Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    I haven't been impressed with Ridley's ability to catch the ball, which is why I think Woodhead was used so much last year.  I'm hoping though that Vereen will give us more of that Faulk quality back.  For all the complaining about subbing running backs, people forget what a huge role Faulk played in the offense back in the early 2000s.  I'm hoping Vereen will be that guy for us next year. 

     




    I agree with you on this. 

    One of my gripes about the Ravens playoff game last season was they didn't use Vereen much at all.  The game before against the Texans he really proved what a weapon he could be out of the backfield in the passing game.  Huge mistake, imo.

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    I haven't been impressed with Ridley's ability to catch the ball, which is why I think Woodhead was used so much last year.  I'm hoping though that Vereen will give us more of that Faulk quality back.  For all the complaining about subbing running backs, people forget what a huge role Faulk played in the offense back in the early 2000s.  I'm hoping Vereen will be that guy for us next year. 

     



    He's not given many opportunities to do so.  I'd like to see either/both Ridley and Vereen get opportunities to become better all around backs vs. specialists.

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    I haven't been impressed with Ridley's ability to catch the ball, which is why I think Woodhead was used so much last year.  I'm hoping though that Vereen will give us more of that Faulk quality back.  For all the complaining about subbing running backs, people forget what a huge role Faulk played in the offense back in the early 2000s.  I'm hoping Vereen will be that guy for us next year. 

     

     



    He's not given many opportunities to do so.  I'd like to see either/both Ridley and Vereen get opportunities to become better all around backs vs. specialists.

     



    I'm sure they get plenty of chances to show what they can and can't do in practice.  I think one of BB's strengths is his ability to fully understand his players' strengths and weaknesses and utilize them accordingly during games.  

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harleyroadking1. Show harleyroadking1's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    I hope Mesko is in shape....I see alot of punting in the early going

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    I haven't been impressed with Ridley's ability to catch the ball, which is why I think Woodhead was used so much last year.  I'm hoping though that Vereen will give us more of that Faulk quality back.  For all the complaining about subbing running backs, people forget what a huge role Faulk played in the offense back in the early 2000s.  I'm hoping Vereen will be that guy for us next year. 

     

     



    He's not given many opportunities to do so.  I'd like to see either/both Ridley and Vereen get opportunities to become better all around backs vs. specialists.

     

     



    I'm sure they get plenty of chances to show what they can and can't do in practice.  I think one of BB's strengths is his ability to fully understand his players' strengths and weaknesses and utilize them accordingly during games.  

     

     



    I think in Vareen's situation last year they had Woodhead who they trusted. I would asume that Vareen's play at the end of the year in games and practice earned him that trust and allowed them to part ways with Woody.

    Just an opinion/hunch on my part but i think we will see Vareen utilized much more than just 3rd down situations. I am expecting Vareen to have a very productive season.

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    I haven't been impressed with Ridley's ability to catch the ball, which is why I think Woodhead was used so much last year.  I'm hoping though that Vereen will give us more of that Faulk quality back.  For all the complaining about subbing running backs, people forget what a huge role Faulk played in the offense back in the early 2000s.  I'm hoping Vereen will be that guy for us next year. 

     

     



    He's not given many opportunities to do so.  I'd like to see either/both Ridley and Vereen get opportunities to become better all around backs vs. specialists.

     

     



    I'm sure they get plenty of chances to show what they can and can't do in practice.  I think one of BB's strengths is his ability to fully understand his players' strengths and weaknesses and utilize them accordingly during games.  

     

     



    I agree with you to an extent. There are some things one can't simulate in practice, so, why not give them more experience in a real game?

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    I haven't been impressed with Ridley's ability to catch the ball, which is why I think Woodhead was used so much last year.  I'm hoping though that Vereen will give us more of that Faulk quality back.  For all the complaining about subbing running backs, people forget what a huge role Faulk played in the offense back in the early 2000s.  I'm hoping Vereen will be that guy for us next year. 

