What can we do at Running Back?

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

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : So, the greatest offense of all time in 2007 barely eeks out 14 points and that's good enough to win a SB? Since when? The Ice Bowl in 1967? LMAO Time to change out those Brady underoos, Tommy boy.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    So they wouldn't have won those games if the defense prevented them from scoring? Cool story.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Asher77. Show Asher77's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    I am not against trading for Stewart. If he is the best option than do it. That is if we lose Hoyer or if we can not work a good value trade for T.Rich or if T.Rich is just not that good.

    I think that stewart is not the long term solution. You always look to improve a position if the value is right untill you have a guy like Brady who just can not be improved. Look at Chung or DMac, those guys are good and young to boot. Yet people want to draft a S or CB to replace them.

    If we have a chance at a real RB that we can slot there and be happy for the next 8 years, do it. When is the last chance we had and when will be the next?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    If they go the trade route I'm with Rusty. I like Stewart but do not like Williams. If they go via a new FA I like Bush or Blount (I think I saw he was a FA). I would rather not draft any RB other than Richardson and it would cost too much to go after him. Honestly, I would just resign Law Firm and slowly move the load to Ridley and Vereen with BJGE as insurance/clock ki11ing back.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]This isn't Madden. Seriously weigh your real world options. You're not going to draft Adrianne Peterson late first round. And not only that...you're certainly not going to get Adrianne Peterson numbers with the way this offense is structured. And I'm not talking about Pass first. I'm talking about BB using packages. BJGE wasn't used against the Giants because he thought Woodhead provided the best matchup. Again it's scheme, not player caliber. Fact of the matter is that the Pats are not going to burn a 1st round pick on a RB. Maybe if BB thought he was a real game changer that the team could be shaped around and some how lost both his RB picks from last year. It's absolutely obsurd for the leagues best offense to draft a RB in the first round with 2 young guys how could be better then BJGE and a defense that needs help. Especially since our league leading offense was already improved upon with free agents. 2012 - free agent RB or maybe 3rd rounder...no way 1st rounder. If you truely dissagree, lay up a wager...but it's not going to happen.
    Posted by ejb222[/QUOTE]

    You do realize NE's best drive in the SB was with BJGE on the field as the lead back, correct?

    It was apparent by halftime, NE dodhed a bullet with the crappy Safety play not creatingt more of a problem and that using Woodhead as a lead back wasn't all that effective.

    Yeah, he got a TD, but I am talking about somewhat consistent ball movement and drives that at least last longer than a few minutes.

    It's become very obvious the fans who don't want a ball control offense are new fans and only started watching this team in 2007, locked onto this pass obsession concept.  The fact is, "match ups" mean jack squat when they don't work AND the other team knows if it's a run or a pass based on your personnel packages.

    It was so obvious in the Jets playoff loss for example, when O'Brien tried to get cute and hammer the rock with Woodhead in the second half, Devito, of all people was blasting by ol' 9 millon dollar Mankie and making him look bad.

    Yep.

    Frankly, I am tired of looking at our finesse, predictable offense.


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

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]How does Mallett have more value now? Also, why would we want to trade a QB we're trying to develop who is more talented than Hoyer? I don't get the logic.  Brady is older and people need to be ready for the day he drops back for that 39th pass and his drilled and out for a while, if not for good. It's incredibly dumb to not care that Brady gets hurt in games he throws 40+ times, not care it's why we lose and then unload the guy we're trying to develop to replace him. That's NY Jets logic.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    Despite the condescending confrontational manner in which you keep beating this dead horse I do agree with you on Brady/the run.

    I want to see us run 23-26 times a game and pass 31-34 times (something like that).

    Yet we haven't really had the greatest running backs to do this, give me Corey Dillon '04 and then I think we run more. Could stewart be this guy? I woiuld trade a 2nd for him in a heartbeat.

    And Mallett should be expected to take over for Brady following his final year of this new contract. Or maybe even trade Brady with 1 year left on his deal and get at least one 1st (in the top 15) and one 2nd, or maybe 2 late firsts. I am big on drafting one of Joe Adams or Jarius Wright, mid-round guys Mallett had great success with at Arkansas.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : So they wouldn't have won those games if the defense prevented them from scoring? Cool story.
    Posted by tompenny[/QUOTE]

    Nah the cooler story is the offense didn't help the D whatsoever in a dome by not scoring even a FG when it could have, providing a gassed D at the end of the game.

