How worried are you about not having Mankins?

[Kontradiction]

Besides, that isnt the point.
I said he was RDE, you said he played NT that game.
Can you admit you were wrong about that? Can you admit you implied that Connolly was responsible for him at least all of the 2nd half, and that was wrong because it was 7 plays all day (out of 58 plays).

Why would I admit that I was wrong when Starks was lined up over Connolly on the hit in question? Why are you holding onto that game when I've provided two other examples off the top of my head? And why wouldn't that be the point? You said yourself the guy was a back-up. You've now completely gone off the deep end and are reversing your stance. Not only IS it the point, but it's also hilarious.

 

[Ring 6]

Perhaps a reading comprehension class is in order. I said that Randy Starks, the Colts, and Tom Brady's injury say hi. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that they ALL say hi? I live about 100 miles north of Miami. I saw just as many Dolphins games as Pats games last year. I know which team Randy Starks plays for. I can't help the fact that you're so sour over what happened in that other thread a week ago that you're now not even reading my posts fully because you're in such a hurry to respond to them.

If I misundestood your post, then I misunderstood your post. Clearly it wasnt intentional.
I have no issue with the other thread. I am 100% certain I am right, and I accept you do not think that. I did have an issue with your condescending comments and your attempts to insult me and insult my intelligence, only because I find it a weak way to argue. The opinion some guy on a message board who has never met me has of me is inconsequential to me, outside of the moment it is topical.

At the time of the injury, Starks was lined up as a DT and was Connolly's man. He was in the backfield during that play and was one of two guys that crushed our quarterback and cracked his ribs. The fact that he was able to do that when he was only lined up against Connolly 7 times is even worse.

See but everything I find says that is wrong. Do you have a clip? I am looking for one. So far I have come up with an account that it happened in the first quarter on a play Starks was at RDE. That doesnt support your claim. And the data says Connollys man did not hit Brady all day.

It's not just this post. It's been other posts over a period of time. You obviously don't like me for whatever reason so I just threw it out there as a suggestion. You might save yourself a lot of agony because, in the end, we all know where this one is going as well.

I have nothing against you at all. In fact, I read your posts and value your opinions. I dont expect to agree with anyone all the time. I do have an issue with your condescending approach (such as calling me stupid when you were doing the math wrong...an honest math mistake by the way, compounded by you calling me stupid for having it right)

So why wasn't he able to beat out a guy who has played his professional career with us at a different position on the other side of the line?

Whether Kaczur is a better G or not doesnt affect how he played when he was playing full time in 5 games. Its irrelevant to last year, and why would moving one of 3 starting caliber Ts inside to start over your good backup be condemning of how the backup played when filling in? Russ Hochstein did a good job when he filled in at G for years. The fact that he never was the starter doesnt change that.

What about the second half of the Colts game in which the interior pressure suddenly went up after Neal left and Connolly stepped in?

Connolly played 20 snaps in that game, and allowed 1 pressure, no sacks no hits, while the team allowed a total of 2-4-13.

The second half of the Jets game? Sure the first half looked good, but, by Ryan's own admission, the Jets did not blitz much at all in the first half. In the second half, the interior pressure on the right side of the line slowed our offense down to a much slower pace. Should I go on?

You mean when we scored 31 points and threw for over 300 yards against the #1 defense.
You are back to arguing anecdotally. Of course his play wasn't perfect. The starters werent perfect. The offense performed almost equally when he was in and when we wasn't.
Stating that the team had issues when he was in doesnt show they didnt when he wasnt. Its like me pointing to Bradys picks and saying thats the reason Hoyer should play.

You admitted yourself that he's a back-up and now that he's starting, you're trying to convince me and convince yourself that he's a starter when the fact is that Mankins' position just got a lot sunnier.

Why do you insist on making up an argument, calling it mine and then telling me I am wrong about an argument I am not making??????
Go back to #81. What was my point when you jumped in?
Have I said anywere that he should be a starter? No.
Where am I saying that the position got better? I said he is a good backup, and did a solid job when filling in. You said he sucked last year. How is me discussing how he played as a fillin trying to convince anyone he is a starter or that he is better than Mankins? You know thats wrong.
Show me any words I wrote that are an attempt to say he should be a starter not a backup, or that we are better with him than Mankins.
If you believe that, take a deep breath, reread what I posted and stop resonding to what I didnt post.
At this rate we might as well argue about how good the Packers are and you can tell me why everything I say is not proof the Falcons are good.


