Belichick Funny Regarding Chad Jackson's Play

[Deus Irae]

I'd say not.
Let me clarify something for you.
I have criticized CJ's non-performance, 'lack of contribution to this team', not his character.
You however have posted in rebuttal numerous personal attacks against the poster for posting an opinion that you somehow can not tolerate. That behaviour on your part is supposed to be a no-no here. Me, I don't care. It's just a football forum.

Some quotes:

I'll stipulate that Chad MAY be blocking well on runs although you Chad folks know that you have no evidence as of yet to support that contribution.

Hey, maybe he should be moved to TE?

The head coach qualifies as evidence, I think you'll agree. Go review what he said about the play selection when Chad was in the game.

It's obvious that like with Gabriel, Tom Brady wastes no valuable seconds in the pocket searching for whatever sector of the galaxy Chad Jackson has cluelessly wandered into. Sad, given the lack of talent in the veteran wideout competition in this year's squad. All size, speed and physique, but not a player above the neck.

Not attacking his character, but calling him clueless here without offering any sort of evidence. Again, the coach noted that most of the plays he was in for were running plays.

What perverse possibly sexual attraction does this consistent non-contributor have to fans of the Forum?

You seriously think that this is acceptable but that Pony Express is out of line? Sling arrows all you want, heck it can be half the fun, but quit crying when people sling them back at you.

 

[arrellbee]

Assuming Chad is healthy - and I'm assuming he is - the team NEEDS him to get involved - but Sunday's screen pass happy day (in part to supplement the run in Maroney's absence) meant that it wasn't in the cards for Jackson to see a lot of passes come their way.

I think you make a very pertinent observation. Obviously the screens were an effective play against the Texans, so it was really good to see plays selected that work well. Also obvious is that unless an offense is so dominant in some particular play that they can basically move the ball with consistency and solid yardage, the offense must be able to adapt to what the defensive scheme is taking away by exploiting what the defense is thereby leaving open. I haven't added up the percentage of screens that Box and Pats1 have detailed in their analyses, but my perception (which could obviously be wrong) is that they haven't been running as many screens as in the past. That's kind of puzzling since the screen is certainly one of the counters to heavy rushes by the defensive line and blitzes from the linebackers. Have there been issues of injuries to the O-line or Faulk that have kept them from using it ? Who knows. The other thing that seems to have been missing (again, perhaps a wrong impression) are the short crossing patterns that take advantage of aggressive linebacker rushing. The defensive game of opponents seem to have been to shut down the run through the middle and get a big rush to cut down on Brady's time to read the field which opens up space between the LOS and the safeties. Again, except for Caldwell, maybe injury issues and a short WR corps may have made routes that take a heavy toll on receivers strategically inadvisable.

It has to be good to get the reps on screens to get the timing down so that it is an effective offensive weapon for the playoffs.

I would love to hear from any folks who have been at games as to what they see in the way of coverage on Jackson when he is in the game. Because of lack of depth for another deep threat receiver, are teams double teaming him? Discouraging to have the limited views from TV coverage.

Belichick reinforced an impression that once Jackson started get reps, he has been used a lot on run blocking. I think this is an overlooked crucial aspect of WR contribution. For example, on Faulk's great TD run the WR (I think Troy Brown) got in a push that slowed down a defender enough for Faulk to get through - worth looking at in replay or slo-mo. Very important. Maybe there is something in Jackson's current capability that they are taking advantage of or something that the coaches want him to get experience in. This is pretty much something that F.B.N. speculated on in his post to start the thread which I thought was an interesting observation - along with the possibility that the coaches are perhaps telling him he has to earn his reps.

Then, once they'd run up the score, tossing some long bombs might not have gone over all that well - could have been viewed as rubbing the Texans nose in a tough loss

But still, Chad needs the reps - and I'd think that even having Cassell throw some deep balls his way wouldn't be viewed as anything more than giving guys some reps... so I think they should have used the opportunity to send some more balls Chad's way.

So I don't think he was being punished by being on the field and not having the ball go to him - I just think the long ball wasn't in the game plan at all.

Here's hoping he'll do something when given the chance.

Well put - interesting considerations.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

The head coach qualifies as evidence, I think you'll agree. Go review what he said about the play selection when Chad was in the game.

Couple points...

BB most always defends a player when the player is the subject of critical questioning. Folks have joked here that that's a precursor to the guy geting cut. Not that there's any chance of that here, just an example of BB's style. I have said (elsewhere? but in this forum) that BB's decision to draft CJ was sound and I'm sure he still sees the potential there. He's a positive guy. And he's in a difficult situation with wideouts.

