The mediots going off on "The Welker Situation" thread.(Merged)

[Rob0729]

Teams lose games every week for lots of reasons. Just doens't happen that often here. But it does happen and can be chalked up to all manner of issues from lack of focus to lack of killer instinct to lack of personnel to matchups to unanticipated opposition.

Anyone who can't see what is going on here is a blind homer. This was like an engineered prescription for disaster absent perfection meets natural disaster exposing it as such.

Yes, we all know that Belichick is tanking the season to show Welker a lesson.

Besides, I am not talking about Welker, I am talking about the offense sputtering in a loss. A large portion of the Pats' losses have been because the offense played like crap.

BTW, the Pats tried a similar thing the beginning of last year and tried to force the ball to Ochocinco and Taylor Price. But unlike Lloyd and Edelman, they were hopeless causes that the Pats gave up on quickly (really quickly in Price's case).

It seems like most years, the fans are killing the Pats early for something. In recent years, it was the defense. Now it is Welker and the offense. No one had a problem with it two weeks ago when the offense rolled over the Titans. Now it is an overblown situation because the Pats faced a very good defense losing arguably their second or at most third most important player in Hernandez on the third offensive play. If Hernandez doesn't go down, the Pats probably win. In fact, if the real refs were calling this game, the Pats definitely win.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jackie MacMullan: Patriots don't look like themselves

In the Saints game, the Pats had a 7-3 lead from 3:34 minutes left in the first quarter until a little over two minutes into the second quarter. So the Pats had the lead in the game for a grand total of 5 minutes and 39 seconds in the game. I'm sorry, you are right the offense was on fire in that game.

I didn't say the offense was on fire, Rob. I just didn't include that game as one where the offense was completely inept.

accepted offensive penalties in the NO game - 0 (0 total)
accepted offensive penalties in the ARI game - 3 (8 total).... 2 on Gronk, one on Thomas

Sacks allowed in the NO game - 2
Sacks allowed in the ARI game - 4


In New Orleans, the Patriots turned the ball over 3 times, Brady didn't play the whole game and the Patriots passed up a FG attempt from the Saints 10 yard line because of the score/time combo.

Despite only turning the ball over once last week, the Patriots scored only 18 points against the Cardinals. They averaged 3.2 yards per carry. They surrendered 4 sacks, committed 8 penalties overall and 3 on defense. They were forced to settle for 5 field goal attempts. They have multiple receivers dropping passes.

It was a failure of all facets.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Jackie MacMullan: Patriots don't look like themselves

I didn't say the offense was on fire, Rob. I said that it wasn't completely inept.

accepted offensive penalties in the NO game - 0 (0 total)
accepted offensive penalties in the ARI game - 3 (8 total).... 2 on Gronk, one on Thomas

Sacks allowed in the NO game - 2
Sacks allowed in the ARI game - 4




In New Orleans, the Patriots turned the ball over 3 times, Brady didn't play the whole game and the Patriots passed up a FG attempt from the Saints 10 yard line because of the score/time combo.

Despite only turning the ball over once last week, the Patriots scored only 18 points against the Cardinals. They averaged 3.2 yards per carry. They surrendered 4 sacks, committed 8 penalties overall and 3 on defense. They were forced to settle for 5 field goal attempts. They have multiple receivers dropping passes.

It was a failure of all facets.

So one failure isn't really a failure because it doesn't fit your argument.

Four turnovers = Dumb luck
Four Sacks = A Complete systematic failure by the entire offense.

So let's get this straight, the offense that got 387 yards, 1 turnover, and 4 sacks is far more inept than the offense that got two points more, 366 yards, 4 turnovers, and 2 sacks?

Also, you seem to be dismissing the Pats played the the Saints at full strength minus Vollmer while the Pats played the Cards without Connolly and Hernandez (went down three plays in) and the loss of Hernandez forced the Pats to revise their entire gameplan on the fly.

BTW, if that Gronk holding penalty was not called (which most of us agree that the real refs wouln't have called), the Pats' offense would have had scored 26 points and gotten over 400 yards.

 

[Danger Zone]

Re: Jackie MacMullan: Patriots don't look like themselves

You're kidding, right?

No Im not.

You are grossly exaggerating how "completely inept" the offense was. On a bad week, we looked average.

The Patriots, turn-overs and no turn-overs have had poor showings at offense before.

You cannot justifiably assert this last game was unique "except for the three times its happened before."

The rest of us are saying actually its happened a handfull of times.

Either way, its not unique or even troublesome.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jackie MacMullan: Patriots don't look like themselves

So one failure isn't really a failure because it doesn't fit your argument.

Four turnovers = Dumb luck
Four Sacks = A Complete systematic failure by the entire offense.

