How worried are you about not having Mankins?

[Kontradiction]

How did the team 'obviously disagree'? A vet at the minimum who is close to retirement and a 3rd roun pick is hardly an allout effort to solve a disastrous problem. By th way I did not say 'minimal at best' and I supoorted improving the spot. My argument was never that it was good, just that it was less relevant and necessary to success as it was being made out to be. BB seems to agree by only using a 3rd round pick and signing a cheap FA to fill the need. Seems he would agree with me that CB was bigger, since he used a #1, that TE was bigger since he used 2 picks and overhauled the spot.

Not surprisingly, you're being overly literal in order to avoid biting the bullet. The team signed Torry Holt as a free agent to upgrade Aiken and then followed that up by addressing the other options. They spent three draft picks on new receiving options for Brady: one speedy WR, one H-Back that could threaten the seam, and one big bodied tight end for a reliable red zone threat. That's four moves made to address the other options outside of Welker and Moss in the passing game. CLEARLY the team felt that addressing these areas of the passing game was more relevant than you did. I've already admitted to be wrong about something in this thread. Are you so incapable of doing the same? Because you were pretty clearly wrong here.

Whn did I do that?

Considering the fact that I've been hammering away at the point of Connolly not being the best protection for Brady and the fact that you've spent this entire time writing a master's thesis arguing with me, I'd say you've been doing it throughout the entire thread.

Not necessarily. You can be a competant player and also be behind another competant player. Kaczur hs started 5 years, and we have 3 starting caliber Ts. The fact that the one best suited to play inside is moved inside is by no means a condemnation of the other players at the position he is competing with.

Sure it is. Kaczur has played his entire career at RT. He's a swing guy. Connolly is a true guard. What has transpired is that the team decided to move the RT over to the other side of the line into a different position. That pretty much states that the team viewed Connolly as we should be viewing him - as a back-up that they didn't want starting a 16 game season. We're now looking at him starting a 16 game season. Though, for what it's worth, I agree that Kaczur is better suited at guard than at tackle.

So this is about you being upset that we sustained an injury?

OMG the arrogance!!1 No, not even close.

Well that happens. I didnt kno this thread was to whine about having an injury, In thought it was to discuss the ramifications of the injury. Thats what I was doing by discussing the body of work of the player who is filling in.
Should I have typed.
"Wow I'm depressed a player is hurt and we have to elevate a backup. I'm going to go hide in the corner"?

Actually this thread is about how worried we are that our All-Pro guard is in California right now. With the second stringer going down and a third stringer who has some obvious weaknesses in his game coming in and looking at a full season as a starter, my position is that I'm pretty worried. Your position is that you're not. Hence my acknowledgment that you're convinced that we can just plug Connolly right in and not suffer any consequences for it.

Whether I want that or not is quite irrellevant

I have already typed
I wish Mankins was here.
I wish Kaczur was healthy.
I rated Connolly as a medicore starter.
Why are you asking it all over again.

Actually, that question and your answer is about as relevant as it gets. As I said at the top of the thread...

2. As a back-up, nobody should feel comfortable with having him starting. Since the thread is about how worried we are about not having Mankins, it's certainly relevant to discuss this in this topic.

So why on Earth would you be comfortable looking at a 16 game season with a "mediocre starter" at LG given the injury issues we've already had on the offensive line in recent years?

We willl have backups playing starters minutes. So will every other team. That creates a disadvantage.

The goal is to field the best team possible right now. When your quarterback is the best in the game and he happens to be a guy that has gotten way too banged up in recent years, you want to put the best line in front of him. We both now agree that Connolly is not that guy. But please, type out a 2,000 word response still.

I think that if tht position is LG, I am less concerned than I would be at many positions because we have a backup who has proven capable of starting. Does that mean the problem is solved? Of course not. But my confidence level that the impact of losing THIS STARTER doesn't seem debilitating. We don't know how he will play. If we could know that, there would be no point playing the games. But based on how he has played, I'm not overly worried.

Gotta love the contradiction here. Let me remind you of what you just wrote...

I rated Connolly as a medicore starter.

So wait, now you're not worried about a mediocre starter at the LG spot when this quarterback's cryptonite is clearly pressure up the middle? The clear question here isn't what I'm arguing in regards to. It's what YOU'RE arguing about, Andy. I recommend that you take a step back and figure that out before wasting your time responding again.

