OL, are the pieces there or is a lot of change up needed?

TommyBrady12 said:

What's the difference between the November game when the oline kept Brady clean and now? Was it simply the presence of Demarcus ware? Was it Denver simply knowing the snap count?

Click to expand...

From a practical standpoint, all of these things played a factor in the difference. However, something that has been seemingly overlooked regarding this season has been the difference from the Patriots in games against an opponent they already played (Jets, Bills, Dolphins, Broncos).

Wade Phillips alluded to this, in that, when game-planning for New England a lot time was probably allocated to stopping the run game too (Blount was still active), but even he was shocked at how much New England threw the ball in that first game. After seeing that strategy once, the second time around all of these teams made it a point of emphasis that their only objective was to hit Brady as much as possible with no regard or respect for the Patriots' (in)ability to run the ball. It makes game-planning far more simplified.

Ordinarily, this type of heavy coverage and pressure-based game-plan is easily adjusted to if there's any semblance of being able to run the ball with consistency. New England without a running game made Denver's life very easy, because they could simply have their pass rushers pin their ears back to go hit Brady as much as possible. That coupled with Denver's home-field advantage, patience defensively in never straying away from their initial game-plan and the Patriots offensive line blocking horrendously, led to the results we all saw on Sunday.

For comparison's sake, look at New England's defensive performance against Denver. It was very good, but it could also have been like Denver's had they not had to respect and honor Denver's ability to run the ball, even though they were in large part successful in shutting it down. Imagine then if New England's only had objective from a game-planning standpoint was to relentlessly attack the quarterback with no regard for the run game if Denver didn't have the ability to run the ball at all and threw on seemingly every down. You'd see the same thing happen to Manning as you did to Brady. Strategically that is not a recipe for success especially against at an opponent who has already seen that strategy once and had the perfect counter for it a second time around.

Sciz said:

I'm not against improvement. I'm questioning how much investment it'd take to actually get an upgrade. In a world where Donald Thomas and Todd Herremans are $3.5M/yr guards (albeit both for the Colts) and Shelley Smith gets $1.8M to not play a single snap before getting cut, I'm not so scared of the current situation that I think they need to go spend $4 million on some guy that may or may not even be an upgrade. All of five guys already on the roster had extended periods of looking like capable NFL starters (which can't be said about your CB/WR comparison), and obviously improvement is in the plans considering they just fired the OL coach. It doesn't take much improvement to get to the point where the typical $4 million free agent guard is sitting on the bench. I'd expect them to add some competition with low priced veterans like they did last year, and it wouldn't surprise me to see similar results where they realize the guys they already had are the best for the job anyway.

Click to expand...

We disagree about how well the OL played this year. I did not see extended periods of any G on the roster looking like a capable starter, and frankly Stork was terrible this year too.

IllegalContact said:

stork struggled at least as much.....Andrews as a UDFA did on while being surrounded by other rookies....if anything, the interior part of the OL was worse when stork replaced him even considering the changes at ot

Click to expand...

Stork was not great, I agree, but he is a much better player than Andrews.
I have never bought into grading on a curve because an UDFA who wasn't expected to be in the league made it on the field to play poorly.
Poor play is poor play and the fact that its more than was expected means nothing.

AndyJohnson said:

Stork was not great, I agree, but he is a much better player than Andrews.
I have never bought into grading on a curve because an UDFA who wasn't expected to be in the league made it on the field to play poorly.
Poor play is poor play and the fact that its more than was expected means nothing.

Click to expand...

he might be a better player, but he did not play better than andrews this year

IllegalContact said:

he might be a better player, but he did not play better than andrews this year

Click to expand...

No, he did. He didn't play like he did last year, but it was still better than Andrews.

AndyJohnson said:

So we are good with players who look awful because we were good early in the season?

Click to expand...

