Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss

    In Response to Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss:
    In Response to Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss :   There is no way on earth you can make a case he had a better revceiving group at any time when Brady led this offense down the field in the dynasty era. 
    Posted by RidingWithTheKingII


    I'll I'm saying is he had more options to throw to.  The reason the offense lacks diversity and sometimes sputters is because it doesn't have a lot of options.  Compare 2004 with today (guys with double-digit receptions):

    Receivers in 2004:
    David Givens5687415.6503
    David Patten4480018.2487
    Deion Branch3545413.0264
    Daniel Graham3036412.1487
    Patrick Pass282157.7220
    Kevin Faulk262489.5311
    Troy Brown1718410.8221
    Christian Fauria1619512.2252
    Corey Dillon151036.9201
    Bethel Johnson1017417.4481

    TODAY:
    Wes Welker1161,51813.1999
    Rob Gronkowski821,21914.95215
    Aaron Hernandez7277210.7466
    Deion Branch5170213.8635
    Danny Woodhead161479.2160
    Chad Ochocinco1527618.4531

    In 2004, there were 10 guys with double-digit receptions, 9 of whom scored TDs.  Today they have only 6 guys with double-digit receptions, only 5 of whom have scored.   Anybody who was actually watching football during the dynasty years remembers that one of the strengths of our offense was that so many people were involved.  That's simply not the case today.  Why? Is it because BB and his coaches have all gotten soft in the head?  No, it's because there aren't that many good players in the skill positions on this offense.  Yes, Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez are great.  But that's just three guys. Branch is good. After that, there's no one who has made any significant impact or--more to the point--is really good enough to make any signficant impact in the passing game.  And if you think we should run more, BJGE (or Woodhead or--so far--Ridley) is no where near the runner Corey Dillon was in 2004.  

    I'm not saying the offense is bad, mind you.  That's your schtick.  I'm saying the reason the offense sometimes seems one-dimensional and sometimes sputters is because it doesn't have a lot of good players to go to. It can't be diverse because it doesn't have a very diverse group of players.  And switching from the passing game to the running game does nothing but take the ball away from our best players--Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez--and puts it in the hands of guys like BJGE and Woodhead who are middling NFL talent at best. Now maybe Ridley will turn out to give us something else.  I'd like that. But so far, he's not been able to work himself into the rotation as much as I'd like.  I suspect that's because he hasn't proven his abilities in the passing game yet, though I don't know for sure.  The one thing I am sure about though is that BB is not going to sit Ridley if Ridley can contribute.  BB isn't an idiot, regardless of what you think. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss

    News flash! This offense stalled in the first half of the last game. This may of been caused by 4 of their projected 5 starters not being present in the game. All in all it was a dreaded showing by that unit; thank goodness they recovered to score 27 unanswered points in the second half. Yeah I know most offenses stumble for lesser reasons (and do it more frequently) and most offenses have the luxury of not having to score on every possession to make up for their defensive deficiencies, but our offense will get no such break from criticism. It comes from people with agendas.

    These agendas have been in existence ever since one board member (Rusty) announced the rebuilding of this "young and exciting defense" and made it gospel. Since then he no longer talks of this "young and exciting defense", but instead focuses on the constant bashing of Tom Brady and this offense. Evidently last ranked defense= bash Tom.

    No need to worry Rusty will soon delete his own account and come back as someone else (it'll be the 5th time). He does this to save himself from the embarrassment of when people tire of his antics and start copying and pasting all his ridiculous posts...exposing him for what he is. It's a pathetic scene, that gets played over and over again:(
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss

    In Response to Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss:
    Yes, I like those low throws last week and the not getting past the 50 part with 1 minute drives 6 times in a row. That was super duper!  Right, Prolate? Have you read the drive chart from the 1st half yet?  lol YOu might want to look up the word fantastic so you know what it means, because it wasn't our offense last week.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKingII

    Yeah, the line was a mess and they were having trouble blocking. Brady made some bad throws under pressure.  What QB doesn't, genius?  Once the line straightened itself out, they went no huddle, with five wides play after play and made completion after completion.  Brady was very good in the second half, but maybe you had turned off the TV by then?