     

     



    He's not given many opportunities to do so.  I'd like to see either/both Ridley and Vereen get opportunities to become better all around backs vs. specialists.

     

     



    I'm sure they get plenty of chances to show what they can and can't do in practice.  I think one of BB's strengths is his ability to fully understand his players' strengths and weaknesses and utilize them accordingly during games.  

     

     

     



    I agree with you to an extent. There are some things one can't simulate in practice, so, why not give them more experience in a real game?

     



    They did throw to him a bit.  If ESPN is right he's had 9 career receptions on 19 targets.  Over the same two-year period, Woodhead was 58 for 86.  Last year, Ridley was 6 for 14 while Woodhead was 40 for 55.  That's 43% versus 73%.  Maybe Ridley would have done better with two or three chances a game, but it's a big risk to take when you've got another back who is catching seven out of ten thrown to him. 

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    They did throw to him a bit.  If ESPN is right he's had 9 career receptions on 19 targets.  Over the same two-year period, Woodhead was 58 for 86.  Last year, Ridley was 6 for 14 while Woodhead was 40 for 55.  That's 43% versus 73%.  Maybe Ridley would have done better with two or three chances a game, but it's a big risk to take when you've got another back who is catching seven out of ten thrown to him


    I think one possible advantage in having a lead back that can "do everything" is that its more difficult for opposing defenses to identify recognize tendencies on the field.  If defenses are unsure of if it's a running play, screen, play action, or pass - they're less likely to stack the box if they "know" the Patriots are going to run. 

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    The only changes I see to the way the pats call thing early is less reliance on TE catching the ball. This offense goes through Gronk and Hern. There is no one that can replace their pass catching ability t the the position including Ballard. If neither are ready to go game 1. Obviously bb is not going to scheme with heavy doses of passes to Ballard and hooman, or sudfeld. Maybe we see 2 backs more often, or possibly more 3 wr sets. when you have less pass catching ability at the TE position without Gronk and Hern, the ball will have to go somewhere else. They have a very good blocker on Ballard, and he can catch, but not like Gronk. Defenses don't have to double him. right now, Jenkins, and amendola are thto top 2 WR targets. We need Dobson, jones to step up and be productive early, more production out of our new wr's until we can return our stud te's. same with the backs

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    The only changes I see to the way the pats call thing early is less reliance on TE catching the ball. This offense goes through Gronk and Hern. There is no one that can replace their pass catching ability t the the position including Ballard. If neither are ready to go game 1. Obviously bb is not going to scheme with heavy doses of passes to Ballard and hooman, or sudfeld. Maybe we see 2 backs more often, or possibly more 3 wr sets. when you have less pass catching ability at the TE position without Gronk and Hern, the ball will have to go somewhere else. They have a very good blocker on Ballard, and he can catch, but not like Gronk. Defenses don't have to double him. right now, Jenkins, and amendola are thto top 2 WR targets. We need Dobson, jones to step up and be productive early, more production out of our new wr's until we can return our stud te's. same with the backs



    sounds logical too me. IMO, Brady needs to get his timing down, not only w/ Amendola - but with all of the other new WRs on the team

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    They did throw to him a bit.  If ESPN is right he's had 9 career receptions on 19 targets.  Over the same two-year period, Woodhead was 58 for 86.  Last year, Ridley was 6 for 14 while Woodhead was 40 for 55.  That's 43% versus 73%.  Maybe Ridley would have done better with two or three chances a game, but it's a big risk to take when you've got another back who is catching seven out of ten thrown to him

     

     


    I think one possible advantage in having a lead back that can "do everything" is that its more difficult for opposing defenses to identify recognize tendencies on the field.  If defenses are unsure of if it's a running play, screen, play action, or pass - they're less likely to stack the box if they "know" the Patriots are going to run. 