    Part I was 2007. Part II was this past year. Glad you missed the screenings. lmao

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Asher77. Show Asher77's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]How does Mallett have more value now? Also, why would we want to trade a QB we're trying to develop who is more talented than Hoyer? I don't get the logic.  Brady is older and people need to be ready for the day he drops back for that 39th pass and his drilled and out for a while, if not for good. It's incredibly dumb to not care that Brady gets hurt in games he throws 40+ times, not care it's why we lose and then unload the guy we're trying to develop to replace him. That's NY Jets logic.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]


    Mallet having more value is an opinion.

    I base it on a teams need for a QB and the availability of them this year vs last.

    I also base it on teams passing on Drafting him last year and there possible regret. It was told that he slipped based on off field issues. Some teams generaly will react in some degree on media postering when it comes to high round picks at QB. It is the face of the franchise. After NE drafted him it was a stamp of approval for any other teams fan base. Also a year without any noise and in NE system is a good thing for any QB in the NFL. All teams wish there rookie QB had the luxury of learning for a year and not being thrown to the wolves.

    What may I ask would you choose is made to: Tannehill or Mallet and 2 picks?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ejb222. Show ejb222's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    @BassFishing what in the world is the connection to not wanting a ball control offense and being a fan starting in 2007 have in common? You have absolutely no clue how long I have been a fan. And by the shape of your arguements and unrelated insults it's apparent you were born in 2007. Take a pill. When the draft goes by and the Pats don't draft a RB in the first round, you can come back to this thread a dream of what could have been. Until then, speculate all you want. But it might be best for you to actually look at how the offense is shaped. I'll give you that Josh McDaniels may bring a new style to this team...but it's pretty obvious with the additions of Stallworth, Lloyd, Gonzalez, Gallery, this team is not gearing up for a Stud RB out of the draft.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : 1. We run a 4-3 and still some 3-4, so Avril would be an ideal candidate to do what you're doing with Anderson, except Avril is better than Anderson. It's just an idea, anyway, but adding an Avril and a Courtney Upshaw in the draft ins't appealing to you as pieces to build around? 2. Only way I would go 4 years with Welker is if it's a team option. That's it. 3 is the max for me. Welker is 31, dude.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    Avril and Upshaw would be awesome... but again they would force us into the 4-3 I don't think Bill wants to play... he only did that b/c the personnel demanded it, and then went back to more 3-4 after he dumped Haynesworth.

    Currently we have the lineman to play more 4-3, especially b/c Deaderick and Fanene, despite being 290-305 guys, can be DE's in that scheme, and if we got Anderson and/or Carter back or drafted Upshaw we would be even more capable up front. I just don't see us having the LB'ers or Bill really wanting us to stay a 4-3 team

    Mayo/Spikes are clearly better on the inside in a 3-4 and Vince's talent at being a space eating nose tackle opening up the fied dfor Lbers is wasted when you make him a DT. Of course he is a beats anywhere. Maybe if we used pick 63 on LaVonte David (flies all over the field) or another of the several 6'1" 235lb 'backers who will go in that 45-75 range I'd feel more confident being more of a pure 4-3 team.

    Tullach is a stud ILB I can see making just as much money as Wimbley, so if Light can just restructure I think bill should make up his mind what scheme he wants to predominately play and then sign either Tullach or Wimbley.

    A 4th year with Welker would either have to be at only 5-6 million base, or be at like 10-11 million with only 4 guaranteed so we can cut him (esp if Brady isn't back) and give him something like 3 years 21 million and he gets 3-4 after he's cut. They gave Ocho a contract thru age 35.

    Of course Brady has only 3 years left under contract so that is consistent with what they want to pay right now.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from sheldong. Show sheldong's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    Tebow?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Asher77. Show Asher77's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]How does Mallett have more value now? Also, why would we want to trade a QB we're trying to develop who is more talented than Hoyer? I don't get the logic.  Brady is older and people need to be ready for the day he drops back for that 39th pass and his drilled and out for a while, if not for good. It's incredibly dumb to not care that Brady gets hurt in games he throws 40+ times, not care it's why we lose and then unload the guy we're trying to develop to replace him. That's NY Jets logic.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    We trade him because if Brady keeps his mind in the game he goes 5 more years. You will put the best QB out there to win the game and that is Brady even at 40 over Mallet.

    We have a backup we trust in Hoyer.

    Mallet could walk after his rookie contract so if Brady does not get hurt we will almost have to trade his at some point.

    Mallets value now would be equal to what it would be 2 years from now.

    Brady may get hurt but it is a percentage game, the percent that Mallet may save us vs the percent that trading him now will help us.

    Mallet takes up a roster spot and if we want a sucessor to Brady and Mallet is just a couple years to early for that Aron Rodgers window, we move on and find another guy next year to develop.

    Last, Mallet may be good but we are starting to act like our 3rd string QB is the next franchise savior ala Brady himself. He may be good but a good chance not that good. A replaceable commodity.

