Mankins: Pats’ O-Linemen Have ‘Rude Awakening’ In Store From Scarnecchia

mgteich said:

You can choose to worry about any roster spot that you wish. At OT, we have two solid starters, and two OK backups. We have much less at some other positions (e.g RB, CB. We need a developmental OT.

The team does prepare for the possibility that Vollmer will not be available. We have had a veteran backup for years.

Click to expand...

As much as Cannon has been maligned on here, he is a decent, servicable backup, and Waddle may be too. The OL will be ok even if one OT goes down, it's if both go down again that we're screwed.

Of course, that is the reality with most NFL teams. Name me one team that has the OL depth to replace both starting tackles midseason. Depth and the salary cap don't work that way. We are behaving in a reactionary way because we witnessed the worst case scenario - injuries depleting essentially two full units of the team (OL and WR). We can't have potential starters waiting in the wings at every position.

zydecochris said:

I thought he was essentially unemployed when he was picked up, so I haven't paid too much attention to him, I figured he was strictly a fill-in replacement player. However, I am happy to be corrected. Do you think he has promise to become a reliable backup?

Click to expand...

I did see something in Waddle.
It might be because the OL bar was so low towards the end of season.
Still, intuition tells me there might be something there.
In any case at the moment he belongs on your list.
You can put him down as awaken but not rude enough.

zydecochris said:

I thought he was essentially unemployed when he was picked up, so I haven't paid too much attention to him, I figured he was strictly a fill-in replacement player. However, I am happy to be corrected. Do you think he has promise to become a reliable backup?

Click to expand...

Waddle was a capable starter in 2013 and 2014, but was terrible in Detroit last year in his first year following ACL surgery. His health will be key, both in terms of his recovery from 2014 ACL surgery and the long list of more minor injuries that have caused him to miss games (2013 ankle, 2014 calf, 2014 concussion, 2015 elbow, 2015 shoulder).

Sciz said:

Waddle was a capable starter in 2013 and 2014, but was terrible in Detroit last year in his first year following ACL surgery. His health will be key, both in terms of his recovery from 2014 ACL surgery and the long list of more minor injuries that have caused him to miss games (2013 ankle, 2014 calf, 2014 concussion, 2015 elbow, 2015 shoulder).

Click to expand...

OK, I didn't realize he was a capable starter in 2013 and 2014 for Detroit, thanks for the info.

Lots of things to balance here: injuries, drafting, coaching and talent level, chief among them. So, there are plenty of areas for concern...but, if I were an O-line whose team had played a major role in losing a winnable AFCCG by letting their QB get knocked on his butt 23 times, I would expect something closer to a "Rude Awakening" than a gentle "Good Morning" accompanied by Breakfast in Bed.

zydecochris said:

OK, I didn't realize he was a capable starter in 2013 and 2014 for Detroit, thanks for the info.

Click to expand...

Waddle certainly should be a competitor for one of the backup spots, and perhaps a competitor who might start in 2017.

I would not be surprised if Waddle beats out Cannon, and we have a top draftee as our #4 OT.

realtime said:

The whole "thank God Googs is gone" mentality may translate to the aesthetic appeal and versatility of the offense, but it is not likely to translate to the team's W/L record or the OL's ability to suddenly rise to the occasion against top DLs.

Click to expand...

Matt Light would disagree:

“It blows my mind that, really, the game was lost because of a snap count,” Light said. “I don’t think that they practiced their snap count at all, really, to any degree. We went into a game being able to snap silent count five different ways. Not two. Five. And in that game, I watched them on the snap count and I was blown away. You’re handcuffing your tackles, and that’s what happens when you don’t effectively run a silent snap count. And it was terrible to watch.”

“It wasn’t the talent on the field. They could have beat that team with a little bit more preparation and doing things a little better, and it didn’t happen.”

aluminum seats said:

Matt Light would disagree:

“It blows my mind that, really, the game was lost because of a snap count,” Light said. “I don’t think that they practiced their snap count at all, really, to any degree. We went into a game being able to snap silent count five different ways. Not two. Five. And in that game, I watched them on the snap count and I was blown away. You’re handcuffing your tackles, and that’s what happens when you don’t effectively run a silent snap count. And it was terrible to watch.”