A lot of young players tend to hit a wall as the season goes on, because the season is longer than they're used to and the rigors of the NFL are much tougher than college. So I'm willing to give Mason, Andrews, and Jackson a relative pass (aka, a chance to see how they develop and improve year one to year two) before I consider them non-starters. It may have just been a case where they just weren't quite ready to be full time players in year one but a lack of better options forced the Patriots hands. It could also be a matter of coaching, as evidenced by Googs departure (which I admit, may or may not improve with the new coach, we don't know).

That all said, as open minded as I am about improvement from the young guys, a veteran guard to push them (or start ahead of them if they DON'T improve) would be a prudent move. If Wendell is healthy, he could be that guy, but I'd rather see someone else brought in too.

Sicilian said:

A lot of young players tend to hit a wall as the season goes on, because the season is longer than they're used to and the rigors of the NFL are much tougher than college. So I'm willing to give Mason, Andrews, and Jackson a relative pass (aka, a chance to see how they develop and improve year one to year two) before I consider them non-starters. It may have just been a case where they just weren't quite ready to be full time players in year one but a lack of better options forced the Patriots hands. It could also be a matter of coaching, as evidenced by Googs departure (which I admit, may or may not improve with the new coach, we don't know).

That all said, as open minded as I am about improvement from the young guys, a veteran guard to push them (or start ahead of them if they DON'T improve) would be a prudent move. If Wendell is healthy, he could be that guy, but I'd rather see someone else brought in too.

Click to expand...

Well there are an awful lot of angles to this.
First of all, in a vacuum I disagree that we should give them a chance to see if they can be better next year. I think we need to bring in players who are better than they were, and let them try to beat them out.

But in reality it is not in a vacuum and there are many layers.
We simply cannot know what the real talent level is and what either held it back or proved it wasn't enough. The team needs to evaluate the players based on information that we have about 5% of available to us. In any line of work you have underperforming employees, and there is a marked and clearly noticeable difference between having talent but lacking experience, and just not having enough talent to be very good at that job. Like rookie walls and injuries and learning curves, employees in any line of work also have issue that hamper job performance. The only person who can correctly assess them with any degree of accuracy is the person they work for that manages their efforts on a day to day basis. We could look at a salesmans results, even observe his sales calls once a week, and not have any true insight into his potential, upside or flaws. Same thing here.

The coaching staff no doubt has a strong belief about whether these guys are likely to be able to get the job done next year. They cannot afford to be wrong, because the IOL cost us a SB Championship, IMO. If it is not better next year, it will again.
Waiting to see if they improve is risking throwing away the season. Draft more, sign a solid vet or 2, and let them compete for jobs.
There is no other position on the field where you can say we cannot win the SB if the players we have on the roster play at the level they did this year. Hence, #1 priority. Note that #1 priority does not mean most money spent or highest draft pick used.

AndyJohnson said:

No, he did. He didn't play like he did last year, but it was still better than Andrews.

Click to expand...

you are entitled to your opinion whether it is accurate or not

AndyJohnson said:

Well there are an awful lot of angles to this.
First of all, in a vacuum I disagree that we should give them a chance to see if they can be better next year. I think we need to bring in players who are better than they were, and let them try to beat them out.

But in reality it is not in a vacuum and there are many layers.
We simply cannot know what the real talent level is and what either held it back or proved it wasn't enough. The team needs to evaluate the players based on information that we have about 5% of available to us. In any line of work you have underperforming employees, and there is a marked and clearly noticeable difference between having talent but lacking experience, and just not having enough talent to be very good at that job. Like rookie walls and injuries and learning curves, employees in any line of work also have issue that hamper job performance. The only person who can correctly assess them with any degree of accuracy is the person they work for that manages their efforts on a day to day basis. We could look at a salesmans results, even observe his sales calls once a week, and not have any true insight into his potential, upside or flaws. Same thing here.

The coaching staff no doubt has a strong belief about whether these guys are likely to be able to get the job done next year. They cannot afford to be wrong, because the IOL cost us a SB Championship, IMO. If it is not better next year, it will again.
Waiting to see if they improve is risking throwing away the season. Draft more, sign a solid vet or 2, and let them compete for jobs.
There is no other position on the field where you can say we cannot win the SB if the players we have on the roster play at the level they did this year. Hence, #1 priority. Note that #1 priority does not mean most money spent or highest draft pick used.

