Apparently our weakness is on offense

[mgteich]

I have seen many posts that have indicated that our OT's are aweful (apparently including Vollmer) that we should have given up Mayo and Butler in order to upgrade the position in the last two drafts by drafting Clady and Oher. We also would have to have given up a 2nd rounder, but we used a second on Vollmer so that is a wash. We also would have to have lost Edelman and Tate, but that isn't a big deal.
================
We spend literally years discussing the necessity of rebuilding the defense and making it younger and and faster. HOWEVER, even when we get studs like Mayo and Butler, this board wishes that Belichick had decided NOT to upgrade the defense and instead upgraded our OT's. Over the past two years, Belichick has picked up Vollmer and LeVoir. The consensus seems to be that we should have brought in Oher and Clady instead of Mayo and Butler. Then, of course, we would have no need for Vollmer. Besides, we would have given up up the equivalent of the 2nd we used for Vollmer.

OF COURSE, these same posters would then have been criticizing Belichick's failure to upgrade the defense.
=====================

I am quite satisfied that Belichick brought in Mayo and Butler. I was also glad that he tried to upgrade the secondary with Wilhite and Wheatley. In fact, I would have preferred one more high pick ILB in 2009. It is great to have James Sanders as our #4 safety. That's great depth. Somehow, I would rather have Sanders as our #3 safety and also have Guyton as our #3 ILB and spot player at OLB.
======================================

We are building a fine young fast defense. I know that it is early, but I hope that Belichick uses all our top draft choices for defense, except for filling our need at OG if Mankins and Neal both don't come back.
======================

 

[Nikolai]

Re: Apparently Our Weakness Is On the Offense

I have seen many posts that have indicated that our OT's are aweful (apparently including Vollmer)

I haven't seen anyone say Vollmer is awful, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anyone who says that is being an idiot. Is he all-pro? Not yet, but he has that potential.

 

[JackBauer]

Re: Apparently Our Weakness Is On the Offense

The consensus seems to be that we should have brought in Oher and Clady instead of Mayo and Butler.

I don't think there is any such consensus.

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: Apparently Our Weakness Is On the Offense

I have seen many posts that have indicated that our OT's are aweful (apparently including Vollmer) that we should have given up Mayo and Butler in order to upgrade the position in the last two drafts by drafting Clady and Oher. We also would have to have given up a 2nd rounder, but we used a second on Vollmer so that is a wash. We also would have to have lost Edelman and Tate, but that isn't a big deal.
================
We spend literally years discussing the necessity of rebuilding the defense and making it younger and and faster. HOWEVER, even when we get studs like Mayo and Butler, this board wishes that Belichick had decided NOT to upgrade the defense and instead upgraded our OT's. Over the past two years, Belichick has picked up Vollmer and LeVoir. The consensus seems to be that we should have brought in Oher and Clady instead of Mayo and Butler. Then, of course, we would have no need for Vollmer. Besides, we would have given up up the equivalent of the 2nd we used for Vollmer.

OF COURSE, these same posters would then have been criticizing Belichick's failure to upgrade the defense.
=====================

I am quite satisfied that Belichick brought in Mayo and Butler. I was also glad that he tried to upgrade the secondary with Wilhite and Wheatley. In fact, I would have preferred one more high pick ILB in 2009. It is great to have James Sanders as our #4 safety. That's great depth. Somehow, I would rather have Sanders as our #3 safety and also have Guyton as our #3 ILB and spot player at OLB.
======================================

We are building a fine young fast defense. I know that it is early, but I hope that Belichick uses all our top draft choices for defense, except for filling our need at OG if Mankins and Neal both don't come back.
======================

More than anything else, I'd like to see a serious draft pick or serious money invested in a bona-fide RB to play alongside Maroney (e.g., no more hunting the scrap pile).

This more than anything else will take pressure off our OL.

 

[supafly]

Re: Apparently Our Weakness Is On the Offense

I haven't seen anyone say Vollmer is awful, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anyone who says that is being an idiot. Is he all-pro? Not yet, but he has that potential.