    [/QUOTE]

    There's no doubt that having a do-everything back is the holy grail. It's just rare to find a back who is equally effective in all aspects of the game.  A lot of posters complained about the frequent use of Woodhead, but the strength of the Pats' offense, like it or not, is the passing game not the running game and Woodhead was just the better passing back when compared to Ridley or BJGE before him.  With a two TE base, the Pats are going to be mostly a one back team, and if your best running back isn't a great passing back and you have a much better passing back, then you are going to be subbing backs no matter how often Rusty tries to tell Bill Belichick that subbing backs is the road to disaster.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    They did throw to him a bit.  If ESPN is right he's had 9 career receptions on 19 targets.  Over the same two-year period, Woodhead was 58 for 86.  Last year, Ridley was 6 for 14 while Woodhead was 40 for 55.  That's 43% versus 73%.  Maybe Ridley would have done better with two or three chances a game, but it's a big risk to take when you've got another back who is catching seven out of ten thrown to him

     

     

     

     


    I think one possible advantage in having a lead back that can "do everything" is that its more difficult for opposing defenses to identify recognize tendencies on the field.  If defenses are unsure of if it's a running play, screen, play action, or pass - they're less likely to stack the box if they "know" the Patriots are going to run. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There's no doubt that having a do-everything back is the holy grail. It's just rare to find a back who is equally effective in all aspects of the game.  A lot of posters complained about the frequent use of Woodhead, but the strength of the Pats' offense, like it or not, is the passing game not the running game and Woodhead was just the better passing back when compared to Ridley or BJGE before him.  With a two TE base, the Pats are going to be mostly a one back team, and if your best running back isn't a great passing back and you have a much better passing back, then you are going to be subbing backs no matter how often Rusty tries to tell Bill Belichick that subbing backs is the road to disaster.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only problem I had with woodhead was when he ran in the middle he got clobbered. Physically beat up. Throwing him the ball in the flats was his thing. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    They did throw to him a bit.  If ESPN is right he's had 9 career receptions on 19 targets.  Over the same two-year period, Woodhead was 58 for 86.  Last year, Ridley was 6 for 14 while Woodhead was 40 for 55.  That's 43% versus 73%.  Maybe Ridley would have done better with two or three chances a game, but it's a big risk to take when you've got another back who is catching seven out of ten thrown to him

     

     

     

     

     

     


    I think one possible advantage in having a lead back that can "do everything" is that its more difficult for opposing defenses to identify recognize tendencies on the field.  If defenses are unsure of if it's a running play, screen, play action, or pass - they're less likely to stack the box if they "know" the Patriots are going to run. 

     



    There's no doubt that having a do-everything back is the holy grail. It's just rare to find a back who is equally effective in all aspects of the game.  A lot of posters complained about the frequent use of Woodhead, but the strength of the Pats' offense, like it or not, is the passing game not the running game and Woodhead was just the better passing back when compared to Ridley or BJGE before him.  With a two TE base, the Pats are going to be mostly a one back team, and if your best running back isn't a great passing back and you have a much better passing back, then you are going to be subbing backs no matter how often Rusty tries to tell Bill Belichick that subbing backs is the road to disaster.  

     

     



    The only problem I had with woodhead was when he ran in the middle he got clobbered. Physically beat up. Throwing him the ball in the flats was his thing. 

     




    I think you will be pleasantly surprised with vareen's ability to run in between the tackles when he gets his oppotunities. I watched him play at Cal and he had pretty good success running in between the tackles. I don't think he could holdup doing it 20 times a game but he is a good change up from Ridley when they need to get ridley a blow.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    I hope so.  It's time for a few of these guys to step up. 

     

     


    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.

    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dustcover. Show dustcover's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    I'm always optimistic concerning the Patriots. Football is a team sport so continuity is important. That's why many of us here believe that the defense should be markedly improved. I'd like to see the return of some of Belichick's exotic defensive schemes of yesteryear.