[quoteI'm not sure where you're getting your stats from, but it's flawed. You can clearly go see that the hit in question should have been charged to Connolly. The only reason that I can think of for why it wasn't is that perhaps someone else may have chipped him. But I didn't see it. [/quote]
I found it and posted it below. There is no way that Starks was Connollys man.

Even then, though, the fact that you're stuck on this one little nitpick and are ignoring: 1) What you said earlier, and, 2) Connolly's other body of work, tells me all I need to know here.

I have responded to all of it. Actually I started out by discussing his full body of work, and you narrowed it.
The running game was almost identical, pass protection was almost identical, and the offense scored about 3 fewer points when he played. Just what I would expect when a solid backup steps in for a solid starter.

I'm not acting arrogantly.

Telling me I don't understand math when I showed you the correct equation and you were calculating it incorrectly comes off as arrongant. Saying why argue with someone who thinks Sam Aiken is a good WR is arrogant. Condescending posts are arrogant.

You only think that because you've performed very poorly in recent weeks in regards to your stances. But that's irrelevant right now. Right now, I'm looking at a guy who just earlier today admitted that Connolly was a back-up and now that Kaczur looks to have sustained a significant back injury which could threaten his season, is now trying to convince himself that the very same guy he labeled second string earlier in the day is now a capable starter.

Again show me anywhere I came close to doing that. There is the arrogance at its height.
You think you can tell me what my point is when I tell you its not my point. You think you can decide that I'm trying to 'convince' about a point that I am not making. Where did I say any of that.

Oh wait, you aren't doing that? Then why are you spending so much time and typing out so many words in this thread?

Because I am discussing how he played last season. Why would the only reason to be in a thread be to discuss something the thread isnt about?

Starks was playing right over Connolly when he and one of his teammates forced the franchise to the locker room. The fact that he only had seven attempts against Connolly and, in one of those attempts, managed to crack Brady's ribs should speak volumes about the guy. Now, once you're ready to accept that and want to start looking at Connolly's other body of work in the 2009 season, let me know.

100% incorrect. Here is the clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOHNouLJV-Q
Starks lined up over LIGHT. Thats a fact. Are YOU ready to admit that now that it is posted?

 

[Ring 6]

Why would I admit that I was wrong when Starks was lined up over Connolly on the hit in question? Why are you holding onto that game when I've provided two other examples off the top of my head? And why wouldn't that be the point? You said yourself the guy was a back-up. You've now completely gone off the deep end and are reversing your stance. Not only IS it the point, but it's also hilarious.

OK. Please show me where I changed my argument. You are completely making that up.
The point of where he played was that you said he played NT that day, and after I showed the proof that it was wrong rather than accepting that you said it must have been one of the 7.
If you cant admit you are wrong on a verifiable fact, where are we?

Can you stop the 'reversing' bs. I have been making the exact same argument in this entire thread. If I am wrong show me where it is that I said anything that contradicts my position as stated is that he is a solid backup who did a good job filling in. You are changing the topic to one that is made up because the evidence is mounting against your facts.

 

[Ring 6]

OK Kontra, here you go.
Starks was lined up at RDE.
Koppen passed the NT-NOT STARKS off to Connolly, and looked left.
Connolly DROVE HIS MAN TO THE GROUND.
Starks mushed into Light, then looped around, and hit Brady along with Porter.
After knocking his man to the ground, Connolly went to find someone else, so he was moving toward the unblocked Starks.

Please watch this play, its the first one, and tell me how Connolly putting his man on the ground makes him responsible for someone elses man injuring Brady.
Its all here in living color.

YouTube - ‪Week 13 New England Patriots 21 vs. Miami Dolphins 22 Highlights‬‎

 

[Kontradiction]

Ah, mea culpa, mea culpa. I was at work when I posted this and hadn't had the chance to re-watch the game highlights. While my memory served me correctly as to which gap Starks ultimately went through, it didn't serve me correctly as to who was blocking him. Starks did end up going through Connolly's gap to get to Brady, but Connolly's assignment was to assist Koppen against the DT on the play. So I'll apologize for that. However, it doesn't really change relative collapses on the D-Line in other games that Connolly saw significant time and/or started in. With that in mind...

If I misundestood your post, then I misunderstood your post. Clearly it wasnt intentional.
I have no issue with the other thread. I am 100% certain I am right, and I accept you do not think that. I did have an issue with your condescending comments and your attempts to insult me and insult my intelligence, only because I find it a weak way to argue. The opinion some guy on a message board who has never met me has of me is inconsequential to me, outside of the moment it is topical.

