Patriots have the second oldest offensive line in the NFL - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

***KontradictioN*** · 05-03-2010, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Box_O_Rocks

Please check the injury reports for those games, you are using erroneous data to reach your conclusion.

He had full participation in every practice all week against the Texans and was listed as probable on Friday's injury report. I realize he was injured, but I would have to think that if he fully participated in practice then he would have started in the place of a raw rookie whose presence in the games helped to take the tight ends out of the receiving equation. However, this is just a guess by me. I've had shoulder injuries myself and it was difficult enough for Kaczur to hold his own against defensive linemen even when he was healthy, much less injured. The starting rotation on the O-Line to start the season (in which I believe Vollmer will start at RG) should settle this debate.

***patsinthesnow*** · 05-03-2010, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supafly

I will respectfully disagree here. We've had back to back years of top 10 rushing attacks with a RB by committee system. Last year I believe we were 9th, and in 2008 I think we were actually 5th. (you may want to double check, I haven't verified and am going off the top of my head)

It may not be that exciting of a position to watch, but I don't think having an early rd pick would've made that much of a difference.

I'm not sure BB cares whether or not we have 1 main RB, or a RBBC system, especially if we're putting up good numbers like the past 2 seasons. IIRC, wasn't 2008 one of our franchise's best running attacks? That's pretty good considering there's been 50 yrs of comparisons.

I'm sure next yr we'll take a top 3 rd RB + maybe add another solid vet at the position, but as far as actual need, you can't fault a system that allows fresh players
to rotate at a good cost/value. Not only that, but come playoff time, you're guaranteed a solid and fresh back for a stretch run.

As long as you're getting approx. 4 yds/ave per carry, I don't really care if they're young/old, well known/no name, etc. Plus it's good for injury concerns and gives us obvious depth.

I just wanted another young kid in the runningback core. I think it's not good having the TWO oldest Rbs in the league (Taylor and Faulk) on the same team, with Morris not far behind. Faulk is an exception, but I think Morris and Taylor will have no gas left and they don't offer anything good.

Maroney is the X factor, if he can perform well, we can have the cardiac arrest we have behind him.

BJGE better be ready though. These RBs are old/fragile and I wouldn't be shocked if we have the 08 situation at back all over again. (everyone injured except faulk).

supafly · 05-03-2010, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsinthesnow

I just wanted another young kid in the runningback core. I think it's not good having the TWO oldest Rbs in the league (Taylor and Faulk) on the same team, with Morris not far behind. Faulk is an exception, but I think Morris and Taylor will have no gas left and they don't offer anything good.

Maroney is the X factor, if he can perform well, we can have the cardiac arrest we have behind him.

BJGE better be ready though. These RBs are old/fragile and I wouldn't be shocked if we have the 08 situation at back all over again. (everyone injured except faulk).

I understand what you're getting at, and you certainly aren't the only person to feel this way, I am simply giving you another angle to see the situation from. Most of our RBBC crew are still decently good at what they do, or at least good enough to get the job done while addressing other bigger 'need' areas of the team.

Although it's not an extremely "exciting" position to watch from a numbers' standpoint, it seems to be more effective than people first realize.

I think a lot of us would like to see another Dillion-esque 1500-1600 yd season, but for now our coach likes to use a RBBC approach. I realize they're older, but they're also experiencing less wear and tear than an average RB their age, due to the rotation.

Personally, I don't care if we're using Adrian Peterson or BJGE to run the ball, as long as they're doing their job.

5 Rings for Brady!! · 05-03-2010, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bostonian1962

No biggie! They have two of the best young talents there (Mankins and Sea Bass), who will be joined by draft picks at center/guard, and tackle. I love the mix of youth and experience, to be honest.

I agree that our OL is not exactly a weak position right now regardless of the age of last year's starters.

There were a couple years that the OL got Brady killed often but they have done a pretty good job since 2007 and we do have some young players who I like, for instance, LeVoir, who has good size. Further, we have a guy like Kaczur as a solid back up, assuming Sea Bass wins the job. Only a couple stars, but overall pretty consistent players.

If BB can upgrade each position a little as the players age, then the line should actually get even better. I do think we can upgrade Koppen at some point, and it would not surprise me if Neal loses his starting job to somebody with fresh legs. Kaczur certainly faces stiff competition.

I doubt this year's starting line up will be amoung the oldest anymore.