    Dumbing down the offense is not a good thing. It means that certain players have not yet learned or cannot learn the playbook. It's going to be interesting watching the new additions learn to work with Tom. Again, I'm optimistic that they will.




    Those that do will stay and play, those that don't will be gone and forgotten.    (Standard Operating Procedure - BB)

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

    They did throw to him a bit.  If ESPN is right he's had 9 career receptions on 19 targets.  Over the same two-year period, Woodhead was 58 for 86.  Last year, Ridley was 6 for 14 while Woodhead was 40 for 55.  That's 43% versus 73%.  Maybe Ridley would have done better with two or three chances a game, but it's a big risk to take when you've got another back who is catching seven out of ten thrown to him

     

     

     

     


    I think one possible advantage in having a lead back that can "do everything" is that its more difficult for opposing defenses to identify recognize tendencies on the field.  If defenses are unsure of if it's a running play, screen, play action, or pass - they're less likely to stack the box if they "know" the Patriots are going to run. 

     



    Agree....

     

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    There's no doubt that having a do-everything back is the holy grail. It's just rare to find a back who is equally effective in all aspects of the game.  A lot of posters complained about the frequent use of Woodhead, but the strength of the Pats' offense, like it or not, is the passing game not the running game and Woodhead was just the better passing back when compared to Ridley or BJGE before him.  With a two TE base, the Pats are going to be mostly a one back team, and if your best running back isn't a great passing back and you have a much better passing back, then you are going to be subbing backs no matter how often Rusty tries to tell Bill Belichick that subbing backs is the road to disaster.  

     



    Woody started off pretty strong early in his career with the patriots - not so much last year. IMO, Woody was inconsistent w/ running and catching and was not a good blocker - altho I admit some of his plays during the playoffs were timely.

     

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    They did throw to him a bit.  If ESPN is right he's had 9 career receptions on 19 targets.  Over the same two-year period, Woodhead was 58 for 86.  Last year, Ridley was 6 for 14 while Woodhead was 40 for 55.  That's 43% versus 73%.  Maybe Ridley would have done better with two or three chances a game, but it's a big risk to take when you've got another back who is catching seven out of ten thrown to him

     

     

     

     

     

     


    I think one possible advantage in having a lead back that can "do everything" is that its more difficult for opposing defenses to identify recognize tendencies on the field.  If defenses are unsure of if it's a running play, screen, play action, or pass - they're less likely to stack the box if they "know" the Patriots are going to run. 

     



    There's no doubt that having a do-everything back is the holy grail. It's just rare to find a back who is equally effective in all aspects of the game.  A lot of posters complained about the frequent use of Woodhead, but the strength of the Pats' offense, like it or not, is the passing game not the running game and Woodhead was just the better passing back when compared to Ridley or BJGE before him.  With a two TE base, the Pats are going to be mostly a one back team, and if your best running back isn't a great passing back and you have a much better passing back, then you are going to be subbing backs no matter how often Rusty tries to tell Bill Belichick that subbing backs is the road to disaster.  

     

     



    The only problem I had with woodhead was when he ran in the middle he got clobbered. Physically beat up. Throwing him the ball in the flats was his thing. 

     

     




     

    I think you will be pleasantly surprised with vareen's ability to run in between the tackles when he gets his oppotunities. I watched him play at Cal and he had pretty good success running in between the tackles. I don't think he could holdup doing it 20 times a game but he is a good change up from Ridley when they need to get ridley a blow.

    [/QUOTE]

    I share your optimism about Vareen, though I wonder why he didn't get more snaps last year. Last offseason I thought Woodhead might be on the cusp, partly because Woody's production was weaker in 2011 than in 2010 and partly because I thought Vareen would give him a run for his money.  But Woodhead won the role and Vereen was more a back up.  This offseason, though, suggests that BB is feeling like Vareen is now ready.  We'll see, but I agree that Vareen has intriguing versatility and more athletic potential than Woodhead.