Click to expand...

I think we're fundamentally in agreement here, and may just differ on a level of urgency. My preference this offseason is the OL to get the bulk of the attention (for lack of a better word... I know BB will be looking at every position on the roster), even to 07 WR levels. I would love to see a completely revamped OL that becomes a strength of the team, rather than just something Brady is good enough to work with.

But all in all, if they only make a few minor depth moves, I'm not going to panic, because I do believe that the young players have potential. Belichick has talked in pretty glowing terms about Mason, or at least his athleticism. That seems like someone he believes he can work with. But like I said, a veteran guard is necessary in case they fail.

I guess my thought exercise would be this, which scenario seems more appealing to you hypothetically:

A) Invest your free agent capital in players who give you the maximum chance to improve the line. The risk here being that the players needed were already on the roster, and the money could have been used to add competition to WR, TE, or RB.

or

B) Spread the funds around to add depth and competition to OL and other areas. The risk there being if the young kids don't pan out, you're in trouble again.

I don't think either approach is necessarily wrong, though like you said, it all depends on what the coaches are seeing behind the scenes that we are not. I can envision the Patriots opting for scenario B if they like what they see in Mason, Jackson, and Andrews, much like what they saw in Butler and Ryan probably made their decision to move on from Revis/Browner/Arrington last year easier.

There is a lot up in the air at the position. Neither Solder nor Vollmer have been pictures of health, Jackson and Kline looked to be back-ups at best this season, Stork will have to get over his injuries and, if not, would have to be replaced, Andrews is not a starter either, Mason is a very big project, and the Cannon/Fleming duo should be cut immediately. I would have to think that banking on health at the tackle position and adding more quality depth (that isn't Cannon or Fleming) is the order of the day there. The bigger question marks are at the interior OL. Do they think Mason can be coached up in pass protection where he can be an opening day starter in 2016? I have high hopes. Can Stork recover from injury to be the center we saw in 2014? Not sure. Concussions are very tricky. They'll also have to coach him out of his tells too. Andrews is fine as depth. LG may need to be improved upon no matter what. I've never been the biggest fan of Jackson even coming out of college and Kline is what he is. As a whole, I expect to see even more draft capital invested there this offseason. And they need it too. They were downright horrible this season. If Brady gets hit like that again next season, he's going on IR.

HawaiianPatsfan said:

Im pretty sure you can't trade comp picks though.

Click to expand...

I didn't say trade the comp. pick. I said trade the other 3rd round pick to move up in the 2nd because of the 3rd round comp pick.

IllegalContact said:

you are entitled to your opinion whether it is accurate or not

Click to expand...

Correct. We disagree.

Sicilian said:

I think we're fundamentally in agreement here, and may just differ on a level of urgency. My preference this offseason is the OL to get the bulk of the attention (for lack of a better word... I know BB will be looking at every position on the roster), even to 07 WR levels. I would love to see a completely revamped OL that becomes a strength of the team, rather than just something Brady is good enough to work with.

But all in all, if they only make a few minor depth moves, I'm not going to panic, because I do believe that the young players have potential. Belichick has talked in pretty glowing terms about Mason, or at least his athleticism. That seems like someone he believes he can work with. But like I said, a veteran guard is necessary in case they fail.

I guess my thought exercise would be this, which scenario seems more appealing to you hypothetically:

A) Invest your free agent capital in players who give you the maximum chance to improve the line. The risk here being that the players needed were already on the roster, and the money could have been used to add competition to WR, TE, or RB.

or

B) Spread the funds around to add depth and competition to OL and other areas. The risk there being if the young kids don't pan out, you're in trouble again.