If you have any issue with anything I said in the other thread, you should look at yourself as well. You threw just as many barbs as I did.

the data says Connollys man did not hit Brady all day.

I would be careful of that data. That same data says that Mankins' man didn't hit Brady all day either but Mankins was assigned to Starks on the play in question.

I have nothing against you at all. In fact, I read your posts and value your opinions. I dont expect to agree with anyone all the time. I do have an issue with your condescending approach (such as calling me stupid when you were doing the math wrong...an honest math mistake by the way, compounded by you calling me stupid for having it right)

Actually, it wasn't. But I'll play along again. In order to find the averages, I used the mean. I used the mean to find where the average offense we faced ranked. I came up with just over a shade of 16. However, if we really want to find the midpoint, then we can use the median. In doing that, the average offense we faced fared even worse than it did using the mean. According to the midpoint, the average offense we faced ranked at 25.5 according to NFL.com rankings and 16.5 according to Pro Football Reference's rankings. I'm going to go with PFR's since they were close to where my mean ranking was. At 16.5, we were still playing ever so slightly below average offenses.

Whether Kaczur is a better G or not doesnt affect how he played when he was playing full time in 5 games. Its irrelevant to last year, and why would moving one of 3 starting caliber Ts inside to start over your good backup be condemning of how the backup played when filling in? Russ Hochstein did a good job when he filled in at G for years. The fact that he never was the starter doesnt change that.

Andy, you seem to arguing in this thread that Connolly should now be looked at as a starting caliber LG. Otherwise, I really don't see why you're spending so much time on this as calling him a back-up is really just agreeing with my position. My point in this is that we shouldn't look at Connolly as a starter. He's not. He's a back-up that shouldn't see any significant time as a starter lest we want the offensive line to suffer for it throughout the season. If Connolly is a capable starter for this season, as it is now looking like he will be depended on to be, he wouldn't have started training camp behind a guy who has played on the other side of the line at a completely different position throughout his entire career. Connolly is a true guard and if he is or was starting caliber, one would think that Kaczur would have been battling Vollmer for his RT position instead of leapfrogging Connolly in the line-up at LG.

Connolly played 20 snaps in that game, and allowed 1 pressure, no sacks no hits, while the team allowed a total of 2-4-13.

You mean when we scored 31 points and threw for over 300 yards against the #1 defense.

24 of those 31 points came in the first half when the Jets own head coach even admitted that the team wasn't blitzing. In the second half when they did, Brady was getting the majority of his pressures from the right side of the line of scrimmage where Connolly was playing. In the second half, they held us to 7 points. Go look at the game report now and you can see that it wasn't because the Pats just sat on the lead. We were actively still trying to score through the air.

You are back to arguing anecdotally. Of course his play wasn't perfect. The starters werent perfect. The offense performed almost equally when he was in and when we wasn't.

No, they really didn't. The Jets game is one example. The relative collapse on the right side of the line against the Colts after Neal left the game is unmistakable. When Neal was in, the right side of the line was not a liability in that game. When he stepped out and Connolly came in, the right side of the line was absolutely a liability. The Colts' pressure against that side of the line was one of the huge reasons why our offense stalled in the second half.

The other two games he started were against Carolina and Buffalo. In the Carolina game, on the fourth down try early in the game, Connolly's man was the first in the backfield to hit the ball carrier. Koppen's man wasn't far behind. On top of that, the Pats scored 20 and 17 points in those two games. The offense didn't really look like it did in other games. To be fair, though, there were more and much bigger issues in that Carolina game than Connolly.

Stating that the team had issues when he was in doesnt show they didnt when he wasnt. Its like me pointing to Bradys picks and saying thats the reason Hoyer should play.

Issues are one thing. Counting on the guy to be a starting LG in the 2010 season when he hasn't shown yet that he is capable of doing that is a completely different thing.

Why do you insist on making up an argument, calling it mine and then telling me I am wrong about an argument I am not making??????

Then what are you arguing about in this thread? My point is and has always been that Connolly is a back-up, is not a starter, couldn't beat out a RT for the starting job at LG, and shouldn't be counted on to be a starter at LG without the offense suffering for it. You keep arguing back with me. In this very post, you try to make points that Connolly could be a starting LG for us because "the offense didn't suffer with him in it last season". In the VERY SAME post, you call him a "good back-up". In post #76, you say...