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    There's no doubt that having a do-everything back is the holy grail. It's just rare to find a back who is equally effective in all aspects of the game.  A lot of posters complained about the frequent use of Woodhead, but the strength of the Pats' offense, like it or not, is the passing game not the running game and Woodhead was just the better passing back when compared to Ridley or BJGE before him.  With a two TE base, the Pats are going to be mostly a one back team, and if your best running back isn't a great passing back and you have a much better passing back, then you are going to be subbing backs no matter how often Rusty tries to tell Bill Belichick that subbing backs is the road to disaster.  

     

     



    Woody started off pretty strong early in his career with the patriots - not so much last year. IMO, Woody was inconsistent w/ running and catching and was not a good blocker - altho I admit some of his plays during the playoffs were timely.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Woody was like BJGE--a guy who was serviceable and dependable in a supporting role, but not explosive enough to be a featured weapon in the offense. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    They did throw to him a bit.  If ESPN is right he's had 9 career receptions on 19 targets.  Over the same two-year period, Woodhead was 58 for 86.  Last year, Ridley was 6 for 14 while Woodhead was 40 for 55.  That's 43% versus 73%.  Maybe Ridley would have done better with two or three chances a game, but it's a big risk to take when you've got another back who is catching seven out of ten thrown to him

     

     

     

     

     

     


    I think one possible advantage in having a lead back that can "do everything" is that its more difficult for opposing defenses to identify recognize tendencies on the field.  If defenses are unsure of if it's a running play, screen, play action, or pass - they're less likely to stack the box if they "know" the Patriots are going to run. 

     



    There's no doubt that having a do-everything back is the holy grail. It's just rare to find a back who is equally effective in all aspects of the game.  A lot of posters complained about the frequent use of Woodhead, but the strength of the Pats' offense, like it or not, is the passing game not the running game and Woodhead was just the better passing back when compared to Ridley or BJGE before him.  With a two TE base, the Pats are going to be mostly a one back team, and if your best running back isn't a great passing back and you have a much better passing back, then you are going to be subbing backs no matter how often Rusty tries to tell Bill Belichick that subbing backs is the road to disaster.  

     

     



    The only problem I had with woodhead was when he ran in the middle he got clobbered. Physically beat up. Throwing him the ball in the flats was his thing. 

     

     

     




     

     

    I think you will be pleasantly surprised with vareen's ability to run in between the tackles when he gets his oppotunities. I watched him play at Cal and he had pretty good success running in between the tackles. I don't think he could holdup doing it 20 times a game but he is a good change up from Ridley when they need to get ridley a blow.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I share your optimism about Vareen, though I wonder why he didn't get more snaps last year. Last offseason I thought Woodhead might be on the cusp, partly because Woody's production was weaker in 2011 than in 2010 and partly because I thought Vareen would give him a run for his money.  But Woodhead won the role and Vereen was more a back up.  This offseason, though, suggests that BB is feeling like Vareen is now ready.  We'll see, but I agree that Vareen has intriguing versatility and more athletic potential than Woodhead.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Perhaps as another poster pointed out it was a trust issue. Perhpas it took him through 1/2 to 3/4 of the season in practices and limited touches in games to become fully competent in the offense. Just throwing those possibilities out there.

     

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    I think you will be pleasantly surprised with vareen's ability to run in between the tackles when he gets his oppotunities. I watched him play at Cal and he had pretty good success running in between the tackles. I don't think he could holdup doing it 20 times a game but he is a good change up from Ridley when they need to get ridley a blow.