 

[BPF]

I'm sure the Pats would love to have Mankins playing LG but if they don't I'm sure they'll manage fine without him. You can win with less than a stud at G in the NFL, many teams have done so including the Pats. The Pats have won SB's with Compton, Andruzzi and Woody playing G, all solid players but none on Mankins level. The Pats have also won with Ashworth and Robinson-Randall playing RT so Dante has proven his worth as an OL coach who maximizes a player's talents.

Nice take on situation: Patriots will be fine without Logan Mankins - AFC East Blog - ESPN

 

[DarrylStingley]

I'm reasonably worried.

My take on it is somewhat simple. In my view, NFL teams need a certain amount of really excellent players to succeed. Mankins is one of those players on the Pats. I don't know exactly how many they have now, and we'll have a much better sense 4-6 weeks into the season, but I do know that the 2009 Pats had way too few of them, and that Logan was one of them.

They need to get him back to work.

And by the way, Kaczur's absense has almost nothing to do with my view, as I don't view him as being anything above adequate.

 

[ausbacker]

Nice take on situation: Patriots will be fine without Logan Mankins - AFC East Blog - ESPN

The reality is Mankins is probably our best lineman and we'd be better with him there even in light of the comment that we'll be fine without him.

I'd like to see the Patriots and Mankins kiss and make up but not for the best guard contract in the NFL as he's not the best guard in the NFL.

 

[Joker]

Connolly looked fine out there tonight...he can play...he's 6"4", 315 and he hasn't been pushed around by the Saints defense...a good start for him early in the season

 

[blackcat54]

Connolly looked fine out there tonight...he can play...he's 6"4", 315 and he hasn't been pushed around by the Saints defense...a good start for him early in the season

I agree, he looked good out there against a good Saints D. Even though it is early, I am feeling a lot better about the O-line.

 

[Kontradiction]

Connolly looked pretty solid in run blocking. Not a big enough sample size in the passing game at this point to really make a judgment. But he's a solid run blocker.

 

[Ring 6]

Not surprisingly, you're being overly literal in order to avoid biting the bullet. The team signed Torry Holt as a free agent to upgrade Aiken and then followed that up by addressing the other options. They spent three draft picks on new receiving options for Brady: one speedy WR, one H-Back that could threaten the seam, and one big bodied tight end for a reliable red zone threat. That's four moves made to address the other options outside of Welker and Moss in the passing game. CLEARLY the team felt that addressing these areas of the passing game was more relevant than you did. I've already admitted to be wrong about something in this thread. Are you so incapable of doing the same? Because you were pretty clearly wrong here.

So, changing all of the TEs is your 'proof' that the team felt #3 WR was a big issue? We sign vets for cheap at many positions every year. Holt isnt a signal of nnything, same with a 3rd round pick. You cannot argue that drafting TIGHT ENDS is a CLEAR MESSAGE that the team felt 3RD WR was a big problem, thats ridiculous, and you know it.

Considering the fact that I've been hammering away at the point of Connolly not being the best protection for Brady and the fact that you've spent this entire time writing a master's thesis arguing with me, I'd say you've been doing it throughout the entire thread.

I have been defending the point that he played solidly when he stepped in last year.
I made that statement, you disagreed, that is what the subsequent discusion was based upon.
I have said over and over that if we have to lose a starter and start a backup I feel better that its someone who filled in capably. You seem to think that you can decide what I mean for me and argue that I am saying something other than what I say I mean. I don't know to get past that and be civil.

Sure it is. Kaczur has played his entire career at RT. He's a swing guy. Connolly is a true guard. What has transpired is that the team decided to move the RT over to the other side of the line into a different position. That pretty much states that the team viewed Connolly as we should be viewing him - as a back-up that they didn't want starting a 16 game season. We're now looking at him starting a 16 game season. Though, for what it's worth, I agree that Kaczur is better suited at guard than at tackle.

It means that going into camp they wanted the starting T who is dislaced to compete for the open G job with last years backup. That competition never took place. The meaning you are ading to that is nothing but speculation. Your argumnts seem to revolve around your intuition about one action meaning that something else has to be the reason, and that is flawed.
I could equally argue that Connoly playing well last season clearly inicates that they let Kczr work with the 1s for a couple of practices because they know what they have in Connolly and Kaczur needed the work.
That is not evidence though, its conjecture, just as your 'proof' is simply conjecture

Actually this thread is about how worried we are that our All-Pro guard is in California right now. With the second stringer going down and a third stringer who has some obvious weaknesses in his game coming in and looking at a full season as a starter, my position is that I'm pretty worried. Your position is that you're not.

