Are we not as far as we originally thought?

[DonBlackmon55]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

I am also cautiously optimistic about O'Brien. The one plus was that before Welker went down, the play calling vastly improved over the last month of the season. I didn't think he did a great job, but he was a rookie signal caller and he was not given the best talent to work with after Brady, Moss, and Welker.

Agree on WR talent, but that was BB own undoing by letting Gaffney walk, and trading up 16 spots to draft a bust in Chad Jackson.

As for other talent.......Watson, Baker, Maroney, BJGE could have also been utilized......when your #1 and #2 have 123 and 83 receptions (206 total) and the REST Of the Team COMBINED has 184 total receptions, that is not a balanced throwing attack much less a balanced offense

So, basically Moss + Welker equalled 53% of Pats total receptions in 2009 !

 

[upstater1]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Agree on WR talent, but that was BB own undoing by letting Gaffney walk, and trading up 16 spots to draft a bust in Chad Jackson.

As for other talent.......Watson, Baker, Maroney, BJGE could have also been utilized......when your #1 and #2 have 123 and 83 receptions (206 total) and the REST Of the Team COMBINED has 184 total receptions, that is not a balanced throwing attack much less a balanced offense

So, basically Moss + Welker equalled 53% of Pats total receptions in 2009 !

People talk about Gaffney like he was good. I thought he was really awful. Better than Aiken, but that's not saying much.

By the way, BB did not let Gaffney go and then draft Chad Jackson. Gaffney was a free agent last year.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Agree on WR talent, but that was BB own undoing by letting Gaffney walk, and trading up 16 spots to draft a bust in Chad Jackson.

Letting Gaffney walk is debatable in some sense, but he was only worth the money he got if we failed everywhere else and were desperate for an option. Not a single person thought CJ was a bad pick at the time. No one has a time machine or a crystal ball.

As for other talent.......Watson, Baker, Maroney, BJGE could have also been utilized......when your #1 and #2 have 123 and 83 receptions (206 total) and the REST Of the Team COMBINED has 184 total receptions, that is not a balanced throwing attack much less a balanced offense

You just don't pay attention. Baker is not a particularly good receiving threat. BJGE... seriously? Watson, see the OL issues. Maroney, he's never been used as a receiving threat in his time here and there's gotta be a reason for that beyond bad OC (and MCD never used him for that either).

So, basically Moss + Welker equalled 53% of Pats total receptions in 2009 !

No crap, we've all already said we need WR depth. The point is that it's the lack of talent/depth that resulted in that 53% NOT the effect of terrible playcalling/OC.

 

[upstater1]

"Had no one else" - - gee we wonder why.

So, if #1 TE and #1 RB(at least on paper) are supposed to block, then what is the OL responsiblity ? I guess Watson & Brown are strictly blockers. Heck, why bother to have TE then, just sign couple of OL

Wow, 4.1 YPC.......show me one RB the other team feared on Pats ? Taylor ? Maroney with his 700yd season ? or the 30+ something Faulk & Morris

ACL = 9-12 months. Unless you wre in time warp we all saw inconsistencies of a certain QB who came back after ACL. Furthermore, Welker is a WR that counts on his "cuts". If you think he will be back before mid season, if at all, then pass me the hash brownies your eating

Go check how many catches out of backfield Maroney had.....as for his blocking prowess, we saw that on display in playoff game vs Ravens, a certiable way to get Brady killed.

I did a study here last month that showed that when Maroney was in the game, he ran the ball over 70% of the time. Wish I could find that post.

Maroney wasn't catching balls out of the backfield because he was running it.

Faulk was in on throwing downs, and he caught 37 passes, which is more than his yearly average.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Agree on WR talent, but that was BB own undoing by letting Gaffney walk, and trading up 16 spots to draft a bust in Chad Jackson.

Letting Gaffney walk is debatable in some sense, but he was only worth the money he got if we failed everywhere else (He's decent but not someone you go out of your way to keep as a must-have). Not a single person thought CJ was a bad pick at the time. No one has a time machine or a crystal ball.

