Dante Provides Some Insight...

primetime said:

Yeah, that Chiefs game was awful. Priest Holmes just ran all over them and the Patriots had to squeak out a victory against a team that could only move the ball by running despite scoring an absurd number of points. Tomlinson would go on to run all over them.

Click to expand...

Memories, memories ...

Of course, I doubt anyone was talking Super Bowl after the first three games of 2001. If you say you were confident, I know you're lying...

Mike the Brit said:

Look at the stats for the game when the Patriots put 41 points on the Chiefs. How many yards did the Chiefs run for? 32 carries for 214 yards. So yes, just what I said. Other teams spotted a weakness against the run while the Pats were dropping 30-40 points on them and they didn't have to be that perceptive.

(I don't think your patronising, snarky tone would have been helpful even if you hadn't been flat out wrong, by the way.)

Click to expand...

Mike

Based on this post, I hope you truly understand you will never....ever receive a paycheck from the Patriots for any analysis or insight.

Unlike your desire to think something is true and find something to "prove" it's true.....BB and company approach each week to WIN THE DAMN GAME.

If a team has 41 boarded against them and wastes 32 snaps for a stupid 214 yards they.............will always lose the game. Why? because it takes too much damn time.

Last year, patsfans went completely stuck on stupid for all the yards Knowshon Moreno ran. Naturally, patsfans thought they proved something but were too ignorant to realize the Broncos hardly scored, fumbled and posted the worst yards per play by a Manning team in many years.

What you are really saying is you must be some fantasy football type who never knows nor cares if a team actually wins a football game and exactly why they won a football game.

RayClay said:

Of course, I doubt anyone was talking Super Bowl after the first three games of 2001. If you say you were confident, I know you're lying...

Click to expand...

Is this supposed to be a reply to my post about 2002 and a gracious acknowledgement that you were wrong (and rude) in sneering at it?

patsfanincleveland said:

Mike

Based on this post, I hope you truly understand you will never....ever receive a paycheck from the Patriots for any analysis or insight.

Unlike your desire to think something is true and find something to "prove" it's true.....BB and company approach each week to WIN THE DAMN GAME.

If a team has 41 boarded against them and wastes 32 snaps for a stupid 214 yards they.............will always lose the game. Why? because it takes too much damn time.

Last year, patsfans went completely stuck on stupid for all the yards Knowshon Moreno ran. Naturally, patsfans thought they proved something but were too ignorant to realize the Broncos hardly scored, fumbled and posted the worst yards per play by a Manning team in many years.

What you are really saying is you must be some fantasy football type who never knows nor cares if a team actually wins a football game and exactly why they won a football game.

Click to expand...

This is not a generalization, but evidence from 2002. I said that the first few weeks showed other teams that the Patriots had a weakness.

RayClay then produced a sneering post that said that it would be remarkable for a team to be putting up 30 or 40 points and showing a weakness. That was why I gave evidence from the KC game.

It was starting to be apparent that the Pats couldn't plug up the middle against the run and the next few weeks were a nightmare as team after team exploited that weakness. In 2003 they traded for Ted Washington and the rest is (glorious) history.

All of this has nothing whatsoever to do with stats and fantasy football.

patsfanincleveland said:

If a team has 41 boarded against them and wastes 32 snaps for a stupid 214 yards they.............will always lose the game. Why? because it takes too much damn time.

Click to expand...

Uh, he's not referring to some imaginary game. The Patriots won 41-38 in overtime against the Chiefs in 2002. The Patriots won because Brady had probably the first truly prolific game of his career, but also because they won the coin flip in overtime and kicked a field goal to win it (the Chiefs would have gotten it back under current OT rules).

patsfanincleveland said:

Last year, patsfans went completely stuck on stupid for all the yards Knowshon Moreno ran. Naturally, patsfans thought they proved something but were too ignorant to realize the Broncos hardly scored, fumbled and posted the worst yards per play by a Manning team in many years.

Click to expand...

The Broncos scored 31 points, not sure how that's "hardly scored." Sure, 24 of those came in the first half, but Patriots really had no business winning that game.

I'm not sure if you're discounting the value of a strong running game and controlling the clock ("taking too much damn time"), because, well...

I'm not sure how much more patience we can safely afford. We play the Bengals in 2 weeks and the schedule gets pretty rough from that point on. We're about at the end of what patience we can allow for an o-line that could result in serious injury for Brady.

At least Solder seems to recognize that he is a big part of the problem here:

http://nesn.com/2014/09/patriots-nate-solder-id-like-to-shore-up-my-pass-protection/

KontradictioN said:

That they're experimenting with different guys in different spots tells me it's about more than just cohesion. I also trust Dante and Light to know what they're talking about but I think they're being too kind here.

Click to expand...

They might be diplomatic, but I doubt it, based on Light's statements about the un-measureable leadership lost in the Mankins trade, despite the 11 sacks Logan gave up in 2013.

But it is absolutely delightful to hear Dante Scarnechia's sane comments.

The 2013 Offensive line was old, and performed poorly. BB and Gugs, set out to replace at least two of the three interior linemen. Then a trade opportunity and BB changed and went for replacing all three. BB and Gugs are doing so. They even let the UDFA projects get an opportunity, before moving on.

The solution simply takes Time. Time to play several games and
a) to build experience and
b )to build cohesiveness.
c) There are no shortcut answers.
(As much as no one wants to wait in this day of instant gratification.)

Connolly's least weak position is RG, but if he plays there, that is at best only an interim patch. He failed there in 2013 at age 32. He is now 33, and won't get better.

primetime said:

Uh, he's not referring to some imaginary game. The Patriots won 41-38 in overtime against the Chiefs in 2002. The Patriots won because Brady had probably the first truly prolific game of his career, but also because they won the coin flip in overtime and kicked a field goal to win it (the Chiefs would have gotten it back under current OT rules).



The Broncos scored 31 points, not sure how that's "hardly scored." Sure, 24 of those came in the first half, but Patriots really had no business winning that game.

I'm not sure if you're discounting the value of a strong running game and controlling the clock ("taking too much damn time"), because, well...

Click to expand...

Pats had no business winning that game? When did you hit your head. I guess they had no business winning last week, or no business winning any other games they won

Archeryaddict12 said:

Pats had no business winning that game? When did you hit your head. I guess they had no business winning last week, or no business winning any other games they won

Click to expand...

They were down 24-0 at the half and only won because a guy muffed a punt in the dying minutes of overtime. They got really, really lucky.

No. They suckered Peyton into a false idea of running the ball for lots of yards, but no further scoring. Brain versus Brawn.

primetime said:

They were down 24-0 at the half and only won because a guy muffed a punt in the dying minutes of overtime. They got really, really lucky.

Click to expand...

Do you understand the concept of a football game? I don't think you do. It doesn't matter they were down 24-0 and came back and won. Doesn't matter how. Why do you even watch football then?

Archeryaddict12 said:

Do you understand the concept of a football game? I don't think you do.

Click to expand...

No please help me I'm dumb

Mike the Brit said:

Is this supposed to be a reply to my post about 2002 and a gracious acknowledgement that you were wrong (and rude) in sneering at it?


This is not a generalization, but evidence from 2002. I said that the first few weeks showed other teams that the Patriots had a weakness.

RayClay then produced a sneering post that said that it would be remarkable for a team to be putting up 30 or 40 points and showing a weakness. That was why I gave evidence from the KC game.

It was starting to be apparent that the Pats couldn't plug up the middle against the run and the next few weeks were a nightmare as team after team exploited that weakness. In 2003 they traded for Ted Washington and the rest is (glorious) history.

All of this has nothing whatsoever to do with stats and fantasy football.

Click to expand...

I wasn't sneering, I was at work and had to keep it short. Sure, Steve Martin sucked, but it's a fact that teams don't run the ball when the opposition is putting up 30-40 or points, or at least they don't win and aren't necessarily getting full defensive attention. To say we knew how bad our run d would be based on the first three games would be disingenuous.

Hell, if Brady kept putting up 40 it wouldn't have mattered either, just ask Peyton manning.

Yes, theirrun defense ended up being the worst of a number of problems that year and it would have been an excellent point had I been concerned with the 2002 season, rather than the first three games of various seasons.

Also. i thought that other poster was a bit rude to you which I would never be because you are one of my fave posters.