My guess is that mg was being somewhat sarcastic about Vollmer, as most of us can agree that he has looked pretty good--at least so far. I agree that he has a very good upside, and look forward to seeing it happen.

There have been a lot of people that have complained about the O-line, and at times they have looked mediocre and have had some issues. I think part of that is some injury problems, and some could even be blamed at the apparent lack of a #3 WR option, as it has taken longer time to find a target at times.

I do think many of us were hoping to upgrade at the O-line positions (one or two), but realized that defense was probably more of a priority. At the same time many were complaining about our recent lack of speed, etc on the defensive side. A lot felt that was our bigger problem, and the reason we couldn't hold on for a 4th ring (06 AFCCG/07 SB). I think as a whole, many were more worried about the age and slowness on defense, than they were about the O-line depth/issues.

Bottom line is that people will complain no matter what, but I think defense was a bigger priority in the off-season/draft. I think our O-line when fully healthy is decent, with the seeming exception being the apparent downfall of the center position. If there's a position BB values more on the O-line than any other it's center, IMO. We all saw how concerned he was when Koppen went down, as he actually was going out on the field to check on him, something I don't see him do too often. I think it's obviously the most important on the line, and I have a feeling BB does too. It's the position he played, so he is very aware of what it takes to be a good center. I have a feeling we draft a center decently high next year, just a hunch.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Re: Apparently Our Weakness Is On the Offense

Going back to the offseason ... what would anyone here have done differently? The offense looked good heading into the season. Galloway was a bust and Fred Taylor got injured but both were solid decisions at the time. Short of a really decent blocking TE I think we went into the season fine - just hasn't been our year so far in terms of catching a few breaks in the health and/or calls department.

 

[eagle eye]

Re: Apparently Our Weakness Is On the Offense

More than anything else, I'd like to see a serious draft pick or serious money invested in a bona-fide RB to play alongside Maroney (e.g., no more hunting the scrap pile).

This more than anything else will take pressure off our OL.

Personally I'd like to see big money spent on a hyrid runner/receiver in the Kevin Faulk mould. Faulk is 34 now so he won't be around too much longer.

On the OP, yeah there are some people saying that stuff and it is ridiculous. We have a D that will improve year after year. A lot of guys seem to fancy themselves as a head coach just sitting here and doing numbers and picking out players we could have got.

But then you go back and look at the chatter from before previous drafts and you see the amount of busts that some of these guys wanted us to take. They never bring them up though.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Apparently Our Weakness Is On the Offense

I don't think there is any such consensus.

I wouldn't mind seeing Clady here. On the same token, I do like Mayo and I think that Light can get it done in the mean time and also think that Vollmer will be capable of taking over at the LT position in the future. However, I have made it pretty well known that I would have loved to see Oher here. I think Butler has a bright future, but I would take Oher in a second over Butler. The right side of our offensive line would have been virtually impenetrable with Oher and Neal holding down the fort over there. On top of that, he would be a pretty clear cut upgrade over Kaczur.

 

[supafly]

Re: Apparently Our Weakness Is On the Offense

I wouldn't mind seeing Clady here. On the same token, I do like Mayo and I think that Light can get it done in the mean time and also think that Vollmer will be capable of taking over at the LT position in the future. However, I have made it pretty well known that I would have loved to see Oher here. I think Butler has a bright future, but I would take Oher in a second over Butler. The right side of our offensive line would have been virtually impenetrable with Oher and Neal holding down the fort over there. On top of that, he would be a pretty clear cut upgrade over Kaczur.

If Oher were drafted by himself, do you still think he'd be moved over to the right side?

If Oher and Vollmer were both drafted, I still wouldn't see Oher being moved. I would think Vollmer would've been groomed for the right side.

Thoughts?

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Apparently Our Weakness Is On the Offense

If Oher were drafted by himself, do you still think he'd be moved over to the right side?

