Bedard's Sunday Notes: Take a few steps back - 2012 team a work in progress

[MoLewisrocks]

I think the team indeed got ahead of itself out of the gate this season. Forcing changes on offense designed (on paper) to win a game or games that won't be played until 2013 and perhaps justify multiple contract decisions they did or didn't make. And they didn't really have a plan B, let alone one geared toward combatting injuries to multiple perceived key weapons lest they derail them. Need to get back to winning one game at a time and let the offense develop at a more natural and hopefully increasingly consistent pace. Same on D where they chose to move away from veteran depth in favor of developmental roster projects further scaling back what they are prepared to do schematically despite adding some potential impact talent up front.

Bill has been known to tap a racing theme from time to time. They need to loosten up the reins on one unit (defense) before they crush it's youthful spirit out of the gate altogether while reining in the other (offense) and allowing it to settle into a comfortable controlled stride lest they find themselves in no position to expect either let alone both units to be in position to pick up the pace and pull away down the back stretch.

Patriots need to take a few steps to get back on track - Sports - The Boston Globe

 

[Ring 6]

I think the team indeed got ahead of itself out of the gate this season. Forcing changes on offense designed (on paper) to win a game or games that won't be played until 2013 and perhaps justify multiple contract decisions they did or didn't make. And they didn't really have a plan B, let alone one geared toward combatting injuries to multiple perceived key weapons lest they derail them. Need to get back to winning one game at a time and let the offense develop at a more natural and hopefully increasingly consistent pace. Same on D where they chose to move away from veteran depth in favor of developmental roster projects further scaling back what they are prepared to do schematically despite adding some potential impact talent up front.

Bill has been known to tap a racing theme from time to time. They need to loosten up the reins on one unit (defense) before they crush it's youthful spirit out of the gate altogether while reining in the other (offense) and allowing it to settle into a comfortable controlled stride lest they find themselves in no position to expect either let alone both units to be in position to pick up the pace and pull away down the back stretch.

Patriots need to take a few steps to get back on track - Sports - The Boston Globe

While this is a popular conspiracy theory there is no real evidence that Welker was being taken out of the offense. Well, there were 3 plays that he was out for, and then a monolithic conspiracy theory built from there.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

While this is a popular conspiracy theory there is no real evidence that Welker was being taken out of the offense. Well, there were 3 plays that he was out for, and then a monolithic conspiracy theory built from there.

I hear you and want to believe you, but not having the star start and instead having his good-but-not-great 'junior' start the game did raise some valid questions.

I might be wrong but I thought it was more than three plays; even assuming it was 'just' three plays, these were the opening plays, which are 'prestigious' in which the best players in each role play. Now, how often did WW miss the opening plays in the first drive in the last two/three years? I believe that the last time he was benched on the opening drive of the playoffs two seasons ago against the Jets because of his dig @ Ryan.

So, given his history and his uncertain future, there were/are excellent reasons for the conspiracy theory.

 

[mcsully]

Love Bedard! He makes a legit point that BB needs to take the reigns over and help with the defense.. In a perfect world, Romeo Crennel gets fired and comes back home..

What happened to the days our coaches could coach up players for a game.. When BB would put them out there and hide the players weakness but take advantage of their limited skills..

Matt Patricia and his underlings are below avg @ best.. We have 8 players starting on defense who are 1st or 2nd round picks.. At what point does the finger point to Matty P and his crew??
Its almost like he has a union job, job for life.. Secure no matter how bad you preform..

 

[mcsully]

If McDaniels doesn't want Hernandez, Welker and Gronk on the field at the same time.. Then keep Gronk and Welker.. While Hernandez is really good, Welker is lights out..
There should be no debate on that..

 

[Ring 6]

I hear you and want to believe you, but not having the star start and instead having his good-but-not-great 'junior' start the game did raise some valid questions.

"Starting" has never meant anything on this team; starting only means who played the first snap.
There is no question that the team was trying to limit Welkers snaps to keep him fresh and healthy. Last year, playing 90% of the snaps was the exception.
The team has consistently implemented a 'rest' policy by keeping a player out of a specific personell group. If you are going to keep Welker out of a personell group to rest him, which is it? The 2-2-1 is the only logical choice.
We happened to open in that one game.