     

     



    I share your optimism about Vareen, though I wonder why he didn't get more snaps last year.Last offseason I thought Woodhead might be on the cusp, partly because Woody's production was weaker in 2011 than in 2010 and partly because I thought Vareen would give him a run for his money.  But Woodhead won the role and Vereen was more a back up.  This offseason, though, suggests that BB is feeling like Vareen is now ready.  We'll see, but I agree that Vareen has intriguing versatility and more athletic potential than Woodhead.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Perhaps as another poster pointed out it was a trust issue. Perhpas it took him through 1/2 to 3/4 of the season in practices and limited touches in games to become fully competent in the offense. Just throwing those possibilities out there.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I suspect the latter.  I think they expect a lot from the back in that position, especially in pass protection.  If Woodhead knew all the assignments and was executing well, he wasn't going to be pulled in favour of a guy still learning who might therefore be more mistake prone.  Vereen never really replaced Woodhead, he just started getting chances as other offensive weapons (bolden, hern, gronk, stallworth, edelman) got injured or suspended.

     

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I think you will be pleasantly surprised with vareen's ability to run in between the tackles when he gets his oppotunities. I watched him play at Cal and he had pretty good success running in between the tackles. I don't think he could holdup doing it 20 times a game but he is a good change up from Ridley when they need to get ridley a blow.

     

     

     



    I share your optimism about Vareen, though I wonder why he didn't get more snaps last year.Last offseason I thought Woodhead might be on the cusp, partly because Woody's production was weaker in 2011 than in 2010 and partly because I thought Vareen would give him a run for his money.  But Woodhead won the role and Vereen was more a back up.  This offseason, though, suggests that BB is feeling like Vareen is now ready.  We'll see, but I agree that Vareen has intriguing versatility and more athletic potential than Woodhead.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Perhaps as another poster pointed out it was a trust issue. Perhpas it took him through 1/2 to 3/4 of the season in practices and limited touches in games to become fully competent in the offense. Just throwing those possibilities out there.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I suspect the latter.  I think they expect a lot from the back in that position, especially in pass protection.  If Woodhead knew all the assignments and was executing well, he wasn't going to be pulled in favour of a guy still learning who might therefore be more mistake prone.  Vereen never really replaced Woodhead, he just started getting chances as other offensive weapons (bolden, hern, gronk, stallworth, edelman) got injured or suspended.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Regardless, I think NE needs to develop some new sources of talent. Neither Gronk nor Hernandez are the Iron Horse; in fact, they've both lost quite a bit of time to injury in their young careers. 

    At the end of the day it's a huge dropoff for the offense when either one of them cannot go, especially against upper echelon defenses. 

    Over the last four post-seasons the offense has scored 16 points when missing one of their main targets. They have scored 36 points when all hands are on deck. The former is much more in line with what you see during the regular season.

    Given that over that span the defense surrenders about 24 per game, you know you need these guys healthy and ready to go ... or some other sources of talent that are more reliable.

    We can't really count on rookies like Dobson and Boyce (as promising as their talent is) to be that, though they could be down the road. And other than Amendola, none of the other guys in the WR look to be either the constant matchup problem that Gronk or Hernandez is, and none of them look like a guy with an X-factor as a playmaker.  

    Given Vereen's explosion in the second half of the Texan's game last season, I think he could be one source to tap as a dual threat back. Perhaps not as a 1600 yard rusher, but as a 1600 yard from scrimmage guy? Perhaps like a Brian Westbrook or something like that? In the event that NE has to go long stretches without Gronk, you could simulate a spread like in 2007, but with more talent in the backfield. 

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    I think you will be pleasantly surprised with vareen's ability to run in between the tackles when he gets his oppotunities. I watched him play at Cal and he had pretty good success running in between the tackles. I don't think he could holdup doing it 20 times a game but he is a good change up from Ridley when they need to get ridley a blow.