“It wasn’t the talent on the field. They could have beat that team with a little bit more preparation and doing things a little better, and it didn’t happen.”

Click to expand...

What is Light's explanation for the OL being completely undressed by the Giants in the SB? Patriots were supremely prepared but the 9-7 Giants just had more talent on the field?

robertweathers said:

Ugh. Clearly I'm on drugs. I'm going back to the meth lab.

My bad

Click to expand...

Also not really ironic .

fnordcircle said:

You can't worry about injuries because someone falling on Vollmer's ankle and breaking it isn't something you can coach.

Click to expand...

Because of Belichick's arrogance! If he wasn't the smartest person in the room full of yes man he could! Why can't we have an innovator like Chip Kelly?

realtime said:

What is Light's explanation for the OL being completely undressed by the Giants in the SB? Patriots were supremely prepared but the 9-7 Giants just had more talent on the field?

Click to expand...

That's a fair counter--sometimes guys will get outplayed, for sure.

But it's a pretty common consensus that the coaching was a genuine problem on the offensive line last year. Belichick obviously thought so.

aluminum seats said:

Matt Light would disagree:

“It blows my mind that, really, the game was lost because of a snap count,” Light said. “I don’t think that they practiced their snap count at all, really, to any degree. We went into a game being able to snap silent count five different ways. Not two. Five. And in that game, I watched them on the snap count and I was blown away. You’re handcuffing your tackles, and that’s what happens when you don’t effectively run a silent snap count. And it was terrible to watch.”

“It wasn’t the talent on the field. They could have beat that team with a little bit more preparation and doing things a little better, and it didn’t happen.”

Click to expand...

I was going to post an attempt at sarcasm / humor asking "what does he know that we students of the game on this forum don't", but I can't quite bring myself to it.

This isn't an ex player on BSPN trying to get clicks by spouting off an un-informed opinion about a different position on a different team under a different coach. Light was a starter at OT for the Pats under BB for 11 years, I can't believe he doesn't know what he is talking about.

realtime said:

What is Light's explanation for the OL being completely undressed by the Giants in the SB? Patriots were supremely prepared but the 9-7 Giants just had more talent on the field?

Click to expand...

1. Stephen Neal going down.

2. Nick Kaczur starting.

3. Tom Brady ankle injury.

At no point during Scar's tenure did the Pats OL look nearly as bad as it did in early 2014 and the second half of 2015. At no point during Scar's tenure did the Pats lose a game because the opposing defense had the Pats snapcount down cold.

aluminum seats said:

That's a fair counter--sometimes guys will get outplayed, for sure.

But it's a pretty common consensus that the coaching was a genuine problem on the offensive line last year. Belichick obviously thought so.

Click to expand...

I agree. As I also agree that Dante is a HOF-caliber coach and Googs is a fringe NFL coach. My point is that the Patriots won 24 regular season games and a SB title with Googs, 24 regular season games and no SB titles in the last 2 years with Dante. So I don't think that the difference between HOF-caliber and replacement level OL coaching on the team as currently constructed translates much, if at all, to wins and losses. The real difference is in the aesthetic appeal of the offense, not in ultimate results.

KontradictioN said:

1. Stephen Neal going down.

2. Nick Kaczur starting.

3. Tom Brady ankle injury.

At no point during Scar's tenure did the Pats OL look nearly as bad as it did in early 2014 and the second half of 2015. At no point during Scar's tenure did the Pats lose a game because the opposing defense had the Pats snapcount down cold.

Click to expand...

These three things caused Mankins to get rag-dolled all game by Justin Tuck? That was the single most noticeable problem with the offensive line in that game. And the Patriots OL always looks bad when it gets dominated, no matter who the coach is.

As I have said, I agree with the aesthetics point. So if you are talking about the overall appeal of the on-field product, I agree with you. It's just hard for me to take a "thank god Googs is gone" view solely on the aesthetics, when the wins and losses are what matter the most . . . and there really isn't much difference in that regard between great and replacement-level OL coaching in the Belichick era.

