Faulk is going to be the xfactor and here's why.

[borg]

I think Kevin would be helpful to counter the Baltimore blitz. Either picking up blitzers or being there with is reliable hands for the quick dump off pass once the rush comes in. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a lot more of him Sunday.

Seeing Kevin Faulk in the backfield..... screams pass to the Ravens. Even if Faulk runs the ball, the Ravens would be more than happy to tackle a slow aging Faulk than Woodhead

 

[DarrylS]

DarrylS you are right i forgot about Ridley fumbling last game. I liked how mad he got after cause he knew that the pats cant have that. I hope they dont shy off him i liked his reaction

Not sure BB shared his enthusiasm for Ridley's reaction.. he needs to protect the football, particularly against good defensive teams.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree with absolutely everything you wrote. Faulk was installed heavily in the game plan verses Pittsburg because he could he help in the pass protection. Unfortunately, the offense ground to a hault. Sure, first game back....what did you expect? Right. BB was scared sh**less of the Pitt pass rush and sacrificed offense to keep Brady upright.
That was regular season...this is the playoffs.
I have a ton of faith in this O line, more so than midseason. I have little faith in an aging Faulk...sorry Kevin. If BB goes into max protect mode, then we are talking about a low scoring game and a Ravens team that can lean on the running of Ray Rice....more so than in a shootout.
Time to do what you do best. Five wide , hurry up O, score points and force Flacco to throw. Best O players on the field.....not Kevin Faulk

Faulk had just one fewer carry in the game against the Jets, and for much less yardage (5.3 ypc in Pitt game v. 1.6 ypc in Jets game), and the offense didn't "ground to a hault".

 

[Dagg]

Turnovers will absolutley sink us in this game, i don think we can survive more than 1. Not sure if ridley will get anytime or deserves any just to Risky. Love the guy and he is our best back but the stage is just to large to risk it.

 

[borg]

Faulk had just one fewer carry in the game against the Jets, and for much less yardage (5.3 ypc in Pitt game v. 1.6 ypc in Jets game), and the offense didn't "ground to a hault".

Don't care about carries, I care about # of plays Faulk is on the field....and I hope for a very limited role for him

 

[Dutchmaster617]

If Faulk is a big part of the game plan we lose look at this season's loss's if i remember correctly when the pats implemented him in the offense they lost. As much as i am a huge fan of him i just think he needs to stick to special teams and no offensive plays. I was hoping one of you stat guys out there could find out how many touches he had in loss's. One last point and i may be wrong but why is all the so called experts saying the Texans are a better oline then ours? I believe we have 3 pro bowlers and Waters is a huge upgrade over Neal from 09. Hope to hear your thoughts GO PATS!!!!:rocker::rocker::rocker::rocker:

I was just about to say this, Faulk was our biggest weapon in the first BB SB loss, and the first BB home playoff loss. 8+ carries for Faulk = Cancer. It means we have no gameplan, also same goes for if we abandon our lethal TE duo for a 3rd string TE (I still can't believe a staff like this does that)

 

[Kjmass1]

If Faulk is a big part of the game plan we lose look at this season's loss's if i remember correctly when the pats implemented him in the offense they lost. As much as i am a huge fan of him i just think he needs to stick to special teams and no offensive plays. I was hoping one of you stat guys out there could find out how many touches he had in loss's. One last point and i may be wrong but why is all the so called experts saying the Texans are a better oline then ours? I believe we have 3 pro bowlers and Waters is a huge upgrade over Neal from 09. Hope to hear your thoughts GO PATS!!!!:rocker::rocker::rocker::rocker:

Please work on your grammar, this is painful to read.

 

[Kid~Brady]

The X-factor in this game is the no-huddle

 

[Belichicknumber1]

Please work on your grammar, this is painful to read.

Im a football fan not a english teacher you think my grammar sucks good thing you cant hear me talk to fast and slurish hahaahhaa

 

[borg]

I was just about to say this, Faulk was our biggest weapon in the first BB SB loss, and the first BB home playoff loss. 8+ carries for Faulk = Cancer. It means we have no gameplan, also same goes for if we abandon our lethal TE duo for a 3rd string TE (I still can't believe a staff like this does that)

It would be a bad sign if BB features our worst RB in a prominent role....being dictated to instead of doing the dictating.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I think the premise in this thread is absurd and akin to saying that we should not allow the punter to punt more than 4 times a game because we lose more often when he does.

Historically, there were times that our #1 RB got hurt and Faulk played a bigger role out of necessity. I have no doubt that our running game suffered as a result. That doesn't mean it Faulk's fault as that is not his role.

In other games where apparently some feel that BB went chicken ch!t on the playcalling and used Faulk more to pick up blitzes (something he excels at) is again not Faulk's fault. If you have an issue with the play calling then have the balls to question BB and don't blame it on a role player.

Faulk is good at blitz pickup and has great hands which would conceivable help against a strong pass rush. On the other hand, he is far from our best runner, so it may be telegraphic to have him in there. Then again, an empty backfield is the same way and the Pats do that pretty often.

Faulk would be good for a few plays in this game IMO. I'd like to see a screen or two to him as well as a few dump off passes in cases where Tom needs to quickly get rid of the ball. I think people forget how many times Faulk saved this team's azz by pulling off a great catch/play on 3rd down.

