Major overhaul on the o-line according to SMY (merged)

PatsWickedPissah · Sep 29, 2014

mayoclinic said:
I concur. Let's hope according to this new "guard is mentally harder to play than tackle theory" that Cameron Fleming's Stanford engineering background gives him enough smarts to adapt to a completely new position better than Cannon has.

Everyone knows that engineers are complete studs

mayoclinic · Sep 29, 2014

mgteich said:
The experiment of Cannon at OG is NOT three games old, it is three years old. This board, and the team, has considered Cannon a "potential" RG since he arrived. He has gotten lots and lots and lots of practice at RG. He has much game experience at RG. In many games, he has been our backup RG. In this last preseason, he had some play at RG.

So, for me, Cannon at OG is not a new idea at all. HOWEVER, playing Cannon at a position at which he MIGHT have practiced at in college is strange indeed. The LEFT side is very different than the RIGHT. I certainly agree that many LGs were formerly LT's, and the many RGs were formerly RT's. But Cannon was a RT with no experience at LG.

Baloney. Cannon has 3 games starting experience at LG. That's not enough to make a judgment on him. I couldn't care less what "this board" thinks - the coaching staff thought enough of him to make him the starting LG, a position that didn't need to be considered in his first 3 seasons because of the presence of Logan Mankins.

You say "playing Cannon at a position at which he MIGHT have practiced at in college is strange indeed". By that logic, I assume you are opposed to trying Cameron Fleming at RG, a position that he didn't play at all in college in games. Fleming didn't see action as a freshman, and started 11 games at RT as a sophomore, and 14 games as a junior and senior. How many games are we going to allow Fleming at RG before deciding that experiment is a failure?

The coaching staff - including BB - thought enough to start Cannon at LG. They think enough to start Fleming at RG now. I don't think we can make any conclusions about their judgment regarding whether the Cannon at LG "experiment" is over.

ausbacker · Sep 29, 2014

Guys, a reshuffle of sorts was inevitable. When you couple this reshuffle with poster sentiment, you know the Patriots are seeing what we're seeing. This is good news and I'm happy to read it.

Sciz · Sep 29, 2014

This is the lineup taking snaps in warmups. At least for now, I'm glad to see that SMY didn't get Volin-ed.

PATSYLICIOUS · Sep 29, 2014

Well that makes me quite excited for tonight's game. Not sure how excited Brady is though

primetime · Sep 29, 2014

mayoclinic said:
Cannon has 3 games starting experience at LG. That's not enough to make a judgment on him. I couldn't care less what "this board" thinks - the coaching staff thought enough of him to make him the starting LG...

...and then, apparently, had seen enough of him to put him on the bench behind a rookie who has never played a snap at guard in college or pros.

Kind of an odd appeal to the coaching staff, since they've clearly seen enough of Cannon too.

Brady6 · Sep 29, 2014

mayoclinic said:
Baloney. Cannon has 3 games starting experience at LG. That's not enough to make a judgment on him. I couldn't care less what "this board" thinks - the coaching staff thought enough of him to make him the starting LG, a position that didn't need to be considered in his first 3 seasons because of the presence of Logan Mankins.

You say "playing Cannon at a position at which he MIGHT have practiced at in college is strange indeed". By that logic, I assume you are opposed to trying Cameron Fleming at RG, a position that he didn't play at all in college in games. Fleming didn't see action as a freshman, and started 11 games at RT as a sophomore, and 14 games as a junior and senior. How many games are we going to allow Fleming at RG before deciding that experiment is a failure?

The coaching staff - including BB - thought enough to start Cannon at LG. They think enough to start Fleming at RG now. I don't think we can make any conclusions about their judgment regarding whether the Cannon at LG "experiment" is over.

We are the best co-agents on this board…

sevengables_2207 · Sep 29, 2014

Looks like Devey is a healthy scratch tonight...

http://www.providencejournal.com/sp...n-dobson-highlight-the-patriots-inactives.ece

mgteich · Sep 29, 2014

OK, Cannon never starting at LG, ever.

So, the coach gives Cannon three starts. He doesn't look good.

Conclusion: Cannon should start for lots more game. After all, he has starting 3 games and needs more time to prove himself?

Naah!
========

BTW, insert Devey and RG and make the same arguments,e except that Devey actually played lots of preseason reps at RG.

mayoclinic said:
Baloney. Cannon has 3 games starting experience at LG. That's not enough to make a judgment on him. I couldn't care less what "this board" thinks - the coaching staff thought enough of him to make him the starting LG, a position that didn't need to be considered in his first 3 seasons because of the presence of Logan Mankins.

You say "playing Cannon at a position at which he MIGHT have practiced at in college is strange indeed". By that logic, I assume you are opposed to trying Cameron Fleming at RG, a position that he didn't play at all in college in games. Fleming didn't see action as a freshman, and started 11 games at RT as a sophomore, and 14 games as a junior and senior. How many games are we going to allow Fleming at RG before deciding that experiment is a failure?

The coaching staff - including BB - thought enough to start Cannon at LG. They think enough to start Fleming at RG now. I don't think we can make any conclusions about their judgment regarding whether the Cannon at LG "experiment" is over.

captain stone · Sep 30, 2014

One more overhaul needed: Cannon to RG, Fleming to bench…and Solder to 2012/13.