     

     

     

     



    I share your optimism about Vareen, though I wonder why he didn't get more snaps last year.Last offseason I thought Woodhead might be on the cusp, partly because Woody's production was weaker in 2011 than in 2010 and partly because I thought Vareen would give him a run for his money.  But Woodhead won the role and Vereen was more a back up.  This offseason, though, suggests that BB is feeling like Vareen is now ready.  We'll see, but I agree that Vareen has intriguing versatility and more athletic potential than Woodhead.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Perhaps as another poster pointed out it was a trust issue. Perhpas it took him through 1/2 to 3/4 of the season in practices and limited touches in games to become fully competent in the offense. Just throwing those possibilities out there.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I suspect the latter.  I think they expect a lot from the back in that position, especially in pass protection.  If Woodhead knew all the assignments and was executing well, he wasn't going to be pulled in favour of a guy still learning who might therefore be more mistake prone.  Vereen never really replaced Woodhead, he just started getting chances as other offensive weapons (bolden, hern, gronk, stallworth, edelman) got injured or suspended.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Regardless, I think NE needs to develop some new sources of talent. Neither Gronk nor Hernandez are the Iron Horse; in fact, they've both lost quite a bit of time to injury in their young careers. 

    At the end of the day it's a huge dropoff for the offense when either one of them cannot go, especially against upper echelon defenses. 

    Over the last four post-seasons the offense has scored 16 points when missing one of their main targets. They have scored 36 points when all hands are on deck. The former is much more in line with what you see during the regular season.

    Given that over that span the defense surrenders about 24 per game, you know you need these guys healthy and ready to go ... or some other sources of talent that are more reliable.

    We can't really count on rookies like Dobson and Boyce (as promising as their talent is) to be that, though they could be down the road. And other than Amendola, none of the other guys in the WR look to be either the constant matchup problem that Gronk or Hernandez is, and none of them look like a guy with an X-factor as a playmaker.  

    Given Vereen's explosion in the second half of the Texan's game last season, I think he could be one source to tap as a dual threat back. Perhaps not as a 1600 yard rusher, but as a 1600 yard from scrimmage guy? Perhaps like a Brian Westbrook or something like that? In the event that NE has to go long stretches without Gronk, you could simulate a spread like in 2007, but with more talent in the backfield. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree fully Z.  In fact, over the past three years or so I've been making the argument over and over that we have too few quality offensive weapons.  It was really bad in 2011 when the whole offense seemed to go through three guys (Welker, Hern, Gronk).  It was a bit better last year maybe, but a guy like Vereen who could be a true dual threat from the backfield would add a dimension that has been missing (or at least at diluted strength) since Faulk declined.  Woody was a nice story, but like BJGE, he wasn't a guy who really stuck any fear in defense's hearts.

    If Vereen can play  like Westbrook or maybe Sproles that would be huge.

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

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Regardless, I think NE needs to develop some new sources of talent. Neither Gronk nor Hernandez are the Iron Horse; in fact, they've both lost quite a bit of time to injury in their young careers. 

    At the end of the day it's a huge dropoff for the offense when either one of them cannot go, especially against upper echelon defenses. 

    Over the last four post-seasons the offense has scored 16 points when missing one of their main targets. They have scored 36 points when all hands are on deck. The former is much more in line with what you see during the regular season.

    Given that over that span the defense surrenders about 24 per game, you know you need these guys healthy and ready to go ... or some other sources of talent that are more reliable.

    We can't really count on rookies like Dobson and Boyce (as promising as their talent is) to be that, though they could be down the road. And other than Amendola, none of the other guys in the WR look to be either the constant matchup problem that Gronk or Hernandez is, and none of them look like a guy with an X-factor as a playmaker.  

    Given Vereen's explosion in the second half of the Texan's game last season, I think he could be one source to tap as a dual threat back. Perhaps not as a 1600 yard rusher, but as a 1600 yard from scrimmage guy? Perhaps like a Brian Westbrook or something like that? In the event that NE has to go long stretches without Gronk, you could simulate a spread like in 2007, but with more talent in the backfield. 



    good post, but I think they do need participation by the rookies like Dobson and Boyce. Keep them involved early in the season , keep their playbook simple at first - and just create some separation - hit the open guy instead of locking in on one guy, ect....

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share