I might be wrong but I thought it was more than three plays; even assuming it was 'just' three plays, these were the opening plays, which are 'prestigious' in which the best players in each role play.

See above. "Prestigous"?

Now, how often did WW miss the opening plays in the first drive in the last two/three years? I believe that the last time he was benched on the opening drive of the playoffs two seasons ago against the Jets because of his dig @ Ryan.

Again see above. The only way this is even an issue is with people projecting 'what ifs' like you are doing here. What if is not a fact.

So, given his history and his uncertain future, there were/are excellent reasons for the conspiracy theory.

No, there is no valid reason in any realistic view of history to think Bill Belichick would act in a way detrimental to his teams chances to win to punish a player who chose not to accept a contract offer. Its beyond ridiculous.

 

[Ring 6]

If McDaniels doesn't want Hernandez, Welker and Gronk on the field at the same time.. Then keep Gronk and Welker.. While Hernandez is really good, Welker is lights out..
There should be no debate on that..

I think Welker on the field 90-100 of the time over a full season at this point in his career is a recipe for disaster. Until last year, when there really was no choice, he has played closer to 75% of the snaps since he has been here.
The pounding we can avoid in those 100-150 or snaps, probably is meaningful in the playoffs,and other than people trying to infer meaning from it, doesn't really cost the offense a whole lot. I can live with resting Welker 6-10 plays a game and expect that someone else can get open on the 3-6 that are passes.

Game on the line (or critical drive), I agree with you, Welker needs to be out there.

 

[Deus Irae]

While this is a popular conspiracy theory there is no real evidence that Welker was being taken out of the offense. Well, there were 3 plays that he was out for, and then a monolithic conspiracy theory built from there.

I don't know why you keep making this claim when the O.C. himself spoke of just the opposite when talking about formational substitutions and the like, and when Edelman was the one getting in the 2 WR sets with Lllllllloyd prior to the Hernandez injury.

Unless you think McDaniels was lying and the snap counts were miscounted, this isn't even something that's reasonably questionable. The intelligence of the move may be an appropriate subject of discussion, but the fact of the plan to do it is just that: fact.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

"Starting" has never meant anything on this team; starting only means who played the first snap.
There is no question that the team was trying to limit Welkers snaps to keep him fresh and healthy. Last year, playing 90% of the snaps was the exception.
The team has consistently implemented a 'rest' policy by keeping a player out of a specific personell group. If you are going to keep Welker out of a personell group to rest him, which is it? The 2-2-1 is the only logical choice.
We happened to open in that one game.


See above. "Prestigous"?


Again see above. The only way this is even an issue is with people projecting 'what ifs' like you are doing here. What if is not a fact.


No, there is no valid reason in any realistic view of history to think Bill Belichick would act in a way detrimental to his teams chances to win to punish a player who chose not to accept a contract offer. Its beyond ridiculous.

Well, for the record, I haven't bought into this conspiracy theory but certainly understand why it exists.

Just a few notes on your points and sorry that we are discussing issues not addressed by Bedard or the OP.

Bedard's article is a great one and so I will let you have the final word if you care to respond to these:

- You are basically suggesting that Pats wanted to 'rest' WW on the opening drive, right?

Please understand that no one is claiming that WW should/was in 100% of the snaps. Hope you realize that most of us are aware of different formations/packages, and the need for WRs/RBs to be removed to catch a breather as need be during the game.

- You have a better argument if you point out that the opening formation of the first drive was designed to be without WW. Two questions arise though: (a) So JE has always played for WW in such formations in the past? Don't think so. (b) Have Pats opened their game with a formation that did not include WW? I might be wrong, but again, I don't think so. (This was the point I was trying to make earlier.)

- Prestigious? You bet! High-level players in every game have prestige and want to to be in the field when they are 100% and the formation calls for it.

- I am not doing any 'what-ifs'. Just pointing out why the WW's absence on an opening drive raised eyebrows and attracted this much attention.