As for other talent.......Watson, Baker, Maroney, BJGE could have also been utilized......when your #1 and #2 have 123 and 83 receptions (206 total) and the REST Of the Team COMBINED has 184 total receptions, that is not a balanced throwing attack much less a balanced offense

You just don't pay attention. Baker is not a particularly good receiving threat. BJGE... seriously? Watson, see the OL issues. Maroney, he's never been used as a receiving threat in his time here and there's gotta be a reason for that beyond bad OC (and MCD never used him for that either).

So, basically Moss + Welker equalled 53% of Pats total receptions in 2009 !

No crap, we've all already said we need WR depth. The point is that it's the lack of talent/depth that resulted in that 53% NOT the effect of terrible playcalling/OC.

 

[JMarr]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

We need actual NFL caliber wide receivers. And we need 4-5 like we used to. If we could carry 5 pure wideouts in 2003 & 2004, why can't we carry 4-5 pure wideouts in 2007-2010, when we spread it out 50% of the time?

.

Haven't read the whole thread, but to me this is the crux of the issue on offense. Having JAG (or worse) receivers after WR#2 and almost no depth at the position might be excusable in a balanced offensive scheme that has a workhorse RB like A. Smith or Dillon. It makes absolutely no sense in a spread offense that routinely operates out of an empty backfield.

So injuries or not, the WR situation this year was inexcusable and IMO there's no way we can field enough quality WR's this year to mainly use a spread offense again.

Moss is on a downward slope and Welker is nothing but a question mark, so it makes the offseason priority on offense an easy decision: bring in a stud RB and change to a run blocking scheme, period.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Moss is on a downward slope and Welker is nothing but a question mark, so it makes the offseason priority on offense an easy decision: bring in a stud RB and change to a run blocking scheme, period.

Uh what? I don't even think that's a potential decision never mind easy decision.

Moss is on a downward slope after putting up top-3 WR season with a separated shoulder, shaky OL, QB coming off of ACL injury and no WR depth?

We know at least we have Moss and Edelman to start the year. Welker hopefully comes back at some point but this cannot be counted on.

We need a Stallworth type of WR opposite Moss, and then a #4 WR. We have one potential in Tate. We have trade possibilities, free agency, and the draft.

 

[upstater1]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Haven't read the whole thread, but to me this is the crux of the issue on offense. Having JAG (or worse) receivers after WR#2 and almost no depth at the position might be excusable in a balanced offensive scheme that has a workhorse RB like A. Smith or Dillon. It makes absolutely no sense in a spread offense that routinely operates out of an empty backfield.

So injuries or not, the WR situation this year was inexcusable and IMO there's no way we can field enough quality WR's this year to mainly use a spread offense again.

Moss is on a downward slope and Welker is nothing but a question mark, so it makes the offseason priority on offense an easy decision: bring in a stud RB and change to a run blocking scheme, period.

So, go away from what makes us most ineffective in today's NFL with the rule changes?

We have Tom Brady, Wes Welker and Randy Moss, and yes Edelman. You want us to change completely? Why? Because we can't do what the Colts did with Collie and Garcon?

You can say what the Partiots did was inexcusable but in training camp, this was the WR depth chart:

Randy Moss
Wes Welker
Joey Galloway
Greg Lewis
Brandon Tate
Julian Edelman
T Nunn

Galloway and Lewis didn't pan out, Tate and Edelman got hurt, and Nunn got picked off by another team. 5 guys. And Randy Moss had a separated shoulder and Wes Welker tore his ACL.

 

[The Dynasty]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

No crap, we've all already said we need WR depth. The point is that it's the lack of talent/depth that resulted in that 53% NOT the effect of terrible playcalling/OC.

It was the effect of the play calling and OC. We didnt utilize all the players that we had. We were very inconsistent with the play calling and extremely predictable. Look at our depth we had that the RB position, we didnt use them even close to as much as we should have. Watson is a very good TE, I understand that we needed the TEs to stay in and block, but when you have a big TE I would have liked to see him line up in the slot and try and get him the ball. Same goes for Baker, he showed that he could make catches with the Jets. Bottom line is we didnt get the most out of the players that we had this season and I think it starts with the OC.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

So, go away from what makes us most ineffective in today's NFL with the rule changes?