So let's get this straight, the offense that got 387 yards, 1 turnover, and 4 sacks is far more inept than the offense that got two points more, 366 yards, 4 turnovers, and 2 sacks?

Also, you seem to be dismissing the Pats played the the Saints at full strength minus Vollmer while the Pats played the Cards without Connolly and Hernandez (went down three plays in) and the loss of Hernandez forced the Pats to revise their entire gameplan on the fly.

1.) I'm not dismissing anything. The injuries were part of why the team was inept. They don't somehow make the team not inept. However, it's interesting that you want to cite them as some level of justification, but you're not talking about a clearly sub-standard Brady, post-ACL, for the Saints game.

2.) If a team moves the ball, doesn't give up a lot of sacks, and doesn't commit penalties but turns it over, that's not a completely inept offense.


Look at that Cardinals game again:

Had to settle for 5 FG attempts, including 2 from beyond 50 yards
Had 5 punts
Surrendered 4 sacks
Committed 3 penalties, including 2 killer penalties on the last drive
Averaged 3.2 yards per carry
Drops by multiple WRs
lost game despite winning turnover battle

They couldn't take advantage of a fumble recovery on the Cardinals 30 (6 yards, missed FG) or a fumble recovery on the NE 48 (-17 yards and a punt). Two huge turnovers in excellent field position netted minus 11 yards in the follow up.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jackie MacMullan: Patriots don't look like themselves

No Im not.

You are grossly exaggerating how "completely inept" the offense was. On a bad week, we looked average.

The Patriots, turn-overs and no turn-overs have had poor showings at offense before.

You cannot justifiably assert this last game was unique "except for the three times its happened before."

The rest of us are saying actually its happened a handfull of times.

Either way, its not unique or even troublesome.

I'm not exaggerating. See my 3:43 pm post breaking down just how inept the offense was against Arizona.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Jackie MacMullan: Patriots don't look like themselves

1.) I'm not dismissing anything. The injuries were part of why the team was inept. They don't somehow make the team not inept. However, it's interesting that you want to cite them as some level of justification, but you're not talking about a clearly sub-standard Brady, post-ACL, for the Saints game.

2.) If a team moves the ball, doesn't give up a lot of sacks, and doesn't commit penalties but turns it over, that's not a completely inept offense.


Look at that Cardinals game again:

Had to settle for 5 FG attempts, including 2 from beyond 50 yards
Had 5 punts
Surrendered 4 sacks
Committed 3 penalties, including 2 killer penalties on the last drive
Averaged 3.2 yards per carry
Drops by multiple WRs
lost game despite winning turnover battle

They couldn't take advantage of a fumble recovery on the Cardinals 30 (6 yards, missed FG) or a fumble recovery on the NE 48 (-17 yards and a punt). Two huge turnovers in excellent field position netted minus 11 yards in the follow up.

So let's get this straight:

A team that moves the ball, turns the ball over like crazy, and only gives up two sacks is not inept.

A team that moves the ball, only turns the ball over once, and gives up four sacks and two real penalties (even you admitted the Gronk holding call was BS) is inept.

Again, I have said this before, when most teams lose a player like Hernandez on the third offensive play, their offense falls apart. The Pats' struggled, but didn't fall apart. They could have adjusted quicker, but it is tough to revise your gameplan against a good defense on the fly like that. And even so, if it wasn't for a holding call that wouldn't have been called by the real refs, the offense would have scored the game winning TD.

This is getting silly. I have nothing more to say about this issue beyond this post.

 

[borg]

Yes, we all know that Belichick is tanking the season to show Welker a lesson.

Besides, I am not talking about Welker, I am talking about the offense sputtering in a loss. A large portion of the Pats' losses have been because the offense played like crap.

BTW, the Pats tried a similar thing the beginning of last year and tried to force the ball to Ochocinco and Taylor Price. But unlike Lloyd and Edelman, they were hopeless causes that the Pats gave up on quickly (really quickly in Price's case).

It seems like most years, the fans are killing the Pats early for something. In recent years, it was the defense. Now it is Welker and the offense. No one had a problem with it two weeks ago when the offense rolled over the Titans. Now it is an overblown situation because the Pats faced a very good defense losing arguably their second or at most third most important player in Hernandez on the third offensive play. If Hernandez doesn't go down, the Pats probably win. In fact, if the real refs were calling this game, the Pats definitely win.

Speaking of Ocho....anyone catch his appearance on Showtime's NFL show this week. He dismissed the notion that he couldn't handle the Pats playbook... calling the idea "ridiculous". Who knows what he talked about after that....because I left the room to vomit

 

[SVN]

Breer's take on the Welker situation. I only post it because he talked to multiple FO and scouting contacts and got the same reaction, looks like a plan to move on that possibly had trade overtones and Edleman is no Welker or replacement Welker. He thinks it's business related. I think that is part of it, but it's really a concerted effort to move on for financial and perceived strategic reasons largely tied to how they view Hernandez. Who has yet to play a full season, but whatever.