Priest Holmes went off on them, but Pitt had 58 yds from RBs and Jets had only 23. I know I was thinking Brady's going to break all the records and go back to the bowl, and Priest Holmes is a great back. I wasn't thinking, wow, I bet he'll level off and our run D will totally crap out, but that was the case, as we know.

primetime said:

They were down 24-0 at the half and only won because a guy muffed a punt in the dying minutes of overtime. They got really, really lucky.

Click to expand...

Not to mention that the wind and weather factors played a fairly large role in the game, as well.

While I can understand why some may feel that the wording of "had no business winning the game" is a bit strong, I do believe that you have some very valid points.

RayClay said:

Also. i thought that other poster was a bit rude to you which I would never be because you are one of my fave posters.

Click to expand...

That poster is rude to everyone, which is quite unfortunate.

He was banned with one city in his name, then chose another AFCN city in response to try and fly under the radar.

I don't remember seeing many comments where he actually has treated anyone fairly in my 6+ yrs here.

supafly said:

That poster is rude to everyone, which is quite unfortunate.

He was banned with one city in his name, then chose another AFCN city in response to try and fly under the radar.

I don't remember seeing many comments where he actually has treated anyone fairly in my 6+ yrs here.

Click to expand...

I felt bad because i wanted to explain my post more, but I was taking an important, but boring, tutorial and didn't want to get caught taking a patfans break on a new job.

My point was, many fans at this very offensive pass centric site (like everywhere these days) would have been creaming their jeans if we started out like Brady and co. did that season, yet that was the worst performance in the Brady era ultimately.

All wins look like the prom queen when they're part of a winning season. Put em in the bank and move on to next week.

RayClay said:

All wins look like the prom queen when they're part of a winning season. Put em in the bank and move on to next week.

Click to expand...

I agree with this thinking for sure, as it's impossible not to.

That said, I think the lack of cohesion on the OL which is leading to the offensive failures, are getting everyone concerned--and for good reason.

As we've seen many times with Belichick teams, the team generally improves as the season progresses. Hopefully that is the case here as well.

RayClay said:

Also. i thought that other poster was a bit rude to you which I would never be because you are one of my fave posters.

Click to expand...

I love you too!!!!

My point is a simple one. Sometimes weaknesses show up even when teams are winning. And this is the NFL. If it's there, other coaches will see it and they will key in on it unless and until you fix it.

(You're right; no doubt we fans were too excited at being on a roll to pay it much attention at the time, though my memory of the KC game was it was a bit like the 2007 regular season Giants game -- "OK, it's great to get the win, but they're not overwhelming people any more and that run defense really looked bad".)

I'm NOT saying that the problems with the O-line won't be fixed. So far as I recall the 2012 Ravens had big O-line problems in the regular season but got them fixed for the playoffs as we all remember.

Just a simple fan, rooting for the team and hoping for the best ...

Mike the Brit said:

I love you too!!!!

My point is a simple one. Sometimes weaknesses show up even when teams are winning. And this is the NFL. If it's there, other coaches will see it and they will key in on it unless and until you fix it.

(You're right; no doubt we fans were too excited at being on a roll to pay it much attention at the time, though my memory of the KC game was it was a bit like the 2007 regular season Giants game -- "OK, it's great to get the win, but they're not overwhelming people any more and that run defense really looked bad".)

I'm NOT saying that the problems with the O-line won't be fixed. So far as I recall the 2012 Ravens had big O-line problems in the regular season but got them fixed for the playoffs as we all remember.

Just a simple fan, rooting for the team and hoping for the best ...

Click to expand...

At positions where they aren't going to spend a ton, there are growing pains that are later forgotten once the hard work of coaching and practicing pays off. With the possible signing of
Revis, Chandler Jones, and many, many more, including Solder and maybe Cannon they can't afford top dollar at a position that time and work can fill adequately.

Hochstein, Stephen Neal, Connolly and many more played adequately to very well after long periods of struggle. Stork and a bunch of players need more reps and to play together more and they can always pick up other free agents if available, but John Hanna's not walking through that door.

Also, more than any other position, practice can turn a leaky line into a good one overnight, because playing together is what makes it work there.