I suspect that Mankins and Light evaluate the future based on more than a particular past SB performance. That method of evaluation is served for message boards.

KontradictioN said:

1. Stephen Neal going down.

2. Nick Kaczur starting.

3. Tom Brady ankle injury.

At no point during Scar's tenure did the Pats OL look nearly as bad as it did in early 2014 and the second half of 2015. At no point during Scar's tenure did the Pats lose a game because the opposing defense had the Pats snapcount down cold.

Click to expand...

And even with all that, it took a freak helmet catch to beat them

realtime said:

I agree. As I also agree that Dante is a HOF-caliber coach and Googs is a fringe NFL coach. My point is that the Patriots won 24 regular season games and a SB title with Googs, 24 regular season games and no SB titles in the last 2 years with Dante. So I don't think that the difference between HOF-caliber and replacement level OL coaching on the team as currently constructed translates much, if at all, to wins and losses. The real difference is in the aesthetic appeal of the offense, not in ultimate results.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're going with this "aesthetic appeal" thing--this has nothing to do with how pretty the offense is. It’s about winning, and at the level the Pats perform at, it’s not just collecting a good number of wins (which you know they will) but winning Super Bowls. It’s all a very fine line.

Yes, they won a Super Bowl with Googablahblah coaching, but more recent returns suggest his methods weren’t creating long-term success. Arguably it was the lingering impact of Scarnecchia that counted for more in 2014.

realtime said:

These three things caused Mankins to get rag-dolled all game by Justin Tuck?

Click to expand...

Not sure what Mankins' issue was that day. He never seemed to match up well with Tuck, though.

That was the single most noticeable problem with the offensive line in that game. And the Patriots OL always looks bad when it gets dominated, no matter who the coach is.

Click to expand...

The Pats OL as a whole had issues in that game. They performed just fine on the first drive. Then Neal went down and it became an avalanche. You asked why and I gave you the three most prominent reasons. Kaczur was getting his ass handed to him by Strahan too and Brady, an already immobile guy, was a sitting duck. I don't think you can blame any of these issues on Scar the way that you can blame the Denver loss and a lot of the losses over the last two years on Googs and coaching.

As I have said, I agree with the aesthetics point. So if you are talking about the overall appeal of the on-field product, I agree with you. It's just hard for me to take a "thank god Googs is gone" view solely on the aesthetics, when the wins and losses are what matter the most . . . and there really isn't much difference in that regard between great and replacement-level OL coaching in the Belichick era.

Click to expand...

This team wins the majority of their games because of the talent of Tom Brady and the defensive aptitude of Bill Belichick and his units. This in spite of many issues over the years: lack of pure deep threat, awful pass defenses from 2010-2012, lack of talent along the DL, lack of talent along the OL, no pure RB. n the end, it boils down to those two. That stated, as I said before, Scars units have never looked as bad as Goog's. Goog's units were so exposed at the beginning of 2014 and end of 2015 that the Pats had to scrap the game plan on offense. In 2014, they went away from attempting deep passes starting with the Cincy game and leaned on the quick passing game because Brady was battered from Miami all the way up to KC. In 2015, they did the same until Edelman went down and Amendola got hobbled. In Miami in Week 17, they employed a game plan to not get Brady injured against Miami because the OL was such a weakness. Can you name one time that happened under Scar's watch? I can't.

That said, I do agree that there is a talent issue on the OL. I'm advocating taking a OT high in the draft. But Scar's OL's always seemed better prepared that Goog's. The Pats, I take it, had seen enough after the Denver meltdown and agreed. And now, back comes Scar.

Fortunately Scar is juping back in, but he can and will only be a short-term solution simply because of his age. I hope they're planning the bridge to the next guy better than with Googs.
I remeber wondering why they were bringing in somebody from outside for such a critical position...don't we generally prefer to build from within on the coaching staff? Who could be the future guy instead of Scar?
The thing that mostly disturbs me, besides they went outside to get somebody, is the fact that Scar for sure had major influence on picking Googs: it baffles me how they could be so wrong on him, since they clearly were not happy about the performance.