The Official "This should be unnecessary" Gabriel Thread...

[patsox23]

To the throng of posters who will apparently believe pretty much anything:

DOUG GABRIEL IS NOT IN THE DOGHOUSE BECAUSE OF ONE FUMBLE.

I genuinely hate to be a jerk about this, but I can't take it anymore. HISTORY and LOGIC dictate that there is literally NO WAY that the reason DG has seen almost no action since the jet game is due simply to his fumbling the ball. Call it the "Kevin Faulk Clause" or the "Corey Dillon Corollary," call it whatever you want, just - for the love of God - stop posting that he is "in the doghouse" because, and ONLY because, of that single miscue. It is clogging the board with absurdity and simplicity to do so. Faulk would never see the field if merely fumbling once (or twice or three times) brought with it a benching.

I don't know what the whole story is. We may never know what the whole story is. But reflection for all of two seconds, and the possession of even half the necessary brain cells to function, tell us that there is more to Belichick's latest personnel quirk. So while it may be frustrating that we DON'T know, it's preferable to be patient, in my view, than to downshift to the lazy thinking that encourages ridiculous conjecture which is based on nothing and worth even less.

Carry on.

[patsox23]

I think there probably is a logical explanation, just one we don't know, and likely won't. Practice habits? An off-the-field issue? Lateness for meetings? Unwillingness to work hard?

Hopefully Gabriel is learning and turning it around. He's looked good when he's played this season.

[RayClay]

Originally Posted by patsox23

I think there probably is a logical explanation, just one we don't know, and likely won't. Practice habits? An off-the-field issue? Lateness for meetings? Unwillingness to work hard?

Hopefully Gabriel is learning and turning it around. He's looked good when he's played this season.

If Gabriel isn't doing his best to secure the ball, BB will bench him.

If he fumbles despite securing the ball the best he can, he won't. I haven't watched Gabriel enough to determine if he's holding that ball up for grabs.

[patsox23]

Originally Posted by RayClay

If Gabriel isn't doing his best to secure the ball, BB will bench him.

For a quarter maybe. For the 2nd half of a division game and then most of the following week? And he doesn't bench Corey for the same? Or Faulk? Or Watson, who fumbled in the 1st quarter? There's more to this. To suggest this benching has occurred because of that one fumble is silly - and, somehow, common.

[Sean Pa Patriot]

All I want to know is why?? is he hurt??? is he slacking in practice? I see potential with him ,and if he is to help take the place of Branch I would like to know..

[RayClay]

Originally Posted by patsox23

For a quarter maybe. For the 2nd half of a division game and then most of the following week? And he doesn't bench Corey for the same? Or Faulk? Or Watson, who fumbled in the 1st quarter? There's more to this. To suggest this benching has occurred because of that one fumble is silly - and, somehow, common.

Not according to Reiss

"Doug Gabriel, who was benched last week after losing a fumble against the Jets, played sparingly. His primary playing time came when the Patriots were in three-wide sets, and he went without a catch."

http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...eymour/?page=2

He definitely benched Faulk years back and had him do fumble drills. Of course he still fumbles some, but he has apparently done all he could to improve in that area.

[RayClay]

Fumbles happen. I think, especially with new players, BB wants to impress the importance of ball security.

If you're carrying it like a loaf of bread you'll get sent a message.

They know the difference between a preventable mistake and a great defensive play.

[patsox23]

Originally Posted by RayClay

Not according to Reiss

"Doug Gabriel, who was benched last week after losing a fumble against the Jets, played sparingly. His primary playing time came when the Patriots were in three-wide sets, and he went without a catch."

http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...eymour/?page=2

He definitely benched Faulk years back and had him do fumble drills. Of course he still fumbles some, but he has apparently done all he could to improve in that area.

I think you're reading WAY too much into what Reiss wrote there. I'm not saying the fumble had NO BEARING on the benching, but it CLEARLY wasn't just that one play - or should be clear. I feel like I'm in an asylum here - you can't possibly think this, and you can't possibly think that Reiss's comment suggests that it's that simple.

[PATSNUTme]

Originally Posted by patsox23

I think you're reading WAY too much into what Reiss wrote there. I'm not saying the fumble had NO BEARING on the benching, but it CLEARLY wasn't just that one play - or should be clear. I feel like I'm in an asylum here - you can't possibly think this, and you can't possibly think that Reiss's comment suggests that it's that simple.

I think that you are that one making more of this than it is.

Yes, it was that fumble that got him in the "dig house". As I stated before in another thread, I think that the coaches noticed that he was not protecting the ball properly when he ran with it. I think that the coaches brought this to his attention and had him work on it. Then he reverted back to his old habits on that run. He carried the ball high and away from his body.

This does not not make Gabe a bad player or a bad person. But, a lesson is being taught by BB and it no more to it than that.

[BelichickFan]

The fumble may not have been the only reason but it was clearly the final straw because he was playing before the fumble and not after it.