    Didn't we all talk when we got him he might be a good chip to cash in a year or two down the road?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tompenny. Show tompenny's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : Nah the cooler story is the offense didn't help the D whatsoever in a dome by not scoring even a FG when it could have, providing a gassed D at the end of the game. Part I was 2007. Part II was this past year. Glad you missed the screenings. lmao
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    I like how you pretend the Giants didn't have basically nothing but time consuming drives agains the Pats defense and that's why they were tired. Let's pretend if they actually got stops they wouldn't have been less gassed. But in your world yards don't matter, extended drives don't matter etc..
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Asher77. Show Asher77's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    The defense has it's own issues and not getting stops is on them. We need to get better.

    The defense will get better just becasue a young defense does when the players mature into there prime and gain experience in the NFL and a continous system.

    Just because I want to go after a RB does not change the need for help on that side of the ball.

    I am for drafting D with the 31st and 63rd picks. I say DL/DE and rush LB, 3rd round CB/WR/OL best avail.

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

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]Muz, I think the assumption is that a back like richardson would get more than 15 carries here. B.B. is no idiot. He knows you need balance, but with his H.O.F. qb back there, he is not handing to Benny 25 times a game. If Richardson turned out to be a stud, he would get more carries accordingly. We dont pass a lot because we dont like running. We pass a lot because we have # 12, #83, #87, #81 and at RB, we have 2 unkowns and a decent, undrafted guy. ...Posted by JayShizzle45[/QUOTE]

    Well, that wasn't the assumption that the OP made, so I was going by what he said which was that Richardson would just assume Benny's role and the team would be that much better. I don't see it. Better? Maybe, but only marginally. And when was the last time Belichick put that much faith in a first year guy?

    The available evidence does not indicate that a shift to a run-oriented approach is being considered. The FA signings and the hiring of McDaniels do not point that way.

    And let's get real, there's zero chance BB is going to trade from 27 to 4 for anybody, let alone a running back.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from JayShizzle45. Show JayShizzle45's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    You are probably right, but thats only because he was burned by Maroney , a guy who WAS trusted as a rookie and showed promise with his 2 TD's vs Cincy with brusing stiff arms and eletric open field ability. Then he hurt his shoulder and never regained his toughness to get through the hole quickly, but he was never supposed to be a feature back.He split time in College. If he took Richardson, there wouldnt be an issue, but they probably wont do it.  I also agree that the signings point to us still being a pass dominant team, but at the right price, B.B. is always looking to upgrade, or else why not just resign Benny for cheap last year?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? :  RUSTY... Your thought process on this issue are to be admired
    Posted by TSWFAN[/QUOTE]

    Hey, thanks. I just give my honest take on things with the way I see it.  

    I just read Reiss's maibag and it's interesting how many fans aren't really getting what BB is doing, what the needs are and what the market is on players and why. One guy in there commented on the offense being the source of the problem, which i thought was finally refreshing to see, but Reiss said both sides of the ball need the help.  That's an easy way out answer by Reiss.

    Sort of a backpedal by Reiss there.  The media just doesn't get that we're talking about  a fundamental, ideological issue as the root cause, not just some missteps during the game by Brady or anyone on offense. It's not just registering because Brady is so good the majority of the time. It's the times when he's not, where he needs help.



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

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    No RB in the draft, we already have 2 young un proven guys. We need a vet RB that can pick up a blitz and make plays on his own(the only thing BJGE couldn't do) this will help keep the defense honest and sell the PA pass, which has always been our best weapon in the Tom Brady era.

    Trade for J-Stew, or sign Bush, or trade for Steven Jackson(McD connection?)

    We cannot rely on 2 unproven backs even though Ridley looked good in a few spots.

    This team is built on depth, we have none at RB right now.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from JayShizzle45. Show JayShizzle45's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    True, our best bet is maybe Jackson, try and steal him away.

    Too bad it will probably be a washed up Ronnie Brown as best.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Asher77. Show Asher77's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : Well, that wasn't the assumption that the OP made, so I was going by what he said which was that Richardson would just assume Benny's role and the team would be that much better. I don't see it. Better? Maybe, but only marginally. And when was the last time Belichick put that much faith in a first year guy? The available evidence does not indicate that a shift to a run-oriented approach is being considered. The FA signings and the hiring of McDaniels do not point that way. And let's get real, there's zero chance BB is going to trade from 27 to 4 for anybody, let alone a running back.
    Posted by Muzwell[/QUOTE]

    I would assume that with T.rich and a 2nd year Vereen we would run a slight bit more but it would be more of a true balance in that we wouldn't fall abck to the pass in predictable situations or always run out of the passing set with woodhead on delayed handoffs.