If Oher and Vollmer were both drafted, I still wouldn't see Oher being moved. I would think Vollmer would've been groomed for the right side.

Thoughts?

With Matt Light still on the team, and being the starter, Oher would have started the year on the right side. If he looked as good in our system as he does in the Ravens', they probably would have kept him there. It is an interesting question though, as Vollmer and Oher are capable of playing on either side. Personally? I think Oher would have stayed at RT and Vollmer would have been groomed to be the future LT.

 

[mayoclinic]

Re: Apparently Our Weakness Is On the Offense

I have seen many posts that have indicated that our OT's are aweful (apparently including Vollmer) that we should have given up Mayo and Butler in order to upgrade the position in the last two drafts by drafting Clady and Oher. We also would have to have given up a 2nd rounder, but we used a second on Vollmer so that is a wash. We also would have to have lost Edelman and Tate, but that isn't a big deal.
================
We spend literally years discussing the necessity of rebuilding the defense and making it younger and and faster. HOWEVER, even when we get studs like Mayo and Butler, this board wishes that Belichick had decided NOT to upgrade the defense and instead upgraded our OT's. Over the past two years, Belichick has picked up Vollmer and LeVoir. The consensus seems to be that we should have brought in Oher and Clady instead of Mayo and Butler. Then, of course, we would have no need for Vollmer. Besides, we would have given up up the equivalent of the 2nd we used for Vollmer.

OF COURSE, these same posters would then have been criticizing Belichick's failure to upgrade the defense.
=====================

I am quite satisfied that Belichick brought in Mayo and Butler. I was also glad that he tried to upgrade the secondary with Wilhite and Wheatley. In fact, I would have preferred one more high pick ILB in 2009. It is great to have James Sanders as our #4 safety. That's great depth. Somehow, I would rather have Sanders as our #3 safety and also have Guyton as our #3 ILB and spot player at OLB.
======================================

We are building a fine young fast defense. I know that it is early, but I hope that Belichick uses all our top draft choices for defense, except for filling our need at OG if Mankins and Neal both don't come back.
======================

You seem to be drawing a lot of conclusions and making them sound like they are the overwhelming opinion of people on this board. I can't speak for others, or for the "concensus", only myself.

1. I loved the Mayo and Butler picks, both at the time and now. I've defended criticism of Mayo recently on this board. I'm certainly not suggesting that we should have done differently with those picks, as I feel that ILB was a critical need which is central to BB's defense and very difficult to fill, and that rebuilding the defense with young and speedy playmakers like Mayo and Butler was a priority. I certainly also don't underrate some of the value of the additional pieces we've picked up.

2. With that as a given, I think that building the lines is critical to the success of a team, and that anytime you have a chance to add pro bowl caliber players at the tackle spots it should be seriously considered. Was OT as critical a need as ILB in 2008? Definitely not, and I personally wanted Mayo. But we draft for value and not just need, and Clady was a terrific LT prospect and would have been a great pick. So I call it "debatable". Similarly, I personally believe that upgrading the RT position is important - unlike you, I am far from satisfied with Kaczur - and getting a potential pro bowl RT is also something to seriously consider. Do I wish we had passed on Mayo and Butler and the other picks we acquired? No. Do I think it is arguable that adding pro bowl caliber tackles would have been a worthwhile alternative? Certainly.

3. I haven't heard anyone suggest that Vollmer is awful, or even that our offensive line is awful. I think Vollmer is a stud and will give Clady a run for his money as the best LT in the AFC once he develops. If he fulfills the potential he has hsown this year, he could arguably develop into the best pick this franchise has made since Tom Brady. I do, however, think that the rest of the OL is upgradeable, and that that is a significant priority - I rate it the #2 priority behind upgrading the DL/OLB/pass rush area of the team. The overall talent on the OL may compare well to 2003-2004; as a line we aren't playing all that well, and there are several weak links. I think the OL is one of the most important parts of the team, so I make it a priority to address those weaknesses.