I'm fine with Connolly as a backup G

So which one is it, Andy? Is he a starting G or a back-up G?

 

[Kontradiction]

Go back to #81. What was my point when you jumped in?
Have I said anywere that he should be a starter? No.

If we both seem to agree that Connolly should primarily be relegated to being a back-up guard, and shouldn't see an extended length of time as a starter, then why are you spending so much time and energy typing these long, drawn out posts to me?

Where am I saying that the position got better? I said he is a good backup, and did a solid job when filling in.

I never accused you of saying that the position got better. I've accused you of trying to argue that there will be no drop-off in offensive line play with Connolly in. That's precisely what you're arguing in this thread. My counterpoint is that if there won't be a drop-off with Connolly, a true guard, then why wasn't a shoe in for the starting LG position instead of Kaczur?

You said he sucked last year. How is me discussing how he played as a fillin trying to convince anyone he is a starter or that he is better than Mankins? You know thats wrong.

Please point out where I accused you of stating that he was better than Mankins. On top of that, when you spend as much time and energy as you have trying to say time and time again that there was no drop-off when he was in last year, you're, in effect, trying to form a convincing argument that there shouldn't be a drop-off at LG play with him in this year. That just simply will not be the case.

I have responded to all of it. Actually I started out by discussing his full body of work, and you narrowed it.
The running game was almost identical, pass protection was almost identical, and the offense scored about 3 fewer points when he played. Just what I would expect when a solid backup steps in for a solid starter.

And you're going to sit here and try to tell me that you're not trying to form an argument for Connolly as a starting LG going in to the 2010 season with the above quote?

Telling me I don't understand math when I showed you the correct equation and you were calculating it incorrectly comes off as arrongant. Saying why argue with someone who thinks Sam Aiken is a good WR is arrogant. Condescending posts are arrogant.

Not that it really matters at this point, but I showed you exactly why our offensive schedule was slightly below average using two forms of calculation. Both forms of those calculation agreed. I also showed you why you were defending Sam Aiken by defending the status quo of the 2009 season, a stance which the team clearly disagreed with. But that's beside the point of this debate.

Again show me anywhere I came close to doing that. There is the arrogance at its height.
You think you can tell me what my point is when I tell you its not my point. You think you can decide that I'm trying to 'convince' about a point that I am not making. Where did I say any of that.

I just did. You called him a back-up multiple times in the thread including this very post. When you call a guy a back-up, that would indicate that you think he is a back-up. You did it earlier today. Now that Kaczur has a back-injury, your opinion seems to have done a 180 and now that we're looking at Connolly as a starter, you're sitting here trying to say that it's not a big deal because the offense didn't suffer with him playing last season when there are clearly a couple of instances that it did. If you really thought of Connolly as only a back-up (i.e. - a guy who should only come in due to injury to starters and a guy who we should hope doesn't see significant time as a starter), you wouldn't be going through all of this trouble, would you?

Because I am discussing how he played last season. Why would the only reason to be in a thread be to discuss something the thread isnt about?

The discussion has and is clearly going in the direction of looking at Connolly as a starter this season. You know that as well as I do. If I'm sitting here saying that Connolly is a back-up and we should hope not to see him in the starting line-up this season then common sense should tell you that a guy who agrees with that stance (such as you're claiming to be) wouldn't be sitting in this thread typing out long-winded replies about how the line didn't suffer a drop off this past season.

 

[Pewsterbaby]

That thread up there is a thing of beauty. I wake up at 7 on Saturday, turn on, scroll topics, see one that says "How worried are you about not having Mankins?" I notice Kontra's is the latest entry and it was posted in the middle of the night. I say,"Ooo, look at that. Who's worried? Looks like Kontra's worried. He prolly can't sleep and hasta come over and write all about it and how the Mankins thing is keeping him awake at night."

Then I come to see this thing of beauty with you two guys going toe-to-toe up there when I arrive at the last page. I can't tell you how funny that is to read all groggy at 7 a.m. on a Saturday. I broke the widest smile, scratched my mussed up hair while still standing in my pajamas. I said to myself,"Man, I can't freaking wait until the season starts to see these two go at it. They're SO GOOD at it. Boy am I gonna learn lots about the intricacies of footbawl like never before."

It's like Clash of The Titans up there. King Kong vs. Godzilla. You two are standing in the middle of the ring unloading haymakers on each other. I freaking love it.

Here's to having PASSION about something. Good show, boyz. Well done.

