Is the elephant in the room . . .

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

    Is the elephant in the room . . .

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from justme2. Show justme2's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    Brady is one of the least touched QB's in the league. I know thats has a lot to do with him but it also mreans we are okay in front of him.. Give Scar whatever he wants to keep him here..

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    I get your point, but I dont think its really a problem. You are not gonna fave the 9ers every week. I mean J.Smith. Ray McDonald. Ahmad Brooks, Aldon Smith, Pat Willis, N.Bowman, THIS is the Best front 7 in the league, maybe competing with best front 7 ever! so unless we face them again in the SB, I dont know how u can be dissapointed. In ANY and EVERY SB, Brady will be the target and Ridley aint changing that. Only A.P. could take attention away from # 12, so lets just hope we learn from this. Good thing is Nate did settle down after struggling bad early because Smiths speed was a prblem but he adjusted well. We wil win again if we play.

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to justme2's comment:

    Brady is one of the least touched QB's in the league. I know thats has a lot to do with him but it also mreans we are okay in front of him.. Give Scar whatever he wants to keep him here..



    I agree the line is okay. But against the best defensive fronts is okay good enough? In the first half that game last night had me thinking about the two Giants' super bowls.

    And on those hurry up drives in the second half it was more Brady than the line who was keeping the rush at bay.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from leafswin27. Show leafswin27's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    Brady had time to throw 65 passes. I thought expecially in the 2nd half the O line kept the Niners pass rush at bay. They had toruble opening holes for the run game thoguh. But the Niners are pretty stacked always against the run

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    I get your point, but I dont think its really a problem. You are not gonna fave the 9ers every week. I mean J.Smith. Ray McDonald. Ahmad Brooks, Aldon Smith, Pat Willis, N.Bowman, THIS is the Best front 7 in the league, maybe competing with best front 7 ever! so unless we face them again in the SB, I dont know how u can be dissapointed. In ANY and EVERY SB, Brady will be the target and Ridley aint changing that. Only A.P. could take attention away from # 12, so lets just hope we learn from this. Good thing is Nate did settle down after struggling bad early because Smiths speed was a prblem but he adjusted well. We wil win again if we play.



    I agree we don't face fronts like that everyday. But we've faced them the last two times we've made the super bowl. People talk about needing more running and more diversity. But it all starts with the o-line. If they can't open holes or slow the rush against thebest fronts, we have to go to the spread short passing offense we used in the second half. It's all we can do, which means our offense lives or dies on Brady and his short game receivers.

    Gronk makes a huge difference, though, when we have him, both as a blocker and a receiver.

     

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to leafswin27's comment:

    Brady had time to throw 65 passes. I thought expecially in the 2nd half the O line kept the Niners pass rush at bay. They had toruble opening holes for the run game thoguh. But the Niners are pretty stacked always against the run



    But he had to throw them all very fast. 

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    I'll watch the film later today rusty when I get back home. But from the stands last night it seemed to me that it was more Brady's quickness than the blocking that was keeping Brady upright. 

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    exactly my point! every year i say we need to bolster the O-line!  we need a big center and another mauler of a guard! 

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    Moving forward, I think they'll be better with Bolden more and obviously Gronk back to block and to be Gronk when they pass.

     




    I don't think we've seen enough of Bolden yet to really know.  He's looked good when we've seen him, but he hasn't had enough snaps to really be sure he's the answer. (That doesn't mean he won't be the answer, it just means I don't feel like I have enough evidence yet to know.)

    Gronk, though, is a really critical piece of this offense.  We saw that in Miami and we saw that today.  Against the best fronts, he helps a lot, as a run blocker, as a pass blocker, and as a receiver.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    No excuses for Brady.  I'm seeing a very good QB who is having to deal with a lot of pressure and the lack of an effective running game.

    I'm not giving up on Ridley, yet, either by the way.  The fumbles aren't good, but I still think he has more skill as a runner than any back we've had in a while.  I do think the run blocking can be an issue, though.  Early in the game, especially, there was no space to run and Ridley seemed to be pushing much like Brady was. 

    I know I need to watch the film--viewing the third deck isn't always the best way to watch the blockers--but from what I saw last night, I thought Brady was forced to get the ball off very fast on every play.  Under that kind of pressure to throw fast, he and the receivers are going to miss some of the time.  It's not necessarily the QB's fault.  It's especially hard to blame him when most of those passes are working.

