the shotgun. He likes the SG because that's what our coaches have been running since the 07 season. Read Mike Reiss's recent articles on how the SG has been used over the last years.

    But the reason the coaches (and it's the coaches, not Brady) choose to run the shotgun a lot (though on less than half the plays, still) is because it works with the short, quick passing game that, for better or worse, has been the Patriots' offense's primary strength the past few years.  Welker is effective primarily if he gets open fast and gets the ball in 2 or 2.5 seconds. That type of speedy release is almost impossible without the shotgun.  Since short, fast passes to Welker (or to the TEs) have been the mainstay of the Pats' offense, the shotgun has been utilized heavily.

    How many SB's has that offense performed well in? Note: I didn't say how many did they win? It wouldn't be a fair question. I said how many have they even performed well in? Answer that, then tell me what's wrong with the coaching philosophy on offense...

    Oh, I keep forgetting, you think the coaching is bad . . . sorry, I totally disagree.  I think Belichick (and his staff) are the best in the game.  Maybe the best ever.  I think they've done a fabulous job of turning an offense without a lot of real stars beyond the QB into a top of the league point producer.  

    Would the Pats' offense be better if it were more diverse?  I think so No, you know so. Take a stance and stop living on the fence

    --but given the players the Pats have had on offense, I don't think it would be better if they tried to run a different kind of offense.When did you become so proficient at judging NFL personnel and how to use it? 

    I base it on observing what the coaches do.  I don't assume, as you do, that the coaches aren't as smart as I am.  I think there's a clear reason why they've done what they've done.  You apparently believe that you know more than Belichick.  I think he knows more than me, you, and the rest of BDC combined. So I try to understand why Belichick does what he does rather than doing what you do, which is criticize him for not having the right "coaching philosophy" (see your comment above).

    Running a lot requires great run blocking and good backs. Top 5 run blocking o-line in the LG, per football outsiders/profootball focus/ others

    Yeah, well, I watched the film of the last Super Bowl and the blocking wasn't so great. I don't rely solely on what some stats geek or sportswriter says on his website. 

     Passing from under center requires a receivers who can get separation further downfield as well as strong pass blocking.It also requires the QB to actually be under center. 

    The Pats just haven't had these players.Branch and Givens were better then Moss and Welker were they?  No, but that offense wasn't bad by any means and the defense was much better.  Plus it's been a while since we've had Moss playing well and Welker playing well on the team together.  The last time that happened was 2007.  And in that Super Bowl it was more the O line that was the problem (oh wait, I forgot, you read somewhere that the O line is the best ever--yeah, right, Nick Kaczur was an all-pro pass blocker too). 

    Rather than criticize our coaching staff for calling the wrong plays, I'm more prone to praise them for figuing out a way to turn such an oddly limited set of offensive players into a league leading offense.Wow, you really don't think much of Bill Belichick the GM do you? His offensive talent just isn't up to par hey? It's all his fault. Unreal.

    As I've said a million times before, I think the problem is mostly that the Pats draft low because they win.  Even a great GM has a tough time building a top team when it earns pick 30 every year.  The system is designed to make it hard for winners and easier for losers.  The talent issues have less to do with the GM than the draft system which is purposely designed to disadvantage winning teams and advantage losing teams.  

      And rather than criticizing Brady, I can only admire his ability to make the offense work thanks to his super-quick and reliable decision-making on almost every play. Yeah, imagine the poor bastrd who was forced to throw to Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez? Especially when he already proved he can succeed with jags like Caldwell,Gabriel, and Watson.

    Yeah, Brady is good.  That's one reason the team passes so much.  The coaches know Brady is one of their strengths.  They call the plays appropriately . . .

    With most coaches and QBs, an offense that relies so heavily on players like Danny Woodhead and Wes Welker would be at best an average one.  With Belichick, his coaching staff, and Brady, it's been one of the best offenses in the league. yeah, if only they had drafted better right? Oh wait, these guys were undrafted and the COACH chose them as contributors.

    I know you disagree, but the coach knows what he is doing. His "coaching philosophy" is just fine.   

    To get back to the main theme of this thread--Gronk--it is worth pointing out than in the past two postseasons the absence of Gronk has had a huge impact on the offense's success.  Gronk when healthly is a true impact player, a guy who single-handly transforms the Pats' offense from average to exceptional.  He's a great blocker in the running game and a great receiver, almost impossible to cover, particularly in the red zone.  With his size and athleticism, he adds a very different dimension to our passing offense than we have without him.  Take him out, and we fall back on quick passes to Welker, Hernandez, and occasionally someone else. Blame Brady, blame the shotgun, blame Welker--whatever you want.  But not having a healthy Gronk was probably the most significant problem for the offense in the past two postseason defeats.  

    Our offense has scored 14.5 ppg in our last AFC championship and 2 super bowls. You blame 1 player for that?

    No, see above.  There are many reasons.  I said that right at the beginning. 

    [/QUOTE




     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share