 

[PatsBoy12]

With the new news on Kazcur, I'm quite worried now.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

It's like Clash of The Titans up there. King Kong vs. Godzilla. You two are standing in the middle of the ring unloading haymakers on each other. I freaking love it.

Here's to having PASSION about something. Good show, boyz. Well done.

Are you serious? They argued for like 3 pages about the difference between 16 and 16.5 in another thread.
Seriously.
They will argue anything.

 

[QB12]

To Andy and Kontraction - do what you do best. Post. Don't fight or argue with each other.

 

[Pewsterbaby]

Are you serious? They argued for like 3 pages about the difference between 16 and 16.5 in another thread.
Seriously.
They will argue anything.

Yeah. I saw it. That one was a real brain twister as I read along. It was like the theory of relativity and stuff. Even I, Me, with 1330 sat's got confused with those 2 skewing the rules of numerical logic. I LOVED reading that one too. Problem with the REST of you guys is you lack identity like these 2 have around here. What? You have better things to do? Well, not to me you don't. Gimme a freaking show.
(btw, it pains me to say this, 'cause he's "my guy" 'round here, but Kontra was wrong in that numbers battle. I, if I'm recalling correctly, remember him trying to say the the team with the average defense would've been ranked 16th. Then I think Andy Johnson said,"No. The 16th team would be ranked in the top HALF of the league." Andy's is the accurate division.
Anyway, I prolly have it all wrong, but I just remember reading that thread and saying to myself,"Oh Geebus! Look at this. It's like Abbot & Costello 'Who's On First". One guy is razzing the other with "I'm not gonna give you a math lesson all night long, but for the last time, it works out like THIS..."

I LOVED reading along. Wazzamatta with you? That's some quality voyeuristic entertainment you can get peekin' in on those two. BRAVO!

 

[Pewsterbaby]

Let's go to the videotape for the best of Friday Night Fights-

Andy- "Oh, so now it's MY fault he played for The Colts?"
Kontra- "Perhaps a reading comprehension class is in order." (Bwah!)

Then they go into detail so intricate, it's only visible through an electron microscope, trying to figure out who was blocking whom on a play. Andy's shuffling around in his house with a "hold on. Let me try to find it" trying to dig up film of the play. I betcha both of 'em have a nfl film study room in their house with the dimmed lights and the noisy projector.

Later, Andy's all prepared and goes,"Okay. Now that you have the team right, let's work on the play." As the both put on their coaches hats and stare at their clipboards while talking through their headsets to their defensive coordinator up in the booth.

Andy throws the red flag onto the field with,"Why do you insist on making up an argument, calling it mine, and then telling me I'm wrong about an argument I'm not even making?"

Ooo! 15 yard penalty on Kontra for the underhanded Belichick-ian tactics.

Priceless. Let's have a celebratory "Gatorade Bucket Dump" onta both of ya for that show.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Are you serious? They argued for like 3 pages about the difference between 16 and 16.5 in another thread.
Seriously.
They will argue anything.

It is 0.5. Just for the record the sum of 16 and 16.5 is 32.5. And the product is 264.

 

[BlueThunder]

Andy is really BB.......

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

It's a bit scary because Koppen is declining and Neal is injured so often, the entire interior is a question mark right now IMO. But it seems like we've always found a way to keep Brady reasonably protected when having to replace key guys (Light in 05, Woody in 03) in the BB era I think we will be fine. And wasn't 2001 just Woody/rookie Light and a few cheap veteran pickups? I think we'll be okay

 

[BlueThunder]

Look at the bright side.....


WHOMEVER they get to play G/T will be miles better than Rucci and Lane were.

 

[Ring 6]

Ah, mea culpa, mea culpa. I was at work when I posted this and hadn't had the chance to re-watch the game highlights. While my memory served me correctly as to which gap Starks ultimately went through, it didn't serve me correctly as to who was blocking him. Starks did end up going through Connolly's gap to get to Brady, but Connolly's assignment was to assist Koppen against the DT on the play. So I'll apologize for that. However, it doesn't really change relative collapses on the D-Line in other games that Connolly saw significant time and/or started in. With that in mind...

Well the numbers suggest that the difference between him in or out was minimal.
The issue with anecdotal analysis is just what we see here, you put a lot of weight on one play that was wrong.

I would be careful of that data. That same data says that Mankins' man didn't hit Brady all day either but Mankins was assigned to Starks on the play in question.