 

[Deus Irae]

Don't care about carries, I care about # of plays Faulk is on the field....and I hope for a very limited role for him

Point is that your argument was lousy.

 

[goheels22002]

I love this! Put the Ravens and the Patriots in throw-back uniforms and send Ochocinco deep against Ed Reed, with Kevin Faulk swinging out of the backfield against Ray Lewis and you have...2002!

The United States could fight two wars in the Middle East in the time it takes this play to unfold. Or maybe not.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Faulk as an x-factor? I dont buy it. Now if you had said Ocho Cinco...

 

[Dutchmaster617]

I think the premise in this thread is absurd and akin to saying that we should not allow the punter to punt more than 4 times a game because we lose more often when he does.

Historically, there were times that our #1 RB got hurt and Faulk played a bigger role out of necessity. I have no doubt that our running game suffered as a result. That doesn't mean it Faulk's fault as that is not his role.

In other games where apparently some feel that BB went chicken ch!t on the playcalling and used Faulk more to pick up blitzes (something he excels at) is again not Faulk's fault. If you have an issue with the play calling then have the balls to question BB and don't blame it on a role player.

Faulk is good at blitz pickup and has great hands which would conceivable help against a strong pass rush. On the other hand, he is far from our best runner, so it may be telegraphic to have him in there. Then again, an empty backfield is the same way and the Pats do that pretty often.

Faulk would be good for a few plays in this game IMO. I'd like to see a screen or two to him as well as a few dump off passes in cases where Tom needs to quickly get rid of the ball. I think people forget how many times Faulk saved this team's azz by pulling off a great catch/play on 3rd down.

I don't think anyone is blaming Faulk, I will be the first to say that he was the most impressive player vs NYG and BAL in those back to back losses, but the fact he got more plays than say Moss or Welker is a problem, and I would blame it on the coaching folding under pressure (which is what makes it so strange) maybe the line not blocking well enough to execute our best plays too.

 

[borg]

Point is that your argument was lousy.

Lousy??? Do you actually watch these games or do you just add to your post counts during in game threads. Try actually examining the Faulk's role in each game. In Pitt, Faulk was the starting RB and in fact had the most touches on Offense...more than any other player not named Brady...11 rushes/catches....and was on the field as Brady's protection throughout.
And with Faulk as feature back, the Pats accumulated 213 yds of total offense. The offense died that game.

Verses the Jets, Faulk touched the ball once in the 2nd qtr, once in the 3rd qtr, and 3 times in the 4th....when the Pats had a substantial lead.

One game he was an integral part of the game plan, the other he was a rotational substitute.

Tell me again how my arguement is lousy

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Lousy??? Do you actually watch these games or do you just add to your post counts during in game threads. Try actually examining the Faulk's role in each game. In Pitt, Faulk was the starting RB and in fact had the most touches on Offense...more than any other player not named Brady...11 rushes/catches....and was on the field as Brady's protection throughout.
And with Faulk as feature back, the Pats accumulated 213 yds of total offense. The offense died that game.

Verses the Jets, Faulk touched the ball once in the 2nd qtr, once in the 3rd qtr, and 3 times in the 4th....when the Pats had a substantial lead.

One game he was an integral part of the game plan, the other he was a rotational substitute.

Tell me again how my arguement is lousy

Your argument is lousy because there are a thousand variables in every game and cherry picking one that fits your preconceived beliefs does not prove causality, particularly when it ignores the other 999 variables in those games.

If your point is that Faulk should not be the featured RB for the game, you will be met with little to no resistance. However, if you think Faulk getting 11 touches in this game will cause the Pats to lose, then you have cherry picked the stats to support a lousy argument. If Faulk is used in a role that suits him, he can be an effective contributor along with MANY others.

If the game features dump off passes to him or any other RB for that matter, it is likely that other weapons were effectively negated by the Ravens and the check downs were a product of other problems (lack of pass protection? failure to get separation from the DBs? etc).

 

[Belichicknumber1]

WitH Ridley out my worst case scenario might come true which is Faulk being a main part of this offense. Now im worried he is to old and slow ugh

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

WitH Ridley out my worst case scenario might come true which is Faulk being a main part of this offense. Now im worried he is to old and slow ugh

Sometimes experience,leadership and smartness makes up for speed and age.....Kevin has that

If anyone remembers 2009 against the Ravens when the whole team looked sluggish everyone remembers who was the only guy that seemed interested in getting the team to focus on a comeback......yeah,that was Kevin who was literally shouting at the offense to pull their heads out of their asses.

 

[Belichicknumber1]

Sometimes experience,leadership and smartness makes up for speed and age.....Kevin has that

If anyone remembers 2009 against the Ravens when the whole team looked sluggish everyone remembers who was the only guy that seemed interested in getting the team to focus on a comeback......yeah,that was Kevin who was literally shouting at the offense to pull their heads out of their asses.

I get what you're saying but did you not see Faulk in that pitt game?? He was slow and no quickness. I rather have a young Ridley with something to prove then Faulk i just hope i can eat crow after this game but Faulk taking plays away from others scares me....:bricks: