Wilfork#75
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,348
- Reaction score
- 859
First its a bad thing because you would be paying 2 'starters' when there is only 1 spot for then.
Second, its a bad thing because you are directing play away from 3 guys who caught 291 passes for 3800 yards and 33 TDs. It is very doubtful changing the focus of the offense will make it better than that.
Change for change sake might be OK if you are ineffective. Change for change sake when you just had the 2nd highest passing yardage total in NFL history is foolish.
That might be great when everyone is on the field, healthy and productive. But what happens when one of them goes down with an injury. Quick hypothetical, how would this offense fair in a big game, say the Super Bowl, with one of those guys hurt, say Gronk? You can say that this team lost that game because the defense couldn't stop 1 drive in the 4th quarter, but teams don't win Super Bowls only scoring 17 points. Since 1976 only 1 team has won the Super Bowl while scoring less than 20 points. That was the New York Giants in 2008 when they beat the unstoppable Pats offense 17-14. And since 1967, only 3 teams have lost the Super Bowl while scoring more than 25 points, so the offense needs to do its job as well.
Welker, Gronk and Hernandez are great, but relying so heavily on them hurts this team. Jays52 had a great thread earlier in the season about the issues around relying heavily on two TE's and a slot WR. Basically, the idea is that it condenses the middle of the field and makes it harder not only for them, but to run the ball. For this offense to be even better (yes I said better because despite what the numbers say I think this offense can improve), they need to spread the defense out, run the ball, and provide more options in the passing game. This offense needs balance and versatility, so when they are in a big situation and something unexpected happens (injury, lack of production...) they can still function at a high level.