We did NOT miss Mankins today....

[Deus Irae]

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.

Again, Mankins allows you to do things that you can't do with lesser players in there. How this is above people's heads is something I still don't understand. Well, I do understand, but I'd get banned for pointing it out.

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.

Play calling was not the problem. That same gripe has been put out there after every loss in the history of football. It's usually wrong, and today's game is a perfect example. Play calling didn't force Moss to drop a touchdown. It didn't cause the Patriots a delay of game that led to a missed field goal. It didn't cause Brady to overthrow Moss and get picked off. It didn't cause Moss to go up with one hand against Cromartie, tip the ball, and have Poole get the pick. It didn't cause the sack and fumble, either.

My initial argument is a strawman? Huh?

I guess rather than strawman, I should just have said that its a use of incorrect logic.

 

[Shockt327]

Again, Mankins allows you to do things that you can't do with lesser players in there. How this is above people's heads is something I still don't understand. Well, I do understand, but I'd get banned for pointing it out.

I'm not even sure if this is in reference to what I posted. I said Brady had significant time to throw, even in situations where they threw out of an empty set -- which is an obvious gamble against that scheme - and something that hurt them in wk 2 2009 and @ Balt in 2007. Buddy Ryan used to call the run-n-shoot the 'chuck-n-duck' cause he knew he could just tee-off on the QB. That didn't happen today. They picked up the rush just fine.

If there are things they cannot do w/o Mankins, it certainly didn't present itself today....

Play calling was not the problem. That same gripe has been put out there after every loss in the history of football. It's usually wrong, and today's game is a perfect example. Play calling didn't force Moss to drop a touchdown. It didn't cause the Patriots a delay of game that led to a missed field goal. It didn't cause Brady to overthrow Moss and get picked off. It didn't cause Moss to go up with one hand against Cromartie, tip the ball, and have Poole get the pick. It didn't cause the sack and fumble, either.

More straw-man arguments. My gripe about playcalling was:

A) specifically in reference to the run game - why you bring up bad passes is beyond me.

B) specifically brought up to counter the assertion that the Patriots could have run it better with Mankins in the line up - they couldn't have (see Ravens @ Jets and point C).

C) They were predictable with the run. I know I've heard other coaches (I believe it was Rex Ryan or Steve Spagnuolo ) mention that the Pats really don't like to pass with Brady under center, so when they line up in that formation, it's pretty obvious that they are going to run.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm not even sure if this is in reference to what I posted. I said Brady had significant time to throw, even in situations where they threw out of an empty set -- which is an obvious gamble against that scheme - and something that hurt them in wk 2 2009 and @ Balt in 2007. Buddy Ryan used to call the run-n-shoot the 'chuck-n-duck' cause he knew he could just tee-off on the QB. That didn't happen today. They picked up the rush just fine.

If there are things they cannot do w/o Mankins, it certainly didn't present itself today....

Sure it did. Your not seeing it doesn't make it nonexistent.

More straw-man arguments. My gripe about playcalling was:

A) specifically in reference to the run game - why you bring up bad passes is beyond me.

Similar to above, you're claiming the passing rush is fine doesn't make it so.

B) specifically brought up to counter the assertion that the Patriots could have run it better with Mankins in the line up - they couldn't have (see Ravens @ Jets and point C).

You failed miserably. The Patriots running game against the Jets was much better last year than it was in this game.

C) They were predictable with the run. I know I've heard other coaches (I believe it was Rex Ryan or Steve Spagnuolo ) mention that the Pats really don't like to pass with Brady under center, so when they line up in that formation, it's pretty obvious that they are going to run.

They are always "predictable with the run" in the sense of running the ball a higher percentage of the time in certain formations than in others. That's not the issue.

 

[Shockt327]

Sure it did. Your not seeing it doesn't make it nonexistent.

Similar to above, you're claiming the passing rush is fine doesn't make it so.

I could say the exact same thing to you. Also, I love how you bring up absolutley no examples to highlight your point.

You failed miserably. The Patriots running game against the Jets was much better last year than it was in this game.

They are always "predictable with the run" in the sense of running the ball a higher percentage of the time in certain formations than in others. That's not the issue.