And ask yourselves why were there all those running plays run when CJ was in there? Could it be that the Pats didn't regard him as a reasonable pass catching option? Guess it couldn't be.

Save the rhetoric to defend team contibutors like Faulk and Hobbs whe get savaged here despite all they contribute.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I would love to hear from any folks who have been at games as to what they see in the way of coverage on Jackson when he is in the game. Because of lack of depth for another deep threat receiver, are teams double teaming him? Discouraging to have the limited views from TV coverage.

A couple posts away is a good on-site observation from the game

Belichick reinforced an impression that once Jackson started get reps, he has been used a lot on run blocking. I think this is an overlooked crucial aspect of WR contribution. For example, on Faulk's great TD run the WR (I think Troy Brown) got in a push that slowed down a defender enough for Faulk to get through - worth looking at in replay or slo-mo. Very important. Maybe there is something in Jackson's current capability that they are taking advantage of or something that the coaches want him to get experience in.

Going with that thought. Givens 1st got PT because he showed that he could be a very physical blocker as a wideout, not because of his great speed. Maybe strong blocking IS the most readily achieved initial contribution that CJ can make.

 

[arrellbee]

You are engaging in wishful thinking. You so wish this player to fail that any evidence from the coach to the contrary you dismiss as a lie. There was no reason for BB to cite Corey Dillon's ability to prove the critics wrong, and statement that Jackson would do the same. He could have left it at, "he's progressing, etc.". Your bias against this rookie has so colored your thinking you can't distinguish noon from midnight.

I think you touch on a very significant point that perhaps doesn't get discussed enough. We know that Belichick rarely gets into specific comments. Your observation about his comments on Jackson and Dillon may well be an indication that this is a serious concern of his - that his players are being subjected to a burden of media criticism that can adversely effect the players involved as well as the team's cohesiveness. Very good observation.

Somewhat OT: I doubt any serious fans of Boston sports can fail to be concerned about the negative impact the media can have on teams. One of my most distressing examples was Sid McDonough (sp?) and his Parcell's bombshell that had to totally disrupt the Patriots leading up to the superbowl. Reprehensible media at it's worst.

 

[arrellbee]

Because, after 3 years, not 10 games, it was decided to move on. However, I find it interesting that people continually overlook NFL truisms in the quest to look smarter than everyone else, including the coaching and scouting staffs. One of those truisms is that players who miss their rookie training camp are usually destined to have a relatively poor first season. While I don't pretend to know if this kid will make it in the league, I do know that the Patriot front office has earned the benefit of the doubt.

Can't say it much better than this.

 

[Deus Irae]

Couple points...

BB most always defends a player when the player is the subject of critical questioning. Folks have joked here that that's a precursor to the guy geting cut. Not that there's any chance of that here, just an example of BB's style. I have said (elsewhere? but in this forum) that BB's decision to draft CJ was sound and I'm sure he still sees the potential there. He's a positive guy. And he's in a difficult situation with wideouts.

And ask yourselves why were there all those running plays run when CJ was in there? Could it be that the Pats didn't regard him as a reasonable pass catching option? Guess it couldn't be.

Save the rhetoric to defend team contibutors like Faulk and Hobbs whe get savaged here despite all they contribute.

I don't need to ask myself that question, because I'm not the one insisting that there's an issue. You are the one criticizing without knowledge. You don't know why Jackson was out there mostly for running plays, because we weren't told. You're speculating, and you admitted that you didn't know if he was contributing on those running plays, thus making your attack even more pathetic.

Save the rhetoric to savage people that you actually have evidence about. I have no doubt that Jackson has brought less to the team, so far, than would have been hoped for when he was drafted. The difference between us is that I understand some of the possible reasons why, while you seem too (I'll be kind) fixated to even attempt to grasp how those reasons would make a difference.

 

[RayClay]

Why do we have a losers message board for a winning team?

Losers are out of playoff contention so they whine about last springs draft picks, criticize players and coaches and look forward to next year.

We're 10-4 and coming off a 40-7 win.

We have some areas that need improvement, (so does everyone)

Isn't trying to improve and looking forward to the playoffs enough to talk about without sounding like......well...........losers?

 

[VJCPatriot]

And ask yourselves why were there all those running plays run when CJ was in there? Could it be that the Pats didn't regard him as a reasonable pass catching option? Guess it couldn't be.
.

Or maybe it might be that Chad Jackson is a good run blocker?