I don't think either approach is necessarily wrong, though like you said, it all depends on what the coaches are seeing behind the scenes that we are not. I can envision the Patriots opting for scenario B if they like what they see in Mason, Jackson, and Andrews, much like what they saw in Butler and Ryan probably made their decision to move on from Revis/Browner/Arrington last year easier.

Click to expand...

I would choose A because I believe that with an average OL we win the SB this year.
An OL that doesn't suck makes every skill position player better.

Now I'm not saying spend 95% of what is available on the OL.
I'm saying add pieces that you are confident can be reliable and give you at least an average OL (which will look better than that with Brady) and the hoping with the guys already in place is that they improve and make you even better.
I cannot see anything wrong with an investment that gets us an OL that is at least average, even if the pieces were already here and it was a safety net.
With what we have coming back on D, at the skill positions, and Brady and average OL (and the minor depth moves that are necessary each off season) makes us the best team in the NFL, IMO.

LT - We need to revisit the Matt Light retirement scenario. Obviously I don't know all the details on Solder's health, but I get an uneasy feeling that he could be an early retirement. We need a replacement for Solder like we did for Light. Bring in a new LT to study behind Solder and occasionally play TE. In my mind, this NEEDS to happen this offseason. Priority #1 for the entire team.
LG - Mason belongs on this team in some capacity. If he can be average at all of his other responsibilities, he's going to be killing guys his whole career on those pulls. I always saw him as a RG type, but what do I know?
C - Stork/Andrews/Wendell - If we are ever shorthanded at the C position in the near future, we are in trouble. Looked like this year, Stork was being trained as the "Jack of all Trades" for the line. A title previously owned by Connelly, Hochstein etc. This C/G hybrid is probably the second most important position on the line for me behind LT.
RG - As I said, I see Mason here. The easiest position on the oline to fill.
RT - Vollmer. He's a great RT when he doesn't have to make up for the rest of the line. IIRC, he's the oldest member of the line, which adds to the importance of finding a new LT. The only guy I would be relatively comfortable with as a backup RT is Cannon. He had a terrible year, but I'm putting stock into Gugs sabotaging these guys this year.

Conclusion: The ONLY position we NEED to fill is LT (who can fill in at RT), and we need a good one. Everyone on the line has the potential of forming a very solid group. It's just about what kind of drop off there is after one of the guys goes down.

Froob said:

Also allegedly, Mason only gave up one hurry, can anyone confirm this? Didn't focus a great deal on him during the game. Would be impressive for a guy who isn't known as a great pass blocker.

Click to expand...

The true issues inside allowing the interior pocket push rested with Kline first and foremost and then Stork who never seemed to recover after coming back. Biggest mistake made by Googs and the staff was simply handing Stork his job back after Andrews proved his worth.

I think we have a good start to our OL. Another offseason, the shame and motivation from the 2015 season and a new OL coach.

-Vollmer at RT and Solder at LT.
-Stork and Andrews at C
-Mason and Jackson at G
-Kline as a capable backup

-Would like to resign Wendell and Waddle for depth.

-Cut Cannon and Cam Fleming.

-Sign starting caliber OT. Either draft the OT or sign a young, good FA. Can takeover for Vollmer when his contract is up

-Sign starting caliber OG. OG I think we sign an older, good FA like a Richie Incognito to a 2 year contract to be a stopgap/insurance for Mason and Jackson.

Bet Belichick has his eyes on OT Cole Toner at the Senior Bowl ...

another probable lower round pick with very good upside potential.

Matt Patricia would love him ... he's from Hahvahd.

SammyBlueCat said:

Hopefully the new offensive line coach will be someone that can impact the youngsters.
Sources: Pats, OL coach DeGuglielmo part ways

Click to expand...

Question: Did Scarnecchia assist Googs initially or partly in 2014? I seem to think I read or heard that somewhere.

Hard for me to see Cannon ever being a tackle.

Well ... one more thing ...

When I saw Waddle did not make the trip I became seriously deflated ...

If healthy I wonder if that would have made enough of a difference to win by 3 or 6 or 7?