4. I agree with you that we are building a fine young fast defense. Nevertheless, that defense is still lacking some key pieces, and I agree with you that we should prioritize adding those pieces in the offseason, whether through FA, trade or the draft (the last being by far the most likely). I differ from you in prioritizing the OL as my 2nd most important need, and believing that it is more than just finding a replacement for Mankins/Neal. I think the OL needs to be overhauled and upgraded, just like the defense did.

5. I've personally never suggested that "our weakness is on the offense". But I think that our offense has weaknesses that need addressing, and the OL is where I think we could get the most bang for the buck. I am concerned about our lack of consistency in the running game, lack of red zone execution, and susceptibility to QB pressure from opposing defenses. You obviously disagree. Based on the many posts we've exchanged to date, I don't think we're going to agree on this one, though we do agree on many other things.

 

[Deus Irae]

I have seen many posts that have indicated that our OT's are aweful (apparently including Vollmer) that we should have given up Mayo and Butler in order to upgrade the position in the last two drafts by drafting Clady and Oher. We also would have to have given up a 2nd rounder, but we used a second on Vollmer so that is a wash. We also would have to have lost Edelman and Tate, but that isn't a big deal.

Could you link us to all these many posts saying that the OT's are awful and the team should have drafted Clady and Oher because of that?

Also, could you explain to us all how impossible it would have been to find a team to trade the Patriots a 6th or 7th round pick which could have been used to draft Edelman?

Also, given that the team was able to grab multiple draft picks in next year's draft, would you explain how it would have been impossible for the team to have moved picks around to get most, if not all, of the players they drafted?

As for LeVoir...... please.

 

[farn]

The "problem" isn't the offense.

My frustration is based on potential and belief in the offense - I knew the D would struggle at times. Therefore, my expectations for them are limited. In fact, I'd say that in some cases they are better than I thought they'd be (excluding Colts' 4th and Saints game entirely).

However, if you would have told me in August that we'd lose to the Broncos and Jets because the O didn't score in the second half, I'd say that's a huge problem. The thing is that the team seems to be built in such a way that the offense was to carry them. When they have huge breakdowns (3rd and short with two shots to finish the game or the aformentioned 2nd quarters) it's frustrating.

The offense is better than the defense. That is why they are more frustrating - because they aren't consistently what we thought they were.

 

[mayoclinic]

In fact, I would have preferred one more high pick ILB in 2009. It is great to have James Sanders as our #4 safety. That's great depth. Somehow, I would rather have Sanders as our #3 safety and also have Guyton as our #3 ILB and spot player at OLB.

Wasn't Tyrone McKenzie supposed to be that 3rd player at ILB? Guess we should have predicted he would go on IR.

I know you liked James Laurinaitis, and he has done very well for St. Louis. But does he really provide much more than we could have expected from a healthy McKenzie?

Here's what Robert Davis from Football's Future had to say about each of them last spring:

1. Tyrone McKenzie (6'2", 241#; 121 tackles, 7.5 tackles for a loss, 1.5 sacks): "McKenzie is as active and aggressive as any linebacker in this draft. He has an innate ability to locate the football and bring down the ball carrier. Having an immediate impact for schools in two difference conferences says a lot about his natural football instincts. He is athletic, has good speed, and uses those gifts to make plays up and down the line of scrimmage. McKenzie moves well laterally and shoots up the field once his sights are set on the ball carrier. He also brings some versatility to a defense, having the skills to possibly play weakside or inside linebacker at the NFL level."

Tyrone McKenzie - Football's Future NFL Draft Profile

2. James Laurinaitis (6'2", 244#; 121 tackles, 5.5 tackles for loss, 4 sacks, 2 interceptions): "Laurinaitis is an excellent middle linebacker prospect, that should have very little problem making an impact early in the NFL. He is a complete player that does not take a down off, and can make an impact in every facet of the game. He is very intelligent on the field, reading the play and flowing to the action without much effort. He is a natural on the field and always around the ball. He plays sideline to sideline but quickly turns upfield to get to the ball carrier and bring him down. His nine sacks over the last two years show his effectiveness at blitzing when asked. What truly sets him apart though is his ability in coverage. Laurinaitis shows excellent awareness in coverage and can easily drop into coverage and find the football."