My position is that expect injuries to happen, and no, if the guy we lose has a player behind him to step in who did so capaby in the past, I'm not extremely worried. That doesn't mean I am certain what the impact will be, it means Connolly has given me reasons with his play to not worry prematurely about what will happen when he plays.

Hence my acknowledgment that you're convinced that we can just plug Connolly right in and not suffer any consequences for it.[/quoe]
Again. Me stating my opinion=fact. You stating m opinion= your misunderstanding of my opinion.
Are you seriously arguing that you know what my opinion is better than I do?

Actually, that question and your answer is about as relevant as it gets. As I said at the top of the thread...

2. As a back-up, nobody should feel comfortable with having him starting. Since the thread is about how worried we are about not having Mankins, it's certainly relevant to discuss this in this topic.

Backups start in the NFL very often. I expect that we will have to have backups start. If all of our backups step in and play at the level Connolly did last season compared to who they are replacing, I will be very happy. Would I prefer the starters play 16 games, of course, and I crying because one won't? No.

So why on Earth would you be comfortable looking at a 16 game season with a "mediocre starter" at LG given the injury issues we've already had on the offensive line in recent years?

Because it is what it is. Every team will have medicore starters. Every team will have injuries.
I am not saying we are better off because of it, I am saying the consequences seem that they will be minimal enough that I am not worried.

The goal is to field the best team possible right now. When your quarterback is the best in the game and he happens to be a guy that has gotten way too banged up in recent years, you want to put the best line in front of him. We both now agree that Connolly is not that guy. But please, type out a 2,000 word response still.

You make less and less sense every day. Now you have strawmanned my argument into that we are better off with Connolly starting? Duh. Once again. We suffered a hold out and an injury. I think acting as if it is a disaster is silly. It is an adversity that shouldn't be too difficult to survive.

Gotta love the contradiction here. Let me remind you of what you just wrote...

I rated Connolly as a medicore starter.

So wait, now you're not worried about a mediocre starter at the LG spot when this quarterback's cryptonite is clearly pressure up the middle? The clear question here isn't what I'm arguing in regards to. It's what YOU'RE arguing about, Andy. I recommend that you take a step back and figure that out before wasting your time responding again.

I cant say more times or more clearly.
I'm not happy that Mankins isnt here. I'd like Kaczur to be healthy.
Neither is.
I think we will be fine, not as good, but still fine, with Connolly at LG. I can think of MANY positions where needed our backup to start would be a bigger problem

 

[PatsCanDoIt]

Third quarter I see Bussey(66) in at LG. He looks pretty good to my amateur eyes. On one play he moved a guy seven yards backwards. OTOH, it is preseason up against scrubs.

 

[RyanP421]

Ummm... you do realize Brady was sacked less times last year (only 16 times which other than Manning was the fewest sacks of any Qb who started all 16 games last year) than any year in his career?

Did you realize that just because a QB doesn't take a sack in the stat column that it doesnt mean he is being hurried by tons of rushers that get through the OL?

Give me a break. The ignorance sometimes...I hate it when people say "The OL was great cause there weren't many sacks." Or, the defense didn't have any pass rush at all cause they didn't get a sack.

Sacks are one of the most over rated stats in the game.

Tom Brady was on his ass a LOT last year and he paid for the OL's issues. Just cause he is able to throw the ball away and take a sack in the stat column doesnt mean he had all the time in the world.




So yeah, don't go acting like a "knowitall" unless you actually KNOW.

 

[Ring 6]

Did you realize that just because a QB doesn't take a sack in the stat column that it doesnt mean he is being hurried by tons of rushers that get through the OL?

Give me a break. The ignorance sometimes...I hate it when people say "The OL was great cause there weren't many sacks." Or, the defense didn't have any pass rush at all cause they didn't get a sack.

Sacks are one of the most over rated stats in the game.

Tom Brady was on his ass a LOT last year and he paid for the OL's issues. Just cause he is able to throw the ball away and take a sack in the stat column doesnt mean he had all the time in the world.