BradyManny · Sep 30, 2014

JMC00 said:
Listening to 98.5 2-6?

That's the only place I have heard refer to Devey as a rookie.

He played 0 NFL games going into this season. He spent camp with Baltimore & I think one day on their practice squad during the year. Not sure he accrues an NFL season for that. So sorry, he's technically a "first year player", not a rookie.

BradyManny · Sep 30, 2014

mayoclinic said:
The coaching staff - including BB - thought enough to start Cannon at LG. They think enough to start Fleming at RG now. I don't think we can make any conclusions about their judgment regarding whether the Cannon at LG "experiment" is over.

I don't make a habit of disagreeing with your posts, bur right now, you are being too kind on this coaching staff. I honestly don't think they are doing anything other than throwing crap against a wall and seeing what will stick. Unfortunately, these games count.

State · Sep 30, 2014

Brady6 said:
I would have rather they gave the opportunity to Kline who at least showed last season he was capable of starting and performing. At the end of the day, we have to look at the OL coach and wonder what is going on because with injuries other issues over the years we have put some OL with JAGs on the field and had them perform when Scar was here.

Back in 2012 when Mankins and Connolly missed significant time, Wendell and Solder were starting for the first time, etc. We made it work; now we cannot make it work with all of our OL healthy. It just seems like a coaching and scheme problem to me.

Kline, the forgotten man, who will rise to the fore now that Devey won't dress and rookie tackles playing guard next to shaky veteran tackles isn't a recipe for success.

PATSYLICIOUS · Sep 30, 2014

They weren't great, but I felt they weren't nearly as bad as the first three weeks. I really thought last night was complicated by poor playcalling and poor defense which led to a double digit deficit - obviously makes things alot tougher on our offense and it got ugly after that. The strip sack and subsequent meltdown may not have happened with a more manageable scoreboard and mindset. This lineup has potential IMO they may improve they may not. But the best chance to improve is if the playcalling is somewhat competent. Last night was nothing short of atrocious. Not nearly enough Ridley [you know, the feature RB] and commitment to the ground game in general. The next time we have a seven yard run on first down and then come out in a cutesy shotgun formation on second and three I swear I'm gonna lose it. Line up like men and run the damn ball.

This offense is predicated on rhythm and it's hard to establish that the way last night's game was called. That doesn't mean I"m anti-pass. If things aren't rolling smooth and we want to start a drive 5 wide no huddle and throw it on every down that's totally fine if it's working, but I just don't get these games where we come in saying we're not even attempt to establish a firm run game and incorporate more play action.

AzPatsFan · Oct 1, 2014

PATSYLICIOUS said:
They weren't great, but I felt they weren't nearly as bad as the first three weeks. I really thought last night was complicated by poor playcalling and poor defense which led to a double digit deficit - obviously makes things alot tougher on our offense and it got ugly after that. The strip sack and subsequent meltdown may not have happened with a more manageable scoreboard and mindset. This lineup has potential IMO they may improve they may not. But the best chance to improve is if the playcalling is somewhat competent. Last night was nothing short of atrocious. Not nearly enough Ridley [you know, the feature RB] and commitment to the ground game in general. The next time we have a seven yard run on first down and then come out in a cutesy shotgun formation on second and three I swear I'm gonna lose it. Line up like men and run the damn ball.

This offense is predicated on rhythm and it's hard to establish that the way last night's game was called. That doesn't mean I"m anti-pass. If things aren't rolling smooth and we want to start a drive 5 wide no huddle and throw it on every down that's totally fine if it's working, but I just don't get these games where we come in saying we're not even attempt to establish a firm run game and incorporate more play action.

I agree with you. When people around you are losing their minds, it's nice to see you are maintaining your sanity and powers of observation.

Urgent · Oct 1, 2014

Reiss posted the offensive line combinations.
I've never seen anything like it in a regular season game.
Six (!) different combinations at offensive line.

None, by the way, included Kline. Guards were portrayed by Connolly, Fleming, and Wendell (who played right guard. And then left guard.) Maybe the Patriots coaches gave up and treated the second half like a preseason game? Four of the variations came in the second half.

But one of the things we've noted is that these guys need a chance to get used to working as a team. "You're going to eat together, sleep together; you're going to pee together... Practice starts now." So maybe the players could use the second half of that game learning to pee together. Instead it was a revolving door of um, revolving doors.

This really seems to be a situation where none of the offensive linemen have distinguished themselves. It would seem that the best option is to pick five and then let them practice together and play together to develop some modicum of the continuity every offensive lineman describes as necessary to success.

Really odd decision-making.

Major overhaul on the o-line according to SMY (merged)

PatsWickedPissah

PatsFans.com Supporter

mayoclinic

PatsFans.com Supporter

ausbacker

TB12

Sciz

PatsFans.com Supporter

PATSYLICIOUS

PatsFans.com Supporter

primetime

Pro Bowl Player

Brady6

Pro Bowl Player

sevengables_2207

In the Starting Line-Up

mgteich

PatsFans.com Veteran

captain stone

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

BradyManny

Pro Bowl Player

BradyManny

Pro Bowl Player

State

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PATSYLICIOUS

PatsFans.com Supporter

AzPatsFan

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Urgent

In the Starting Line-Up

Similar threads