And he states he has spoken to people close to Welker and despite spouting the public team first game plan all for one and one for all company line blather the process has gotten increasingly more difficult for Wes.

I just read Reiss' chat and what galls me is he not only doesn't debunk the missed time in camp baloney, it was one practice day for a family funeral, he now states as if fact that Welker didn't have a great camp - when all reports at the time were to the contrary. Same old Wes was the common observation. He missed out on game time just like Deion missed out on it and on team reps in camp, not because of injury but seemingly by design.

Week 3 predictions: Will Patriots reincorporate Wes Welker? - NFL.com

I absolutely dont take breer's opinion seriously. He hates the pats FO and constantly berates pats fans and loves anything the jets do.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jackie MacMullan: Patriots don't look like themselves

So let's get this straight:

A team that moves the ball, turns the ball over like crazy, and only gives up two sacks is not inept.

A team that moves the ball, only turns the ball over once, and gives up four sacks and two real penalties (even you admitted the Gronk holding call was BS) is inept.

They had drives of 0, -17, 1 and 6 yards, and two of those drives (-17, 6) were after fumble recoveries in excellent field position. As for the call, it's how the game went. I don't think it should have been called, but it was. It's now part of the history.

Again, I have said this before, when most teams lose a player like Hernandez on the third offensive play, their offense falls apart. The Pats' struggled, but didn't fall apart. They could have adjusted quicker, but it is tough to revise your gameplan against a good defense on the fly like that. And even so, if it wasn't for a holding call that wouldn't have been called by the real refs, the offense would have scored the game winning TD.

If the Patriots had fielded the same defense it did last year, the Cardinals might have blown New England off the field. Last year, the only regular season game the Patriots held an opponent to under 300 yards in was that first Jets game. By holding the Cardinals to 245 yards, the defense gave the offense opportunity after opportunity to get its act together and win that game. Instead, that offense crapped itself.

 

[JJDChE]

Teams lose games every week for lots of reasons. Just doens't happen that often here. But it does happen and can be chalked up to all manner of issues from lack of focus to lack of killer instinct to lack of personnel to matchups to unanticipated opposition.

Anyone who can't see what is going on here is a blind homer. This was like an engineered prescription for disaster absent perfection meets natural disaster exposing it as such.

Talk about getting high on your own supply. You have an entire alternate reality concocted around what goes on in Foxboro. It's unbelievable.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I thought Reiss's reply to a question in his chat today was interesting with respect to the whole "Why is Welker getting fewer snaps than last year?!?" thing:

Right on, Jason. I think part of this is framed off last year when Welker played 89.2 percent of the snaps. Why was that the case? Because Chad Ochocinco bombed. If Ochocinco was what they thought he'd be, Welker probably would be sharing time with him and Deion Branch and we wouldn't have made a big deal of that.

 

[Rob0729]

I thought Reiss's reply to a question in his chat today was interesting with respect to the whole "Why is Welker getting fewer snaps than last year?!?" thing:

The thing is they did try to force the ball to Ochocinco early last year, but unlike Lloyd, Ocho was nowhere in the area he was supposed to be.

 

[JMarr]

I thought Reiss's reply to a question in his chat today was interesting with respect to the whole "Why is Welker getting fewer snaps than last year?!?" thing:

Originally Posted by Mike Reiss
Right on, Jason. I think part of this is framed off last year when Welker played 89.2 percent of the snaps. Why was that the case? Because Chad Ochocinco bombed. If Ochocinco was what they thought he'd be, Welker probably would be sharing time with him and Deion Branch and we wouldn't have made a big deal of that.

Total unmitigated BS on Reiss's part. Ocho would have taken snaps away from no one but Branch had he panned out. In terms of the offense, Welker was "all in" from the start last year. It's clear that the thinking coming into this season was that his role in the offense needed to be scaled back, for whatever reason.

But I do buy the argument that you don't want to be overly dependent on one guy, as the past injuries to Welker and Gronk glaringly pointed out.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

Re: The mediots going off on "The Welker Situation" thread.

Brady has been towing the company line his whole career. His career is winding down, his time is short it is time for him to stand up and start making demands. It's now or never folks! Welker gives this team the best chance of winning, certainly Edelman doesn't. Brady needs to demand Welker in the game plan more and get the O line cleaned up and bring in one more receiver that can help the team.

He has enough money, his wife makes a ton, he shouldn't keep his mouth shut because he doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him. It's time for him to step up and be selfish here.