So yeah, don't go acting like a "knowitall" unless you actually KNOW.

In fairness, QBs who get sacked a lot also are under pressure more than QBs who dont get sacked a lot.
Its not impossible but it is rare that an offense that allows few sacks allows more pressures than one allowing a lot of sacks.
The problem, especially here is that if Brady gets hit 3 times in a game people rip the OL. Perhaps any hit on Brady is reason to be unhappy, but its hard to rip the OL for the QB getting hit, when everyones elses QBs are hit more often.
This is not a unique issue either, defensive pass rush, 3rd down conversions, corners getting beaten deep, and play calling are all criticized when they happen whether the frequency is good, bad or ugly.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Who??? If he'd been here tonight Randy Cross might have renamed him Leslie Mankins. The cows did a damn fine job tonight without the cowboy.

 

[Ring 6]

Who??? If he'd been here tonight Randy Cross might have renamed him Leslie Mankins. The cows did a damn fine job tonight without the cowboy.

It did sound like someone from the Connolly family asked Randy to be kind though. Not that Connolly didnt play well, but this is one of my issues with broadcasters, epecially the CBS guys. It seems like they pick out a few guys each game that they want to pimp, or rip, and then they focus on them for any plays that they support the opinion.
Kind of along the same line, I like Simms, but he consistently sees something happen twice and decides it happened all game. I don't know how many times I've seen the Pats stop the run until the 4th drive or so, then after 2 good runs say something like The Bills have been running the ball well all day.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

I'm not 'worried' but I hope they work it out, football's never a cakewalk. I'd feel better if everyone involved sang Kumbaya

 

[RyanP421]

In fairness, QBs who get sacked a lot also are under pressure more than QBs who dont get sacked a lot.
Its not impossible but it is rare that an offense that allows few sacks allows more pressures than one allowing a lot of sacks.
The problem, especially here is that if Brady gets hit 3 times in a game people rip the OL. Perhaps any hit on Brady is reason to be unhappy, but its hard to rip the OL for the QB getting hit, when everyones elses QBs are hit more often.
This is not a unique issue either, defensive pass rush, 3rd down conversions, corners getting beaten deep, and play calling are all criticized when they happen whether the frequency is good, bad or ugly.

I disagree.

Some QBs have themselves to blame when taking a sack. Some QBs are more gifted in the area of getting rid of the ball while being taken down to the ground. That doesn't mean one received better OL protection than the other. It just means one was able to throw the ball away. Brady has always been very good at getting rid of the ball and avoiding taking a sack. That doesn't mean he's not being rushed or hit though.

Last year he was rushed and hit a lot. I don't give a damn if it doesn't show up in the box score as a sack on Brady, that doesn't mean the OL did their job as well as they should.

 

[efin98]

Who??? If he'd been here tonight Randy Cross might have renamed him Leslie Mankins. The cows did a damn fine job tonight without the cowboy.

The cowboy played...he's wearing #12 not #70.

 

[Jackson 2]

After the game Troy Brown on Comcast said that Logan should be rushing to pick up the pen and sign. Just his take.

 

[efin98]

After the game Troy Brown on Comcast said that Logan should be rushing to pick up the pen and sign. Just his take.

Any elaboration given?

 

[jczxohn1]

After seeing NO's Ellis' lack of impact on the NO run game, IMO, Mankins isn't worth more than the $7 mil he's been offered bacause the position isn't worth more than that. Agreat LG is a luxury, not a necessity, and FWIW, he wouldn't be the best lineman this year. Vollmer will be, and we will run to the right, instead of the left.

 

[Ring 6]

I disagree.

Some QBs have themselves to blame when taking a sack. Some QBs are more gifted in the area of getting rid of the ball while being taken down to the ground. That doesn't mean one received better OL protection than the other. It just means one was able to throw the ball away. Brady has always been very good at getting rid of the ball and avoiding taking a sack. That doesn't mean he's not being rushed or hit though.

Last year he was rushed and hit a lot. I don't give a damn if it doesn't show up in the box score as a sack on Brady, that doesn't mean the OL did their job as well as they should.

Well, I guess we disagree then. Brady got hit, but it was a lot less than most QBs.
Brady is our QB. I dont really care how many sacks Carson Palmer would have taken, our line blocks for Brady, and they did a really good job of it.