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

    Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss

    In Response to Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss:
    In Response to Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss : Rusty is a drug rep?  I thought they were like Edsels or Labrador Ducks.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966


    I think he said that once before (he drops clues of his superiority when he is challenged, and evidently he finds this profession a cut above). Funny, most drug reps I know are hot chicks - companies do this so docs will write more scripts - this means Rusty is either a sexy woman or.....a transvestite:)
     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss

    There is no way on earth you can make a case he had a better revceiving group at any time when Brady led this offense down the field in the dynasty era. 
    Posted by RidingWithTheKingII

    Now this stuff above is really really off base. I'd take the last two Super Bowl groups of wideouts we had, over the one we currently have. No question.

    Branch: Young, explosive, got separation and could stretch the field as well.

    Givens: Young, big, physical, played like his life depended on it, very good hands, had good quickness for his size and would on occasion get behind a defense and sell his soul to haul a ball in.

    Troy Brown: Very good quickness, outstanding hands, knew how to separate and settle into a zone, tough as nails. 

    David Pattern: very under rated player with 4.4 speed, unusual quickness, and was tough

    Bethel Johnson: Although a pathetic receiver, had outstanding speed that defenses had to account for.

    All (with the exception of Johnson) had one thing in common - they all knew this offense inside and out.

    I bet both Brady and Belichick would trade their right arms for this group to come back.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss

    In Response to Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss:
    In Response to Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss : Most drug reps are losing their jobs, too.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966


    That's too bad, I wish that wasn't the case. A lot of good people have had to stop living the lives they were accustomed to and try to start over. I thank God I haven't, but I know that life can change for the worse (or better) in an instant. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss

    In response to "Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss":
    In Response to Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss : I'll I'm saying is he had more options to throw to.  The reason the offense lacks diversity and sometimes sputters is because it doesn't have a lot of options.  Compare 2004 with today (guys with double-digit receptions): Receivers in 2004: David Givens 56 874 15.6 50 3 David Patten 44 800 18.2 48 7 Deion Branch 35 454 13.0 26 4 Daniel Graham 30 364 12.1 48 7 Patrick Pass 28 215 7.7 22 0 Kevin Faulk 26 248 9.5 31 1 Troy Brown 17 184 10.8 22 1 Christian Fauria 16 195 12.2 25 2 Corey Dillon 15 103 6.9 20 1 Bethel Johnson 10 174 17.4 48 1 TODAY: Wes Welker 116 1,518 13.1 99 9 Rob Gronkowski 82 1,219 14.9 52 15 Aaron Hernandez 72 772 10.7 46 6 Deion Branch 51 702 13.8 63 5 Danny Woodhead 16 147 9.2 16 0 Chad Ochocinco 15 276 18.4 53 1 In 2004, there were 10  guys with double-digit receptions, 9 of whom scored TDs.  Today they have only 6 guys with double-digit receptions, only 5 of whom have scored.   Anybody who was actually watching football during the dynasty years remembers that one of the strengths of our offense was that so many people were involved.  That's simply not the case today.  Why? Is it because BB and his coaches have all gotten soft in the head?  No, it's because there aren't that many good players in the skill positions on this offense.  Yes, Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez are great.  But that's just three guys. Branch is good. After that, there's no one who has made any significant impact or--more to the point--is really good enough to make any signficant impact in the passing game.  And if you think we should run more, BJGE (or Woodhead or--so far--Ridley) is no where near the runner Corey Dillon was in 2004.   I'm not saying the offense is bad, mind you.  That's your schtick.  I'm saying the reason the offense sometimes seems one-dimensional and sometimes sputters is because it doesn't have a lot of good players to go to. It can't be diverse because it doesn't have a very diverse group of players.  And switching from the passing game to the running game does nothing but take the ball away from our best players--Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez--and puts it in the hands of guys like BJGE and Woodhead who are middling NFL talent at best. Now maybe Ridley will turn out to give us something else.  I'd like that. But so far, he's not been able to work himself into the rotation as much as I'd like.  I suspect that's because he hasn't proven his abilities in the passing game yet, though I don't know for sure.  The one thing I am sure about though is that BB is not going to sit Ridley if Ridley can contribute.  BB isn't an idiot, regardless of what you think.  Posted by prolate0spheroid
    IM not buying this, look at how many yards those guys have only 2 over 500. This team has 4. Who really cares about the guys on the bench, if BB thought those guys on the bench were so darn good, then they wouldn't be on the bench. He was shifting people in and out trying to find someone good in 04 and none of them outside of Branch, Givens and Patten were good so he kept trying new receivers. If BB felt that Hernandez sucked he would give Ocho, Underwood, Slater, etc reps and they would get catches. But his starters are so good that there is no reason for them to leave the field. Welker and Gronk are top 10 in the NFL, Hern and Branch are something like top 40. There is no other team with guys that productive, not GB not NO. If your trying to tell me that Gronk, Welker, Hern and Branch aren't as good as Givens, Branch, Patten, and Bethel Johnson because there are 3 guys sitting on the bench who have a few passes I don't buy it. They can't play 7 receivers at a time. Compare the guys on the field at the same time 4WRs and a RB (or a TE instead of receiver). The only time they had a better group was 07. The offense is good, Brady is good, his weapons are good. The weaknesses of this team are : poor defense, poor running. I see nothing wrong with the passing game. Let's not reinvent the wheel, we all know that team in 04 had a defense that was light years better (2nd in the NFL), and one of the best RBs of the last decade in Dillon. There is no substitute on this current team for lacking those two things. The fact that they have been able to keep pace record wise with the team in 04 despite missing those 2 major parts is extraordinary and mostly due to all the offensive talent they have helping them win games.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss

