shirtsleeve

Nope, only two. The first he had a limited role and limited play book, remember?

And no I dont want to draft players from William and Mary only. But I was perfectly happy with a grind it out, workmanlike offense. But the linch pin of the whole team is its LB's. And look at where we are now compared to where we were then. I would really really hate it if we had to go out and outscore everyone to win, instead of forcing everyone else to under score us.

oldrover

I like this draft too... my biggest concern is that Maroney's stats were inflated by his O-line. Look at the clips... he hardly ever has to break a tackle. However, he seems like a football player and a team guy. That's all good.

jczxohn1

Posted this on another thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick4
I think the Pats have done a good job of addressing any possible offensive situation that may happen during a game. Using different packages and player combinations, we now have enough skill players and blockers who will allow us to competently:
- Stretch the field for the long ball.
- Pound the ball in on 3rd-and-1 or at the goal line.
- Run traps and pulls on running plays.
- Throw screens and short dump-offs.
- Sell play action for gains both short, medium, and deep.
- Throw quick-outs and slants.
- Turn routine runs into gamebreaking TD's.
- Run trick plays and end-arounds.
- Others I can't think of right now.

It's almost as if every player on our depth chart is a tool with different sets of skills for different uses. When the offense is clicking, I think the Pats will routinely pull off 15-play, 10-minute, TD-scoring drives./Quote


For years, opposing QB's would shake their heads and throw their helmets to the ground after facing our defense. "You never know who's coming or what they're doing" was a commonplace. Now, it appears BB has the tools and an experienced, bright young OC to implement a game plan to make opposing defenses do the same.

__________________
Felger started his question, "Correct me if I'm wrong," BB quickly interjected, "I can't wait--"


``The officials now are evaluating the players and their performance, I mean, that's great,'' Belichick deadpanned. ``I can't say how much that means to me, really.''

PatsFanInVa

Hey hey hey I can get behind what Shirtsleeve is saying here. I mean, on a sentimental level.

Look at it this way - the Pats are still winning the same way, zigging when they're supposed to zag, out-thinking the bad guys. It just so happens that there's more copying in this league than at your local Kinkos (right down to the Texans taking a Lineman instead of a purported once-in-a-decade running back.)

You think that happens in a vacuum? Uh-uh. The Pats, and their evil twins in Pixburgh, made it happen. Now, with the Pats stocked at the all-important 2-gap D lineman positions, everybody else hustles to copy the 3-4. Okay, not Houston... but picking the stud lineman first, how Belickick is that?

So here's where being who the Pats are really comes out: The Pats aren't just about a formula. Hell, the Pats' D, when it's hitting on all cylinders, looks mildly like Blitzburg one week, like a mainly 4-3 team, then like a bizarro universe team that sends in 8 DBs.

That's what the Pats do, make the most of every opportunity. It happens that the opportunities were on the offensive side of the ball this time around.

The Pats are a lunch-pail team, you never have to worry about that. And part of being a lunch-pail team is adapting to every circumstance. You're not a star, that does one thing well, and that needs to be coddled in that role. You are at work, and will complete "other duties as assigned."

You better believe that goes for our new toys too. I firmly believe the value chips fell mainly in the order you see reflected in this draft. When New Orleans was picking, the plan was not unfolding, but perhaps the readiness. By the time the Pats were up, they had to pick between reaching (!) for the best receiver in the draft, or taking the second best running back (a steal.) Then they got the receiver anyway!

I'm not too choked up that Chad Greenway won't be a Patriot, with this haul. And maybe, just maybe, it says something about what BB sees in our much maligned D - that TBC is ready to step it up, at least enough to be a solid starter. You don't replace and replicate from last season, just like you don't play the same D two games in a row, in Belichick's world.

That's for teams that don't always have "smart, aggressive, versatile" on the scouting report for every pick they get.

That's how the Pats are different - and the moment you pin them down as Defense First, Grind it Out, No Exceptions, you've lost a part of what they are.

PFnV

PS, we're still not going to the house every play. Relax. This seems geared to make red zone possessions actually yield touchdowns, not a bid for Indy-style "Triplets."

spacecrime

What's your problem? No one said pro bowl except you. What he said was we got two of the best offensive weapons in the draft.

What are your options? You are drafting. You pick the best players available. If you get two of them, you have done well. You should be pleased. The players don't automatically turn to crap because they were drafted.

Yeah, I hear you that not all first roundes live up to expectations. Disagree that half of first rounders are only average, and you know it if you look at all the first rounders of the last few drafts and see if they are average. (Regarding pro bowls, also look to see what percentage of pro bowl palyers come from first round as opposed to any later round. It is pure dumb to think the best players will mostly come from late rounds.

It is true that Laurence Maroney could be a bust and some UFDA could be a star. But only a moron would say that it is not better to pick the best RB and WR avaialble, and to wait and pick up UFDAs in the hope that they will beat the long odds and make the team, let alone be better than first round picks.

Even when a first rounder ends up a bust, only hindsight says that. At the time it was the right decision to go after teh best player available.

I know this is the time of year when some people get upset anyone is optimistic about the team. I just get tired of hearing "just because he was drafted in the first round doesn't mean isn't lousy."

As it says in the bible, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the contest to the strong, but that's the way to lay your bets."

spacecrime

You are saying that Kraft's and BB's plan was not to have good players? That they shouldn't have drafted Seymour? And should not have extended Brady? What are you saying?

BelichickFan

We have to keep getting better players. Duh. What killed us last year was mistakes. Faulk's fumble. Hobbs' fumble. Brady's INT. We have to keep getting better players but get back to the solid, fundamental, turnover free football we were used to. Unfortunately that means less Faulk unless he quits dropping the ball. Maroney's career fumble numbers suggest he will not only be our most explosive RB since Martin but he'll be safe with the ball. And if we can actually run in the red area then Brady won't be forced into INTs like he threw at Denver.

MDPATSFAN

Meanwhile the "D" is resting on the bench with a lead.....

flutie2phelan

No sir, not at all.
My idea of a tight defensive game
is jump out to a 21-3 lead by the half ...

and eke out a 34 - 16 win.

I'm afraid we're doomed to lots of those.
Lots of action for the D.

Yay, war-room team! Yay, college scouting department!

__________________

MDPATSFAN

How many times have we seen the exact same scenario you describe?...17 point lead in the third quarter...offense comes out...throws three incomplete ticky tack passes resulting in 20 seconds burned off the clock leaving the door open for the opposing team to get back in the game.I don't know about you but that gives me one hell of a blood pressure spike...


Meanwhile a single running play burns at least 45 seconds. We need a clock grinding run game. It benefits both sides of the ball.