     

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    Time to catch my flight home. 

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     



    Same problems, different year.

     

    Anyone that thinks that game was close was watching through rose colored glasses. The 49ers kicked the Pats butts all over the field. The Pats did not beat themselves, the 49ers forced the mistakes with better play.

     

    The only reason the Pats came back is because Harbaugh was channeling his inner Belichick and sitting on the big lead and being conservative and trying to work clock. Trying to make the Pats go the length of the field and not give up quick strikes. (Not unlike other years of Belichick/Pats vs Manning) It's always dangerous to give Brady or Manning breathing room, or most good QB's for that matter. The moment the 49er D needed to switch back to attack mode and rise up they dropped Brady for two quick sacks like it was childs play.

     

    Brady and the O can thank Harbaugh and his philosophy change during the game for their ability to accomplish much of anything. Three years in a row now Brady and that "prolific" offense has been stymied by a big physical athletic healthy defense. Zero run game when needed. Not impressed.

     

    Defense was not much better. Although they were put in many horrible positions because of Brady/the offenses turnovers they still had communication troubles in the back end a few times leading to big plays. As well as missed big plays given up. The score should not have even been close. How many missed snaps exchanges did Kap have? Missed field goal? Over throw to wide open Vernon Davis in the end zone? The D had zero answers for stopping Gore straight up the gut over guard when 49ers ran it out of the pistol formation. Etc.

     

    Pats got a beat down and wasn't their night from the start. Closeness of the score was not indicative of the game.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     



    I strongly disagree with this.  The oline, in fact, is one of the main reasons the pats are so successful.  I don't buy that Brady gets rid of the ball quickly.  I just have never seen it unless it is a timing route.  NE's offense seems much more read and react which means routes take longer to develop. 

    Brady usually has as much time and as much distance between himself and defenders as any QB in the league.  Have Brady come to indy.  He'd give up football.

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     



    IMO, what makes it "worse" is that Gronk is our best blocker - and he was out.  I'm not sure why McD did not use a different TE to help protect Brady. On top of that, you're referring to the #2 run d, the Patriots aren't the first team to have problems with their defense. They were able to get pressure on Brady using 3-4 players; so, they could cover our receivers.

    McD, if anyone, failed to have a backup plan - and incorporate plays that worked during the first half.  So, I wouldn't really consider it a white elephant in the room kind of a problem.

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     



    I strongly disagree with this.  The oline, in fact, is one of the main reasons the pats are so successful.  I don't buy that Brady gets rid of the ball quickly.  I just have never seen it unless it is a timing route.  NE's offense seems much more read and react which means routes take longer to develop. 

    Brady usually has as much time and as much distance between himself and defenders as any QB in the league.  Have Brady come to indy.  He'd give up football.




    Ummmmm, Please exit to the rear with this un-informed, Hating a** BS.  I dont mind you here if you can act like you have sense, but you just lost all credibility with that Asinine Comment. Brady would give up football?!?!  LMAO, He may be the toughest Player in the league and thats been echoed by mostly people who played and what team did you play for again??

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     



    I strongly disagree with this.  The oline, in fact, is one of the main reasons the pats are so successful.  I don't buy that Brady gets rid of the ball quickly.  I just have never seen it unless it is a timing route.  NE's offense seems much more read and react which means routes take longer to develop. 

    Brady usually has as much time and as much distance between himself and defenders as any QB in the league.  Have Brady come to indy.  He'd give up football.




    Well you would be wrong. Brady absolutely has the shortest time to throw in the league @ 2.49 seconds.  Andrew luck has the 6th longest (most) time to throw in the league @ 2.86 seconds.  The O-lines effeciency is definately a result of TB's ability to get rid of that ball in less than 2.3 seconds on nearly 60% of the snaps.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from NY-PATS-FAN4. Show NY-PATS-FAN4's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     




    Agree, somewhat. As some posters have said, Brady wasn't touched much for awhile, but SF was not as aggressive up front once they got a large lead.

    I thought they played well overall, but not at the beginning at not at some key times. The back-to-back sacks given up by Vollmer and Solder were a real momentum killer.

    That said, the Pats have shown the ability to adjust, and you have to admire them for that. But their tackles can be beaten by the best DEs, so Josh really needs to scheme the right help at crucial times.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share