- it is beyond ridiculous if you interpret my post to construe that I am suggesting BB is acting in a way detrimental to his team's chance to a W.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't know why you keep making this claim when the O.C. himself spoke of just the opposite when talking about formational substitutions and the like, and when Edelman was the one getting in the 2 WR sets with Lllllllloyd prior to the Hernandez injury.

Unless you think McDaniels was lying and the snap counts were miscounted, this isn't even something that's reasonably questionable. The intelligence of the move may be an appropriate subject of discussion, but the fact of the plan to do it is just that: fact.

No McDaniels wasn't lying, you are misrepresenting what he said.
Your postulation of a comment into more than it is does not represent fact.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, for the record, I haven't bought into this conspiracy theory but certainly understand why it exists.

Just a few notes on your points and sorry that we are discussing issues not addressed by Bedard or the OP.

Bedard's article is a great one and so I will let you have the final word if you care to respond to these:

- You are basically suggesting that Pats wanted to 'rest' WW on the opening drive, right?

Please understand that no one is claiming that WW should/was in 100% of the snaps. Hope you realize that most of us are aware of different formations/packages, and the need for WRs/RBs to be removed to catch a breather as need be during the game.

"Rest" means limiting snaps. Limiting snaps means no or less participation in certain personell groupings. Rest does not mean sit out a few plays when you are tired, in this case. Rest means preserve the player over the long haul.
Whether those are snaps 1-3 in a game or 34-37 isnt really relevant.

- You have a better argument if you point out that the opening formation of the first drive was designed to be without WW. Two questions arise though: (a) So JE has always played for WW in such formations in the past? Don't think so. (b) Have Pats opened their game with a formation that did not include WW? I might be wrong, but again, I don't think so. (This was the point I was trying to make earlier.)

I don't see how that is relevant. Last year they had no ability to keep Welkers snaps down. Which formation they use at the start of the game is not about who is on the field, but about the game plan and the opponent.

- Prestigious? You bet! High-level players in every game have prestige and want to to be in the field when they are 100% and the formation calls for it.

I don't think Welker is embarrassed by the way he is used by the Patriots.

- I am not doing any 'what-ifs'. Just pointing out why the WW's absence on an opening drive raised eyebrows and attracted this much attention.

What ifs are suggesting that 3 plays mean he wasn't going to be on the field much all game, as many are suggesting, which it appeared you were too. Projecting significance into 3 plays is relying on what if.

- it is beyond ridiculous if you interpret my post to construe that I am suggesting BB is acting in a way detrimental to his team's chance to a W.

The OP firmly suggested that BB was doing this. You comment that there are excellent reasons to support the conspiracy theory (which says BB was benching Welker out of anger that he wouldn't sign an extension) does as well.
If you mean something different, then I lost your point.

 

[Deus Irae]

No McDaniels wasn't lying, you are misrepresenting what he said.
Your postulation of a comment into more than it is does not represent fact.

I'm not misrepresenting it, at all. I've been clear about what McDaniels said, in multiple posts. You've made your claim on thread after thread. It's been wrong every time. The reality is that they were limiting Welker's snap numbers, and that it was intentional. You can argue that it was because of game planning. You can argue that it was because God ordered them to.

However, since McDaniels has acknowledged that it happened, you can't correctly argue that it didn't happen.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not misrepresenting it, at all. I've been clear about what McDaniels said, in multiple posts. You've made your claim on thread after thread. It's been wrong every time. The reality is that they were limiting Welker's snap numbers, and that it was intentional. You can argue that it was because of game planning. You can argue that it was because God ordered them to.

However, since McDaniels has acknowledged that it happened, you can't correctly argue that it didn't happen.

I am the one who said they were intentionally limiting Welkers snaps. You are the one who made way more of it than it was.
They have always limited Welkers snaps, with the exception of last year when there was no one viable to take them.
There was no plan to limit them any more than they ever have since he has been a Patriot, which is where you misrepresent the comments.