The Organization is making some bad decisions here, its a ego/power/Patriot way move they are making with Welker here and it is going to cost them the season!

Brady was 3-0 in the SB before Wes, 0-2 after, he even choked on a huge play that would have sealed it. Wes isn't the key to winning anything.

 

[Rob0729]

Total unmitigated BS on Reiss's part. Ocho would have taken snaps away from no one but Branch had he panned out. In terms of the offense, Welker was "all in" from the start last year. It's clear that the thinking coming into this season was that his role in the offense needed to be scaled back, for whatever reason.

But I do buy the argument that you don't want to be overly dependent on one guy, as the past injuries to Welker and Gronk glaringly pointed out.

I don't know about that. I think Branch could have stolen playing time from Welker on certain two WR sets if Ocho worked out. I don't know if Welker would have lost a start (which is overrated because many starters have lost a "start" over the years because the Pats' first play of a game is a different package than normal), but I think his playing time would have decreased if Ocho was a viable option.

But you also forget, it wasn't just Ocho. They wanted Taylor Price to step up and he would have been last year's Edelman if he did. Price would have definitely taken playing time from Welker, no matter how little, if he wasn't a complete bust.

It isn't just Lloyd, it is Edelman that is potentially syphoning playing time from Welker. I still have a problem believing that Belichick would sacrifice this team for a petty reason to get back at Welker for some reason. I truly believe that right or wrong, they are trying to revise the offense a bit and taking their lumps early in the season just like they did last year with the defense.

 

[JMarr]

I don't know about that. I think Branch could have stolen playing time from Welker on certain two WR sets if Ocho worked out. I don't know if Welker would have lost a start (which is overrated because many starters have lost a "start" over the years because the Pats' first play of a game is a different package than normal), but I think his playing time would have decreased if Ocho was a viable option.

But you also forget, it wasn't just Ocho. They wanted Taylor Price to step up and he would have been last year's Edelman if he did. Price would have definitely taken playing time from Welker, no matter how little, if he wasn't a complete bust.

It isn't just Lloyd, it is Edelman that is potentially syphoning playing time from Welker. I still have a problem believing that Belichick would sacrifice this team for a petty reason to get back at Welker for some reason. I truly believe that right or wrong, they are trying to revise the offense a bit and taking their lumps early in the season just like they did last year with the defense.

I doubt that Price, more of an outside guy with straightline speed, would have taken many snaps away from Welker last year, but who knows. What does matter (obviously) is that a lesser player was taking significant snaps away from our most talented WR to start this season, so this story is far from being overblown.

As far as taking their lumps on D early last year, the dropoff from guys like Sanders/Merriweather to Barrett/Igheibo, turned out to be less significant than the dropoff from Welker to Edelman would be IMO. (Although as it turned out, the safeties were still "taking their lumps" at the end of season). It's not a great analogy in many ways, and at least the Pats were smart enough to keep Welker around this year.

But I totally agree with you that they could have been simply tinkering with the offense early this season and trying to hide their tendencies better by varying things up with Edelman--the Cardinals and Titans aren't exactly heavyweights. That's what I'm hoping anyway and it wouldn't be a bad strategy at all, seeing how finishing strong is the only that matters this year.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

I think it is a lot simpler than all this; I think it is because Welker is not a good blocker

 

[PatsWSB47]

I think it is a lot simpler than all this; I think it is because Welker is not a good blocker

Gresh did a segment showing Edelman making some good blocks in running plays. That skill might be getting him some snaps that Welker used to get.

 

[jsull87]

I doubt that Price, more of an outside guy with straightline speed, would have taken many snaps away from Welker last year, but who knows. What does matter (obviously) is that a lesser player was taking significant snaps away from our most talented WR to start this season, so this story is far from being overblown.

As far as taking their lumps on D early last year, the dropoff from guys like Sanders/Merriweather to Barrett/Igheibo, turned out to be less significant than the dropoff from Welker to Edelman would be IMO. (Although as it turned out, the safeties were still "taking their lumps" at the end of season). It's not a great analogy in many ways, and at least the Pats were smart enough to keep Welker around this year.

But I totally agree with you that they could have been simply tinkering with the offense early this season and trying to hide their tendencies better by varying things up with Edelman--the Cardinals and Titans aren't exactly heavyweights. That's what I'm hoping anyway and it wouldn't be a bad strategy at all, seeing how finishing strong is the only that matters this year.

Have to agree with rob on this one. If Ocho and or Price Worked out as outside threats welker would not have been the one in those 2 wide WR sets so automatically his playing time would have been scaled back.

Doesn't mean he was any less of a WR but he just naturally doesn't have the skill set bigger and faster WR's have as they don[t have his skillset.

I think Reiss's point was valid.