That might be the simplest answer.

Or perhaps CJ is improving his run blocking and BB wants him in for those situations to continue to give him experience at it.

Believe it or not wide receivers do block on running plays and that is part of their value. They are mainly decoys and blockers in that situation.

 

[PatrioticDynasty]

I agree that you should work a player into the system slowly and see where his strengths will be, and what weakness he has you can work on those without totally demoralizing the player and loosing his confidence in his game...
Remember Plunket? He had a good first year, then got smashed to the point of a breakdown...after the trade, he then got rocked on the 49er's for a couple years, then traded to Radiers, who benched him the first year and threw 15 passes the next until when he finally played starter in the 3rd year (Pastorini broke his leg that is,) he was back to form.

To many young players are thrown into the mix and have to adjust to speed, durability, playbook, meetings, etc. We expect a lot from First round picks, sometimes it takes it's toll....BB knows what he is doing.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

BB knows what he is doing.

This qualifies as a hysterical reaction to some who prolifically belabor their own vast knowledge of football.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I don't need to ask myself that question, because I'm not the one insisting that there's an issue. You are the one criticizing without knowledge. You don't know why Jackson was out there mostly for running plays, because we weren't told. You're speculating, and you admitted that you didn't know if he was contributing on those running plays, thus making your attack even more pathetic.

We rarely if ever get the kind of inside detailed postgame analysis on 'why this and that' that you're expecting here. My speculation is based on observational evidence of minimal contribution at best. Saying that his being in on mostly running plays does not speak for his pass catching threat capabilities. BB could well be using rhetoric and misdirection to deflect press criticism and scrutiny from a player who posssibly would find it detremental.

You just don't care for the speculation and opinion expressed.

 

[PatrioticDynasty]

This qualifies as a hysterical reaction to some who prolifically belabor their own vast knowledge of football.

Hysterical reaction? I don't see that, I am just putting my 2 cents in as to why BB has been minimal in chads play besides injuries, and I just used an example with plunkett...

I just wanted to talk about the issue and get off the frivolous banter, geez
then you go and say I belabor my VAST knowledge of football? I know a lot about football, but I am not BB, or Maddon, or Walsh, or Lombardi, or any other great football mind of that sort, and I don't pretend to be. I don't know why, or what the reason, I just voiced my opinion...Isn't that what this is, or should I have continued the monotonous campaign to trash each other in this thread?

come on man, if you want to ridicule me fine, but try and be a little more creative and descriptive in your derogative comments. If you want to rebut my statement then back it up with something more intelligent on your part. It's easy to say "hey everybody, this guy is an idiot"....Why don't you try an explain to everyone why I am an idiot without sounding like one yourself...
Unless you already did that....

:bricks:

 

[arrellbee]

Hysterical reaction? I don't see that, I am just putting my 2 cents in as to why BB has been minimal in chads play besides injuries, and I just used an example with plunkett...

I just wanted to talk about the issue and get off the frivolous banter, geez
then you go and say I belabor my VAST knowledge of football? I know a lot about football, but I am not BB, or Maddon, or Walsh, or Lombardi, or any other great football mind of that sort, and I don't pretend to be. I don't know why, or what the reason, I just voiced my opinion...Isn't that what this is, or should I have continued the monotonous campaign to trash each other in this thread?

come on man, if you want to ridicule me fine, but try and be a little more creative and descriptive in your derogative comments. If you want to rebut my statement then back it up with something more intelligent on your part. It's easy to say "hey everybody, this guy is an idiot"....Why don't you try an explain to everyone why I am an idiot without sounding like one yourself...
Unless you already did that....

:bricks:

Are you sure Box was actually saying you were hysterical ? He can speak for himself, but in case he doesn't - my take was that he was approving of your comment as a sane and reasonable one compared to any number of other posts that show questionable NFL savvy. I could be mistaken, but that's my take .....

 

[PatrioticDynasty]

You may be right, I must have misinterpited "Hysterical" as rash as oposed to funny, In that case I feel like an ***** for mouthing off to Box...

My Sincerest apologies To Box_of_rocks for my very crass reply...

I have been a little gun shy here from NEM responses.
thanks again arrellbee

P.S. I also sent a personal email apologizing to box_of_rocks

 

[SVN]

heard ted johnson on espnradio talk about jackson..fwiw...he said its tough to expect the rookie to come and contribute right away in his first yr...on the same note he said he met jackson and shook hands and stuff and he seemed to be one of the 'new' guys and didnt give much time to ted's son etc... as compared when deion came in the team, all respectful and stuff..
again all jackson fans, iam just mentioning what i heard so dont flame the messenger ..

