We did NOT miss Mankins today....

[Shockt327]

That Oline picked the the Jets pass rush very well today, the only time it didn't was on that sack fumble -- which was a 3 three man rush where Light clearly got abused.

Other than that, the Jets pass rush wasn't killer today....

 

[Patriot Missile]

That Oline picked the the Jets pass rush very well today, the only time it didn't was on that sack fumble -- which was a 3 three man rush where Light clearly got abused.

Other than that, the Jets pass rush wasn't killer today....

Agreed. Offensive line looked good.

 

[Mack Herron]

Disagree. Few holes for RBs today. Mankins best run blocker.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Disagree. Few holes for RBs today. Mankins best run blocker.

- The Jets have a great scheme to stop the run.
- The Pats O-line did a good job overall in stopping the Jets blitzes.
- However, they do need to make a decision with Mankins, sign him or trade him.

 

[DaBruinz]

That Oline picked the the Jets pass rush very well today, the only time it didn't was on that sack fumble -- which was a 3 three man rush where Light clearly got abused.

Other than that, the Jets pass rush wasn't killer today....

While we didn't miss Mankins in the Pass-Blocking, we definitely missed him in the run blocking.

 

[memento]

Agree. Still want him signed, though.

 

[PatsfanGlo]

- The Jets have a great scheme to stop the run.
- The Pats O-line did a good job overall in stopping the Jets blitzes.
- However, they do need to make a decision with Mankins, sign him or trade him.

I think you have a good point. Stopping blitz obviously is very important considering Pats are pass first team. But if they are really serious about balancing out offense, they need to sign Mankins. I didn't watch the game till last 5 minutes so I can't say for sure but they can't just let other teams 4 men rush and drop back everyone and dare them throw the ball. TFB is awesome but that's just one tipped ball away from interception. That's defense begging to be run on. Either sign our best run blocker or get something in return for good value.

 

[DocE]

We couldn't run the ball at all, which put us in way too many 3rd and long situations. The Jets were daring the Patriots to run at times, and they couldn't rise to the challenge.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I think you have a good point. Stopping blitz obviously is very important considering Pats are pass first team. But if they are really serious about balancing out offense, they need to sign Mankins. I didn't watch the game till last 5 minutes so I can't say for sure but they can't just let other teams 4 men rush and drop back everyone and dare them throw the ball. TFB is awesome but that's just one tipped ball away from interception. That's defense begging to be run on. Either sign our best run blocker or get something in return for good value.

Just to clarify, I want the Pats to sign him because the Pats won't get a first round pick for him. In addition, I'm over the "stock-piling" of picks when you not only have to wait a year to get him, but to wait a few more years to find out what you have in that new player.

 

[Shockt327]

Disagree. Few holes for RBs today. Mankins best run blocker.

Heh. How did Oher, Grubbs, and Gaither do against that same D?

You also might want to consider that the Patriots declared the run by strictly doing it from under center. Horrible.

 

[Shockt327]

We couldn't run the ball at all, which put us in way too many 3rd and long situations. The Jets were daring the Patriots to run at times, and they couldn't rise to the challenge.

Again, you can't just declare the run against a team like the Jets by doing it on 1st and 10 or 2nd and long - and just expect to pound away.

This has to do with playcalling, not blocking.

 

[Deus Irae]

Mankins was clearly missed today.

 

[Boston Boxer]

Disagree. Few holes for RBs today. Mankins best run blocker.

we do not have a running game because our RBs are all 50+ years of age and dont really stick to the run throughout the game. We were clicking on O in the first qtr because we were mixing run/pass.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

the o line did not cost us this game, Brady;s forcing to Moss, and the defense cost us this game.. in the same breat time to get rid of mankins.. he is not coming back..

 

[Shockt327]

Mankins was clearly missed today.

Do you really think the run game would have turned out that much differently just by swapping-in Mankins?

Again, I refer you to the Ravens game; a team that unquestionably has a better run attack in every capacity.

So again, "clearly?" Really?

 

[Shockt327]

the o line did not cost us this game, Brady;s forcing to Moss, and the defense cost us this game.. in the same breat time to get rid of mankins.. he is not coming back..

Thank you.

 

[Deus Irae]

Do you really think the run game would have turned out that much differently just by swapping-in Mankins?

Again, I refer you to the Ravens game; a team that unquestionably has a better run attack in every capacity.

So again, "clearly?" Really?

I think that people around here love to minimize the impact of players at certain positions. Guard is one of them. The difference between what the team can do with, and without, Mankins is significant. The notion that a 1 sack game is proof that Connolly isn't an issue is naive, because the team has to alter playcalling and blocking schemes in order to cover for Connolly.

 

[Shockt327]

I think that people around here love to minimize the impact of players at certain positions. Guard is one of them. The difference between what the team can do with, and without, Mankins is significant. The notion that a 1 sack game is proof that Connolly isn't an issue is naive, because the team has to alter playcalling and blocking schemes in order to cover for Connolly.

Why are you putting words in my mouth and building a straw man argument? I never said one sack was proof of anything - nor did I cite the example in that manner. Sacks are a god-awful way of judging line play. Also, I cited that sack just to point out that it wasn't Mankins's replacement who gave it up - in case anyone wanted to bring it up.

What I am saying is that Brady consistently had time to throw. Lots of time. About as much as I've ever seen against the Jets.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why are you putting words in my mouth and building a straw man argument? I never said one sack was proof of anything - nor did I cite the example in that manner. Sacks are a god-awful way of judging line play. Also, I cited that sack just to point out that it wasn't Mankins's replacement who gave it up - in case anyone wanted to bring it up.

What I am saying is that Brady consistently had time to throw. Lots of time. About as much as I've ever seen against the Jets.

1.) Brady was pressured. The difference from last year is that he's better able to move in the pocket.

2.) Time to throw does not mean that Mankins wasn't missed. That's the straw man, not my response to it.

 

[Shockt327]

1.) Brady was pressured. The difference from last year is that he's better able to move in the pocket.

I don't doubt that. Yet, the Patriots often threw out of an empty set - which should be suicide against that scheme - and Brady had plenty of time for most of the game. Far more than in 2009, or even against the Ryan's Ravens in 2007.

2.) Time to throw does not mean that Mankins wasn't missed.

Giving Brady time to throw is virtually Mankins entire job. Brady had time to throw w/o Mankins. I'm not arguing the guy isn't good. But they aren't even close to doing poorly without him.

If you want to bring up the run; again, I'd point you to the Ravens @ Jets game, and how horribly predictable the run calls were today in terms of both down & distance and the fact that they tipped their hand by doing it almost solely from formations where Brady was under center. Awful play-calling.

That's the straw man, not my response to it.

My initial argument is a strawman? Huh?