James Laurinaitis - Football's Future NFL Draft Profile

 

[Jimke]

I don't know how anyone could criticize the 2009 draft. It was

a darn good draft. The trouble is that the previous few drafts were

suspect and have left the Patriots weak on both offense and defense.

If Mankins, Watson, Bodden, Wilfork, and Gostowski leave for free

agency, Belichick will be hard pressed to put a competitive team on the

field.

 

[mayoclinic]

The "problem" isn't the offense.

My frustration is based on potential and belief in the offense - I knew the D would struggle at times. Therefore, my expectations for them are limited. In fact, I'd say that in some cases they are better than I thought they'd be (excluding Colts' 4th and Saints game entirely).

However, if you would have told me in August that we'd lose to the Broncos and Jets because the O didn't score in the second half, I'd say that's a huge problem. The thing is that the team seems to be built in such a way that the offense was to carry them. When they have huge breakdowns (3rd and short with two shots to finish the game or the aformentioned 2nd quarters) it's frustrating.

The offense is better than the defense. That is why they are more frustrating - because they aren't consistently what we thought they were.

Nicely said.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I don't know how anyone could criticize the 2009 draft. It was

a darn good draft. The trouble is that the previous few drafts were

suspect and have left the Patriots weak on both offense and defense.

If Mankins, Watson, Bodden, Wilfork, and Gostowski leave for free

agency, Belichick will be hard pressed to put a competitive team on the

field.

Gostkowski and Mankins are likely to be RFAs, whether 2010 is capped or uncapped (if the NFLPA gets a new CBA before 2010 starts, screwing over this year's FA class seems to be a price they're willing to pay).

And no one in the NFL expects Wilfork to reach free agency without the franchise tag.

 

[mayoclinic]

Gostkowski and Mankins are likely to be RFAs, whether 2010 is capped or uncapped (if the NFLPA gets a new CBA before 2010 starts, screwing over this year's FA class seems to be a price they're willing to pay).

And no one in the NFL expects Wilfork to reach free agency without the franchise tag.

I agree with this. I think that Mankins and Ghost are back with us, unless someone makes an offer that we don't think is worth matching and we prefer the picks. I think Wilfork is either re-signed or tagged - possibly traded if it looks like things can't be worked out, but he has way too much value to let hit the open market.

That leaves Bodden and Watson as my 2 remaining guys that I'd like to see us keep. The rest are replaceable, IMHO. And both Bodden and Watson can definitely be replaced, I'd just prefer to keep them for at least 1 more year and use our picks on other needs.

That's fairly manageable.

 

[mgteich]

Belichick passed on linebackers because he thought the value wasn't there. Since he certainly couldn't count on finding a late 3rd or a 4th rounder or an UDFA to have an impact in his rookie year as he done with Guyton.

Personally, I think that Belichick is much better able to find safeties later in the draft and in free agency than ILB's or OLB's. Obviously has proven me wrong with all his successes at the new blood at linebacker found late in the draft and in free agency.

We have Belichick defensive roster: six safeties. The DC just needs to fiigure out how to use them better.

I know the linebacker position has been my tirade since Belichick traded up for Graham. However, I do indeed believe that the differences as we progressed over the Belichick years has been the inability to maintain the quality of play and talent at the linebacker position.

In fact, I would have preferred one more high pick ILB in 2009. It is great to have James Sanders as our #4 safety. That's great depth. Somehow, I would rather have Sanders as our #3 safety and also have Guyton as our #3 ILB and spot player at OLB.

Wasn't Tyrone McKenzie supposed to be that 3rd player at ILB? Guess we should have predicted he would go on IR.

I know you liked James Laurinaitis, and he has done very well for St. Louis. But does he really provide much more than we could have expected from a healthy McKenzie?