 

[Finnishfan]

I think Welker on the field 90-100 of the time over a full season at this point in his career is a recipe for disaster. Until last year, when there really was no choice, he has played closer to 75% of the snaps since he has been here.
The pounding we can avoid in those 100-150 or snaps, probably is meaningful in the playoffs,and other than people trying to infer meaning from it, doesn't really cost the offense a whole lot. I can live with resting Welker 6-10 plays a game and expect that someone else can get open on the 3-6 that are passes.

Game on the line (or critical drive), I agree with you, Welker needs to be out there.

There are many valid explanations for him to see less playing time, most of them which you have already presented. But most theories I have read from that week 1 game was that the real issue was that Brady didn't look his way when he was on the field.

However, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I do not think that BB is trying to prepare the team for a Welkerless era, becouse that is not how he does things. No idea in creating and implementing a gameplan without Welker when he still is on our payroll for one more SB run. BB has always been about "the next game", not "the game after next game".

Its not about restricting his stats to reduce his value, its not about letting Edelman "learn the trade" nor is it about creating a Welkerless offense.

I think the reason for us to ignore Welker in our week 1 gameplan was that MCD wanted to send a message that we can play effective offense without featuring #83 so heavily. He wanted to create a gameplan that didn't revolve around Welker converting key 3rd downs and being TBs security blanket. We dont wanna cut Welker away from our plan, but we wanna have other options as well if "plan W" fails.

Dependency on Welkers heavy involvement has been one of our weaknesses for years. Brady has to be able to get along without Welker. The offense will not be as effective, but he has to be able to keep the chains moving even without #83.

 

[Deus Irae]

I am the one who said they were intentionally limiting Welkers snaps. You are the one who made way more of it than it was.
They have always limited Welkers snaps, with the exception of last year when there was no one viable to take them.
There was no plan to limit them any more than they ever have since he has been a Patriot, which is where you misrepresent the comments.

You've been misrepresenting about this on thread after thread, and you've done the same sort of misrepresentation about the Cardinals game by tallying the Welker snap count while ignoring the loss of Hernandez in the process. You've been called out on it time and again. You keep posting the same misleading arguments.

I'll leave it at this:

When you take a snap count down from 90% and deliberately knock it down to 60%-70%, the player is, despite your claims to the contrary, "being taken out of the offense.".

 

[Ring 6]

You've been misrepresenting about this on thread after thread, and you've done the same sort of misrepresentation about the Cardinals game by tallying the Welker snap count while ignoring the loss of Hernandez in the process. You've been called out on it time and again. You keep posting the same misleading arguments.

I'll leave it at this:

When you take a snap count down from 90% and deliberately knock it down to 60%-70%, the player is, despite your claims to the contrary, "being taken out of the offense.".

So you think that fact is what you think would have happened if Hernandez wasn't injured? That is an interesting definition of fact.
Also, your final comment would certainly be true, of course that is not what happened.
"Called on it time again" has been solely by you, who in this case happen to be very wrong.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Put your best players on the field and let them play. Enough with the multiple personnel crap. We all liked the idea and thought it would be great at confusing the defenses we play, but it seems to have only confused our own team. Put the best guys on the field and let them play.

 

[mcsully]

I think Welker on the field 90-100 of the time over a full season at this point in his career is a recipe for disaster. Until last year, when there really was no choice, he has played closer to 75% of the snaps since he has been here.
The pounding we can avoid in those 100-150 or snaps, probably is meaningful in the playoffs,and other than people trying to infer meaning from it, doesn't really cost the offense a whole lot. I can live with resting Welker 6-10 plays a game and expect that someone else can get open on the 3-6 that are passes.

Game on the line (or critical drive), I agree with you, Welker needs to be out there.

Not going to argue with giving welker a breather but if we plan to part with him, run him to the ground..

 

[Ring 6]

Not going to argue with giving welker a breather but if we plan to part with him, run him to the ground..

Understood, but still need to save him for the post season. Fine line there.

 

[BradyFTW!]

While this is a popular conspiracy theory there is no real evidence that Welker was being taken out of the offense. Well, there were 3 plays that he was out for, and then a monolithic conspiracy theory built from there.

It's especially funny because we've been watching Belichick at work for over a decade now, and there's literally nothing in his track record to indicate that he would do what he's being accused of. Go figure.