 

[Deus Irae]

We rarely if ever get the kind of inside detailed postgame analysis on 'why this and that' that you're expecting here. My speculation is based on observational evidence of minimal contribution at best. Saying that his being in on mostly running plays does not speak for his pass catching threat capabilities. BB could well be using rhetoric and misdirection to deflect press criticism and scrutiny from a player who posssibly would find it detremental.

You just don't care for the speculation and opinion expressed.

I'd say that you couldn't be more wrong, but I've seen your other posts on Jackson. I don't begrudge you your opinion. I begrudge you making a judgment with no facts. Here's what we know:

1.) The team drafted Jackson thinking he could play.
2.) The kid reportedly looked good in the minicamps
3.) The kid got hurt and missed training camp
4.) Rookies who miss training camp often have wasted first years
5.) Wide receivers historically struggle as rookies
6.) The kid has aggravated his injury at least once
7.) The coach has said that the kid is coming along fine.
8.) The kid was in for about 19 plays this past week, but most were runs.

That's what we know. So, for you to take that and make an evaluation that he's a bust is without substantiation of any real sort. You're piling supposition upon supposition as if you're Columbo and this is a movie of the week. Here's a little bit of knowledge that those like yourself prefer to ignore:

Since 1990, only five rookie receivers have tallied 1,000 yards, and all were first-rounders with the exception of Arizona’s Anquan Boldin. In that same period of time, only eight first-round wideouts caught 60 or more passes as rookies, only 12 amassed 750 or more receiving yards and only 12 caught five or more touchdown passes. And while six rookie wideouts caught 47 or more passes in 2004, only two rookie receivers caught that many balls in the 2002 and 2003 seasons combined.

Even the best wide receivers (a/k/a 1st rounders) coming out of college struggle mightily. You can keep overlooking that all you like, but it's the simple truth. I don't begrudge you your opinion at all. Just get some facts to back it up before you start coming down on a draft combination that's earned patience from it's fan base.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Here's a little bit of knowledge that those like yourself prefer to ignore:

Quote:
Since 1990, only five rookie receivers have tallied 1,000 yards, and all were first-rounders with the exception of Arizona’s Anquan Boldin. In that same period of time, only eight first-round wideouts caught 60 or more passes as rookies, only 12 amassed 750 or more receiving yards and only 12 caught five or more touchdown passes. And while six rookie wideouts caught 47 or more passes in 2004, only two rookie receivers caught that many balls in the 2002 and 2003 seasons combined.

Hello!
I never complained that CJ did not achieve those metrics or anything similar to those cited .

Total straw man.

 

[arrellbee]

I'd say that you couldn't be more wrong, but I've seen your other posts on Jackson. I don't begrudge you your opinion. I begrudge you making a judgment with no facts. Here's what we know:

1.) The team drafted Jackson thinking he could play.
2.) The kid reportedly looked good in the minicamps
3.) The kid got hurt and missed training camp
4.) Rookies who miss training camp often have wasted first years
5.) Wide receivers historically struggle as rookies
6.) The kid has aggravated his injury at least once
7.) The coach has said that the kid is coming along fine.
8.) The kid was in for about 19 plays this past week, but most were runs.

That's what we know. So, for you to take that and make an evaluation that he's a bust is without substantiation of any real sort. You're piling supposition upon supposition as if you're Columbo and this is a movie of the week. Here's a little bit of knowledge that those like yourself prefer to ignore:




Even the best wide receivers (a/k/a 1st rounders) coming out of college struggle mightily. You can keep overlooking that all you like, but it's the simple truth. I don't begrudge you your opinion at all. Just get some facts to back it up before you start coming down on a draft combination that's earned patience from it's fan base.

You have commented earlier that you would like to find one forum that you could enjoy participating in for a particular sport. I hope, despite what you find irritating here, that you give PatsFans.com a good try for awhile. The factual information that you are interested in finding and sharing here is very welcome and is what makes for an interesting forum. Belated welcome to the forum and hope to see more posts here.

 

[BradyManny]

Week in and week out, BB praises CJ. BB thinks CJ will be a great player, that should be good enough for us.

I think the reason CJ was in to block was for the following reasons:

a) decoy long threat
b) being listed questionable on the injury report = not fully recovered
c) his injury meant he'd missed practice last two weeks
d) he's proven himself to be a solid blocker & his continued improvement in this area is a good thing