Here's what Robert Davis from Football's Future had to say about each of them last spring:

1. Tyrone McKenzie (6'2", 241#; 121 tackles, 7.5 tackles for a loss, 1.5 sacks): "McKenzie is as active and aggressive as any linebacker in this draft. He has an innate ability to locate the football and bring down the ball carrier. Having an immediate impact for schools in two difference conferences says a lot about his natural football instincts. He is athletic, has good speed, and uses those gifts to make plays up and down the line of scrimmage. McKenzie moves well laterally and shoots up the field once his sights are set on the ball carrier. He also brings some versatility to a defense, having the skills to possibly play weakside or inside linebacker at the NFL level."

Tyrone McKenzie - Football's Future NFL Draft Profile

2. James Laurinaitis (6'2", 244#; 121 tackles, 5.5 tackles for loss, 4 sacks, 2 interceptions): "Laurinaitis is an excellent middle linebacker prospect, that should have very little problem making an impact early in the NFL. He is a complete player that does not take a down off, and can make an impact in every facet of the game. He is very intelligent on the field, reading the play and flowing to the action without much effort. He is a natural on the field and always around the ball. He plays sideline to sideline but quickly turns upfield to get to the ball carrier and bring him down. His nine sacks over the last two years show his effectiveness at blitzing when asked. What truly sets him apart though is his ability in coverage. Laurinaitis shows excellent awareness in coverage and can easily drop into coverage and find the football."

James Laurinaitis - Football's Future NFL Draft Profile

 

[mgteich]

You and I would both rather have picked an ILB higher in the draft. I just have made clear which player I would given up at the time and who I would have chosen.

I believed that one of the highest rated linebackers in the country was worth drafting. I thought our need was more than one that justified a wait and hope approach. In the end, Belichick didn't choose McKenzie over Laurinitis. He got what was left, and sure we hoped tha McKenzie would start and have 100 tackles as Laurinitis will do. Then, and now, I think that there was a better chance of Laurinits (and even Maualuga or Sintim) contributing at ILB.

In fact, I would have preferred one more high pick ILB in 2009. It is great to have James Sanders as our #4 safety. That's great depth. Somehow, I would rather have Sanders as our #3 safety and also have Guyton as our #3 ILB and spot player at OLB.

Wasn't Tyrone McKenzie supposed to be that 3rd player at ILB? Guess we should have predicted he would go on IR.

I know you liked James Laurinaitis, and he has done very well for St. Louis. But does he really provide much more than we could have expected from a healthy McKenzie?

Here's what Robert Davis from Football's Future had to say about each of them last spring:

1. Tyrone McKenzie (6'2", 241#; 121 tackles, 7.5 tackles for a loss, 1.5 sacks): "McKenzie is as active and aggressive as any linebacker in this draft. He has an innate ability to locate the football and bring down the ball carrier. Having an immediate impact for schools in two difference conferences says a lot about his natural football instincts. He is athletic, has good speed, and uses those gifts to make plays up and down the line of scrimmage. McKenzie moves well laterally and shoots up the field once his sights are set on the ball carrier. He also brings some versatility to a defense, having the skills to possibly play weakside or inside linebacker at the NFL level."

Tyrone McKenzie - Football's Future NFL Draft Profile

2. James Laurinaitis (6'2", 244#; 121 tackles, 5.5 tackles for loss, 4 sacks, 2 interceptions): "Laurinaitis is an excellent middle linebacker prospect, that should have very little problem making an impact early in the NFL. He is a complete player that does not take a down off, and can make an impact in every facet of the game. He is very intelligent on the field, reading the play and flowing to the action without much effort. He is a natural on the field and always around the ball. He plays sideline to sideline but quickly turns upfield to get to the ball carrier and bring him down. His nine sacks over the last two years show his effectiveness at blitzing when asked. What truly sets him apart though is his ability in coverage. Laurinaitis shows excellent awareness in coverage and can easily drop into coverage and find the football."

James Laurinaitis - Football's Future NFL Draft Profile