Sorry, but there was a noticeable disparity between their runs from under center and out the shotgun. Faulk had 5 for 22 yards out the shotgun. Not bad. Meanwhile BJGE, from under center had 10 runs and only 22 yards. Taylor wasn't any better. Their blocking didn't change. What changed was the fact that the D couldn't see it coming.

Also, they ran the ball "better" (3.2 YPC really isn't that good) in 09 cause the passing game simply did a better job of moving the chains, thus picking up more downs and keeping the D on their heels. They also ran the ball on 3rd and short - and on the goal - instead of on 1st and long. So many bad drives today were the result of putting the O in a hole due to poor 1st down runs from under center. You don't run on 1st down (it's a "conventional football" fallacy). Why they inexplicably changed their philosophy is beyond me.

 

[Deus Irae]

I could say the exact same thing to you. Also, I love how you bring up absolutley no examples to highlight your point.

Just go look at the highlights from NFL.com. Pass to Welker - Connolly doubles with Koppen. Pass to Hernandez - Light steps up to help Connolly. Touchdown to Moss - it's another Connolly/Koppen double team. First Moss interception - Connolly/Koppen double team. Poole interception - Connolly has Faulk coming up in position to help with a chip, but the rusher drops into coverage.[/QUOTE]

We could argue which of those are the result of plays that would have been called differently and which weren't, and some of the highlights are clearly Connolly helping Koppen by design, but it certainly seems clear that Connolly's working with a lot of help, which Mankins would not need to do.

Sorry, but there was a noticeable disparity between their runs from under center and out the shotgun. Faulk had 5 for 22 yards out the shotgun. Not bad. Meanwhile BJGE, from under center had 10 runs and only 22 yards. Taylor wasn't any better. Their blocking didn't change. What changed was the fact that the D couldn't see it coming.

I won't bother with this argument. You're now weighing Faulk running shotgun draws against the regular backs. Thanks for the chuckles.

Also, they ran the ball "better" (3.2 YPC really isn't that good) in 09 cause the passing game simply did a better job of moving the chains, thus picking up more downs and keeping the D on their heels. They also ran the ball on 3rd and short - and on the goal - instead of on 1st and long. So many bad drives today were the result of putting the O in a hole due to poor 1st down runs from under center. You don't run on 1st down (it's a "conventional football" fallacy). Why they inexplicably changed their philosophy is beyond me.

The passing today was better than the passing week 2 of last year. Your argument here has no merit.

 

[IcyPatriot]

So reports are that he's coming back for the final 6 weeks.

Be still my beating heart ... I hope he rides the aluminum bench.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

It has as much to do with one as the other. The Pats couldn't run block consistently today.

 

[ausbacker]

I was fairly pleased with the defensive line and the offensive line performances today. That said there's definitely areas for improvement with both.

I notice you're making friends on Patfans again Deus Irae. Some things never change (nor the reputations that precede posters).

 

[DaBruinz]

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?

Here is what you don't understand. Just by changing Connolly with Mankins means the results would have been different. It doesn't matter if they were "that different," they'd have been different. And that difference could have been enough to allow the Pats some consistency in the run blocking and allowed more gains for positive yardage (even if it was just a single yard) instead of the numerous negative ones that was say with 2-4 guys in the backfield.

You can try to use the Ravens game as a reference, but it's a poor one because Flacco isn't near the QB that Brady is and Flacco doesn't have the weapons the Pats do in the passing game.

It clearly would have been different. How different none of us can know because none of us are clairvoyant.

 

[condon84]

Can we trade Mankins for a Defensive Coordinator or Offensive Coordinator?

 

[IcyPatriot]

More on Mankins
ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reported that left guard Logan Mankins will report to the Patriots for the last six games of the season.

Mortensen’s comments were part of a “10 Questions’’ segment with Mortensen and Adam Schefter, according to a transcript provided by ESPN. Schefter asked Mortensen if “we will see Logan Mankins any time in New England this season.’’



Mortensen responded, “Yes, we are going to see him. He will show up for at least the six games to get his accredited season. Logan Mankins will play for the Patriots at some point this year.’’

Faulk injured in fourth quarter - The Boston Globe

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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....

And if the offense is only passing, you've got a point, but we do also have to run the ball credibly and they could have used Mankins yesterday, especially in the second half, where he adds a lot on that score.