We have Tom Brady, Wes Welker and Randy Moss, and yes Edelman. You want us to change completely? Why? Because we can't do what the Colts did with Collie and Garcon?

You can say what the Partiots did was inexcusable but in training camp, this was the WR depth chart:

Randy Moss
Wes Welker
Joey Galloway
Greg Lewis
Brandon Tate
Julian Edelman
T Nunn

Galloway and Lewis didn't pan out, Tate and Edelman got hurt, and Nunn got picked off by another team. 5 guys. And Randy Moss had a separated shoulder and Wes Welker tore his ACL.

Then the solution is quite easy. Invest in a crystal ball before making any moves!

 

[JackBauer]

I just wanted to chime in and echo the consensus that Aiken is a terrible, terrible WR and should never be higher than #5 on a team's depth chart.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Haven't read the whole thread, but to me this is the crux of the issue on offense. Having JAG (or worse) receivers after WR#2 and almost no depth at the position might be excusable in a balanced offensive scheme that has a workhorse RB like A. Smith or Dillon. It makes absolutely no sense in a spread offense that routinely operates out of an empty backfield. .

Great points but as you point out I don't think what you propose would have the desired result. Defenses simply did not respect the #3 WR option, the TE targets or the RBs as legitimate offensive threats for reasons other than a) the talent was sub-par and 2) Moss and Wes were by far superior than anything else the team had as a receiving threat. Surely a guy like Dillon would force defenses to respect the running game a bit more but as others have pointed out, it is questionable at best if the Pats would consider commiting the resources to implementing a power running game or talent at the position on on the line (see Steve Hutchinson). However, with Wes out for who knows how long and if they fall short in picking up a legit #3 WR, who knows what their approach may be.

So injuries or not, the WR situation this year was inexcusable and IMO there's no way we can field enough quality WR's this year to mainly use a spread offense again. .

You may be right. However keep in mind many teams will take advantage of the capless year to rid themselves of bad contracts. There may be a decent opportuntity to pick up players that would not be available otherwise.

Moss is on a downward slope and Welker is nothing but a question mark, so it makes the offseason priority on offense an easy decision: bring in a stud RB and change to a run blocking scheme, period.

I love power running games, but the passing rules are geared towards teams who are proficient in passing the ball. If Moss can stay healthy, Wes comes back off PUP as a 2002-2004 Troy Brown and the team gets good production from the #3 and #4 WRs - and are legitimate threats, this offense will again be outstanding. Couple that with a running game that keeps defenses honest, I'm very hopeful.

Quite frankly, the defense IMO is a far greater concern.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

It was the effect of the play calling and OC. We didnt utilize all the players that we had. We were very inconsistent with the play calling and extremely predictable. Look at our depth we had that the RB position, we didnt use them even close to as much as we should have. Watson is a very good TE, I understand that we needed the TEs to stay in and block, but when you have a big TE I would have liked to see him line up in the slot and try and get him the ball. Same goes for Baker, he showed that he could make catches with the Jets. Bottom line is we didnt get the most out of the players that we had this season and I think it starts with the OC.

Taylor and Morris were hurt most of the year. Morris was being used early on before injury as a receiving threat. Watson and Baker were needed more to help the injured/shaky OL to block so couldn't be used as receiving threats more.

Did we get the absolute maximum out of the players as we would have with say McDaniels? No. Did we get drastically less out of the offense simply because of O'Brien? No.

Get out of your black-and-white world of scapegoats.

 

[The Dynasty]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Taylor and Morris were hurt most of the year. Morris was being used early on before injury as a receiving threat. Watson and Baker were needed more to help the injured/shaky OL to block so couldn't be used as receiving threats more.

Did we get the absolute maximum out of the players as we would have with say McDaniels? No. Did we get drastically less out of the offense simply because of O'Brien? No.

Get out of your black-and-white world of scapegoats.

Yes, Taylor and Morris were injured for the majority of the middle of the season, but they were playing in the beginning and end of the year. With the lack of WR/TE production, and such depth at running back you would have think we would have used them more in the running game.

There could have plays designed to get our TE's more involved in the offense. You dont need much time to throw the ball to a big TE. A quick slant from the slot position, doesnt require much time.

