Easley Expected to Go?

[PatsBoy12]

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...ique_easley_expected_to_play_tomorrow_against

Sounds like he's close, whether he goes tomorrow or not. This is good stuff.

 

[Tony2046]

Perfect timing. Need a strong D line to offset the Jags running game.

 

[TriplecHamp]

game might be interesting now

 

[raduray]

I'd prefer it if they only play him if necessary and it's not necessary. Two extra weeks to heal would be nice.

 

[Sicilian]

I'd prefer it if they only play him if necessary and it's not necessary. Two extra weeks to heal would be nice.

I'd prefer he plays when he's ready to go, and not wrapped in bubble wrap because we take a team lightly.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Awesome news

 

[VrabelJr]

I'd prefer he plays when he's ready to go, and not wrapped in bubble wrap because we take a team lightly.

If the doctors say he's good to go then he should play which is everything but a sign of taking Jacksonville lightly. You can't take any Gus Bradley defense lightly and I don't think we will.

 

[deters]

If he's 100% let him roll! Looked good in preseason and did good in his limited snaps before going down. He needs all the reps he can get.

 

[varjao]

players need to play, under training/playing is also a bad thing. No risk to re-injure? If they clear him, play at least some 20 snaps.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I'd prefer it if they only play him if necessary and it's not necessary. Two extra weeks to heal would be nice.

If he's ready to play, he should play IMO. If not, he should not. I agree that he shouldn't play if playing puts him at significant risk of aggravating the injury, but if he's sufficiently healed that aggravation isn't a major concern, I don't see any reason to keep him on the shelf for two weeks just to be safe.

 

[BradyFTW!]

If the doctors say he's good to go then he should play which is everything but a sign of taking Jacksonville lightly. You can't take any Gus Bradley defense lightly and I don't think we will.

One point that you touched on that I think warrants emphasis is that this Jacksonville team really doesn't look bad. I haven't been at all impressed with Yeldon, but Bortles appears to have to have taken his game from "dumpster fire" to "merely bad", after all the picks they invested in WRs they finally seem to have a couple of good ones (Allen Robinson in particular is a guy to watch for tomorrow), and their defense is thin on talent thanks to the unfortunate knee injuries they've been dealing with in their front 7, but it won't be thin on coaching.

The Pats should comfortably beat them, but in 2010 the Patriots should've beaten the Browns comfortably and lost by 20 instead. Even the worst team in the league is good enough to beat you if you take them lightly or have a bad day. We know the Pats won't do the former, but if the latter happens and Easley is healthy enough to go, then having him out there increases our chances of winning anyway.

 

[RayClay]

He doesn't need to play a lot. they've really got numbers.

 

[supafly]

He doesn't need to play a lot. they've really got numbers.

Excellent point, RayClay. They could allow him to get his feet wet with something of a rough snap count. That would enable them to shake the rust off while also giving them 2 weeks for any setbacks or issues that may arise.

 

[supafly]

One point that you touched on that I think warrants emphasis is that this Jacksonville team really doesn't look bad. I haven't been at all impressed with Yeldon, but Bortles appears to have to have taken his game from "dumpster fire" to "merely bad", after all the picks they invested in WRs they finally seem to have a couple of good ones (Allen Robinson in particular is a guy to watch for tomorrow), and their defense is thin on talent thanks to the unfortunate knee injuries they've been dealing with in their front 7, but it won't be thin on coaching.

The Pats should comfortably beat them, but in 2010 the Patriots should've beaten the Browns comfortably and lost by 20 instead. Even the worst team in the league is good enough to beat you if you take them lightly or have a bad day. We know the Pats won't do the former, but if the latter happens and Easley is healthy enough to go, then having him out there increases our chances of winning anyway.

We "should" win. That said, we've thought this plenty of times over the years and your 2010 example (or 2013 example) in the CLE game is an excellent one. There are upsets every week. As you note, just about every team in the NFL has the capacity to get a good bounce or two, cause a turnover, or take a kickoff back to the house and steal the momentum.

For what it's worth, I believe the NEP are 2-9 against the spread in their past 11 games when favored by double digits, so a lot of these games end up much closer than anyone expects. I think we'll know a lot more about the team after today's game one way or another, but I can't say I'd be shocked to see them come out a bit flat before the bye, and possibly more importantly, after the away game at BUF last week.

 

[meatface]

How many snaps did he play?

 

[TommyD4207]

How many snaps did he play?

Don't know exactly, but if I were to guess, I'd say 20-25ish. Alan Branch was extra fired up today and played more than he has all year, and didn't suck.

Easley made that one nice play in the backfield, but he wasn't getting pushed around against the run like usual. Maybe the Jaguars OL is just that ****ty?

 

[PatsBoy12]

Don't know exactly, but if I were to guess, I'd say 20-25ish. Alan Branch was extra fired up today and played more than he has all year, and didn't suck.

Easley made that one nice play in the backfield, but he wasn't getting pushed around against the run like usual. Maybe the Jaguars OL is just that ****ty?

Said something similar in the game thread. I caught some flack for saying I thought he was underwhelming last year when I talked about him in TC. We'll see what he does.

 

[TommyD4207]

Said something similar in the game thread. I caught some flack for saying I thought he was underwhelming last year when I talked about him in TC. We'll see what he does.

I've seen him play well at times before he got here. I feel like it's a focus problem for him, rather than anything physical.

 

[PatsBoy12]

I've seen him play well at times before he got here. I feel like it's a focus problem for him, rather than anything physical.

Yeah, I didn't know quite what to put my finger on when trying to sort of diagnose what I thought the problem could be. I was always feel underwhelmed when watching him play. Maybe I'm just expecting more because of his size. Guess I've been spoiled (Washington, Traylor, Wilfork, et. al.). Even a guy like Wright played "bigger" on the inside. I know he was more of a penetrating guy, but he held up a lot at the point of attack. Whatever, though. I'm rambling and he could prove me way wrong, which would be way right for the team.

 

[TommyD4207]

Yeah, I didn't know quite what to put my finger on when trying to sort of diagnose what I thought the problem could be. I was always feel underwhelmed when watching him play. Maybe I'm just expecting more because of his size. Guess I've been spoiled (Washington, Traylor, Wilfork, et. al.). Even a guy like Wright played "bigger" on the inside. I know he was more of a penetrating guy, but he held up a lot at the point of attack. Whatever, though. I'm rambling and he could prove me way wrong, which would be way right for the team.

Well, Branch has played better other places too, that's the disappointing thing. He was really good at times in Seattle.