    Shenanigan, I'm not denying that our top three receivers now are better than the top three in 2004.  All I'm saying is the offense was more diverse because they had more guys with varying skills to throw into the offense.  Having more guys with differing skills allows you to give the defense more looks.  King keeps accusing today's offense of being one-dimensional because O'Brien is an idiot who won't run the ball or because Brady is a spoiled brat or--ultimately--because BB is Brady and O'Brien's butt boy.  All I'm saying is they're one-dimensional because they have an offense that has to depend almost completely on two TEs and two slot receivers.  They don't have a back anywhere near as good as Corey Dillon (which is why they aren't running the ball all the time) and they don't have any wideouts with the skills of Patten or Givens.  They live and die by the short passing game out of necessity, because their whole offense is built around four guys who are short-game receivers. 

    Maybe Ridley will add a fifth serious threat to the offense.  That would be great.  But as of now, this offense basically runs through four guys.  That's really unusual in the NFL right now.  Look at the receiving and rushing stats for NO or GB or any other team with a good offense. They all have seven or eight guys heavily involved in the offensive plays.  And those guys tend to include a more explosive running back and a more explosive wideout who can stretch the field.  We have neither unless either Ridley or Ocho (if he has the speed, which I'm not sure he has) show they can contribute more.  

    I don't think it's the coaches or Brady who are to blame here. King is just wrong there.  It's the limited number of talented players that is causing the lack of offensive diversity.

    All that said, the offense is still quite good.  It scores around 30 points most games.  And King is wrong there too, because he keeps telling us the offense is a problem.  Yeah, it's lack of diversity sometimes causes it to stall against some defenses.  But overall, this offense is our strength not our weakness, and the coaches are managing the talent--given the small number of guys--pretty well I think. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patriots1970. Show Patriots1970's posts

    Re: Interesting Stat from Mike Reiss

    Reiss is still MR Obvious. thanks
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share