    I think Woodhead would be out of the mix here with T.Rich, and Ridley would be more limited to injury backup, mop up duty, maybe short yardage runs until we get a better feel for T.Rich and Vereens skills. Some blocking in 2 back sets.

    T.Rich would be the lead back and get 2/3rds of the carries vs Vereen keeping him fresh.

    I do think there is evidence we have been looking to go more to a power game.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sully1965. Show Sully1965's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    The best Pats team had good running games. They don't need a flashy RB but just a solid guy capable of breaking off chunks of yards. The running game will keep teams honest and prevent teams from loading up on the pass. a guy like Ryan Grant, who can run, catch, and pass block could really set this offense up to be dynamic.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : We trade him because if Brady keeps his mind in the game he goes 5 more years. You will put the best QB out there to win the game and that is Brady even at 40 over Mallet. We have a backup we trust in Hoyer. Mallet could walk after his rookie contract so if Brady does not get hurt we will almost have to trade his at some point. Mallets value now would be equal to what it would be 2 years from now. Brady may get hurt but it is a percentage game, the percent that Mallet may save us vs the percent that trading him now will help us. Mallet takes up a roster spot and if we want a sucessor to Brady and Mallet is just a couple years to early for that Aron Rodgers window, we move on and find another guy next year to develop. Last, Mallet may be good but we are starting to act like our 3rd string QB is the next franchise savior ala Brady himself. He may be good but a good chance not that good. A replaceable commodity. Didn't we all talk when we got him he might be a good chip to cash in a year or two down the road?
    Posted by Asher77[/QUOTE]

    You cannot bank on Brady going 5 more years. He has 2 years left on his deal and you see where you are then. There's a reason he only signed a 4 year deal and BB took Mallett in the 3rd rd last year.

    I know Brady said he wants to play until 40. That's great. I hope he does and he isn't throwing 40+ times in a game then.  But, sometimes your body and skills fail you and wants and desires to play until 40 aren't reality.

    Look at Gomer Manning. He's so delusional right now that he seriously thought he still had a chance with Indy committing to him long term, just 2 weeks ago per Mortensen.

    I do not want Brady turning inot that situation, so let's just wait and see. But, unloading a development chip behind Brady with that kind of upside? No way. They'll make the decision on him within the next 2 years, but don't be surprised to see BB unload Brady if it makes sense for both sides.  Anything can happen, but why pigeon hole yourself?

    It's flat out moronic that the Irsays didn't activate Gomer's deal with a supposed "clean bill of health" and trade him.    If Indy was smart they play it off like they will resign Gomer, will trade out of the 1st slot to rebuild that way, but they basically broadcasted their desires so early, they completely blew it. It's hialrious.

    They could have played it off that they were keeping Manning only to trade him to a Denver, who is clearly hot to trot in desperation mode.

    BB would never be so dumb to do that. The Jets made a similar mistake with the Sanchez (should have pretended to move on with Sanchez, but quietly trade him to clear space, sign Flynn or Orton and have them compete with McElroy) thing and now Elway with an old Gomer expected to beat Crennel twice a year in the same division, outdoors. lol
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]The best Pats team had good running games. They don't need a flashy RB but just a solid guy capable of breaking off chunks of yards. The running game will keep teams honest and prevent teams from loading up on the pass. a guy like Ryan Grant, who can run, catch, and pass block could really set this offense up to be dynamic.
    Posted by Sully1965[/QUOTE]

    He'd be a solid option, but is he really an upgrade over BJGE? Only way I do that route is if he's cheaper than BJGE.   I don't get the desire to run away from a known commodity like BJGE if you're not significantly upgrading the spot with a veteran.

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

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    Why all the hand wringing about RB... we don't run?

    I hope that changes to some degree with McDaniel's back, Steven Jackson would be a great pick up as we need a back who can catch like a wide receiver, that's why Benny was always coming out of the game. 

    But if you're looking at who we've already got on our squad than Ridley is your man, feed him the rock, get this offense in the top ten in rushing attempts and it will be unstoppable... even in crunch time.

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

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    Imagine a fresh Ridley in the 4th with NY not knowing why he was out there? Ugh.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]Promote Hernandez.  He makes people miss and he's pretty big for a back.  Plus he catches passes. If the Patriots have some real wideouts, who's going to stop them?
    Posted by Paul_K[/QUOTE]

    I wouldn't want hernandez back there at running back. Its worked a few times but not worth the risk. Its an injury waiting to happen, he's tweaked his knee a couple of times and had other issues even with the limited touches that he gets at TE. He has also shown to fumble at times too. Hernandez is too much of a talent to put back there, I'd rather see him used more as a wideout than ever being in the backfield. 
     

Share