Look at what McDaniels had to work with last season. Matt Cassel was our QB and we had 11 wins, and had virtually the same WRs. There is a significant difference between what McDaniels got from our players last year and what O'Brien did this year.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Look at what McDaniels had to work with last season. Matt Cassel was our QB and we had 11 wins, and had virtually the same WRs. There is a significant difference between what McDaniels got from our players last year and what O'Brien did this year.

Moss and Welker had 53% of the receptions in 2008

Watson had 7 FEWER receptions in 2008 than in 2009.

Morris had 2 FEWER receptions in 2008 than in 2009.

Gaffney only had 1 more reception in 2008 than Edelman had in 2009.

There were 6 players with 10+ receptions in 2008. There were 9 players with 10+ receptions in 2009.

In 2008 there was a higher percentage of receptions by Moss/Welker than in 2009. Now I'm sure I'm just trying to pick a fight here and not giving any facts.

 

[The Dynasty]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Moss and Welker had 53% of the receptions in 2008

Watson had 7 FEWER receptions in 2008 than in 2009.

Morris had 2 FEWER receptions in 2008 than in 2009.

Gaffney only had 1 more reception in 2008 than Edelman had in 2009.

There were 6 players with 10+ receptions in 2008. There were 9 players with 10+ receptions in 2009.

In 2008 there was a higher percentage of receptions by Moss/Welker than in 2009. Now I'm sure I'm just trying to pick a fight here and not giving any facts.

Watson missed 5 games last year. He didnt miss any this season.

Morris is a RB, why should his receiving numbers be brought up? He should have been utilized more in the running game. Morris missed 4 games this season and 3 games last year. He had 407 more yards last year than this year. That is my point he could have been used more.

Edelman was used effectively this year, I wont deny that.

There were players on this years roster that the Patriots didnt get maximum talent out of because they werent utilized in the correct way.

 

[NHPATSFAN11]

I see the major concern of this team to be their offensive play-calling. If nothing else, the super bowl demonstrated how important offensive game plans and play calling is. The Saints compeletely dominated the Colts with their offensive strategy and won the game on their own terms rather than tyring to avoid the loss. The Patriots lacked that offensive creativity this year which was very uncharacteristic of them. Emperor Bill is going a bit mad lately but his madness could indeed be a good thing for the Defense. However, Im still concerned for the OC position, though I have faith the Patriots will find the appropriate fit.

 

[Deus Irae]

I see the major concern of this team to be their offensive play-calling. If nothing else, the super bowl demonstrated how important offensive game plans and play calling is. The Saints compeletely dominated the Colts with their offensive strategy and won the game on their own terms rather than tyring to avoid the loss. The Patriots lacked that offensive creativity this year which was very uncharacteristic of them. Emperor Bill is going a bit mad lately but his madness could indeed be a good thing for the Defense. However, Im still concerned for the OC position, though I have faith the Patriots will find the appropriate fit.

The Saints didn't completely dominate the Colts. Peyton Manning choked and gave the Saints the game when he was going for a game tying score late in the game. And the lesson that should have been taken from that is that execution is the key. This "offensive creativity" myth is just that. How'd that reverse work out for the Saints?

By the way, the Saints also used an onside kick to skew the possession number in their favor. In essence, the Saints led off both halves with the ball, and that was a huge advantage.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Watson missed 5 games last year. He didnt miss any this season.

Morris is a RB, why should his receiving numbers be brought up? He should have been utilized more in the running game. Morris missed 4 games this season and 3 games last year. He had 407 more yards last year than this year. That is my point he could have been used more.

Maroney missed just about all of 2008.

Edelman was used effectively this year, I wont deny that.

There were players on this years roster that the Patriots didnt get maximum talent out of because they werent utilized in the correct way.

No one claimed they got maximum value/performance out of everyone. But the OC was not a big problem for the 2009 Patriots.

 

[emoney_33]

Peyton Manning choked and gave the Saints the game when he was going for a game tying score late in the game.

Let's not pretend that Peyton Manning is so powerful that the only reason the Saints won was because Manning "gave" them the game.