No it was Light

Actually, it wasn't. But I'll play along again. In order to find the averages, I used the mean. I used the mean to find where the average offense we faced ranked. I came up with just over a shade of 16. However, if we really want to find the midpoint, then we can use the median. In doing that, the average offense we faced fared even worse than it did using the mean. According to the midpoint, the average offense we faced ranked at 25.5 according to NFL.com rankings and 16.5 according to Pro Football Reference's rankings. I'm going to go with PFR's since they were close to where my mean ranking was. At 16.5, we were still playing ever so slightly below average offenses.

The median of a finite list of numbers can be found by arranging all the observations from lowest value to highest value and picking the middle one.(wikipedia)
This is exactly my point. You have insulted my math, and you are STILL wrong. The median of 32 numbers is 16.5 not 16.
16 is not the median because 1-15 (15 ) are higher rankings and 17-32 (16) are lower.
If there were 33 teams, the 17th would be exactly in the middle, your incorrect mathfor the mean would yield and answer of 16.5, clearly wrong.
Again look at the 4 team example, it clearly shows your math is wrong by having 2 above, 1 below and 1 at the 'median' which is mathematically impossible.

Andy, you seem to arguing in this thread that Connolly should now be looked at as a starting caliber LG.

For like the 50th time, that isnt what i am arguing, and you still havent identified comments that suggest that.
How can you keep typing and typing that I am arguing something I keep saying I am not????????????????

Otherwise, I really don't see why you're spending so much time on this as calling him a back-up is really just agreeing with my position.

No. that is not our debate. I am saying he did a solid job filling in last year, you are saying he did not.;
I say he is a solid backup. You appear to agree.
I say he did a solid job as a backup filling in last year. You disagreeing with that is the reason the discussion goes on. If you agree with that, we agree.

My point in this is that we shouldn't look at Connolly as a starter. He's not. He's a back-up that shouldn't see any significant time as a starter lest we want the offensive line to suffer for it throughout the season.

Backups need to start when there are injuries. When that happened last year and Connolly started, the offensive line did not suffer, its play was very similar to what it was with the starters. Thats pretty unchallengable.
[
quote]If Connolly is a capable starter for this season, as it is now looking like he will be depended on to be, he wouldn't have started training camp behind a guy who has played on the other side of the line at a completely different position throughout his entire career. Connolly is a true guard and if he is or was starting caliber, one would think that Kaczur would have been battling Vollmer for his RT position instead of leapfrogging Connolly in the line-up at LG. [/quote]
You can be competant yet still have a player on the roster better than you. Kaczur is a better player. BB feels changing to G is not a big deal for Kaczur. That doesnt make Connolly less competant, it means we have an extra starting T to play at G, something many teams often do.

24 of those 31 points came in the first half when the Jets own head coach even admitted that the team wasn't blitzing. In the second half when they did, Brady was getting the majority of his pressures from the right side of the line of scrimmage where Connolly was playing. In the second half, they held us to 7 points. Go look at the game report now and you can see that it wasn't because the Pats just sat on the lead. We were actively still trying to score through the air.

The offense struggled to score in the 2nd half with all the starters playing too. I'm OK with 31 points against the #1 D regardless of what poiint i the game they came at, its still a goodjob by the O.

No, they really didn't. The Jets game is one example. The relative collapse on the right side of the line against the Colts after Neal left the game is unmistakable. When Neal was in, the right side of the line was not a liability in that game. When he stepped out and Connolly came in, the right side of the line was absolutely a liability. The Colts' pressure against that side of the line was one of the huge reasons why our offense stalled in the second half.

There isnt a lot I can do to argue tat when the numbers are almost identical that you want to anecdotally say they should have been different. If your argument is evidence doesnt matter because you remember imperfections when he was on the field, then just say you don't really want to discuss it.

The other two games he started were against Carolina and Buffalo. In the Carolina game, on the fourth down try early in the game, Connolly's man was the first in the backfield to hit the ball carrier. Koppen's man wasn't far behind. On top of that, the Pats scored 20 and 17 points in those two games. The offense didn't really look like it did in other games. To be fair, though, there were more and much bigger issues in that Carolina game than Connolly.

Not much different than the rest of schedule. Again, I can pick out examples of bad plays by anyone, including Brady. That doesnt mean they were bad.

Issues are one thing. Counting on the guy to be a starting LG in the 2010 season when he hasn't shown yet that he is capable of doing that is a completely different thing.

What do you want? He is/was our 4th G. It is what it is. What are you arguing here? If we are at the point of our 4th G starting, I'm OK with it being a guy who played 5 full games last year where the results where not really diminished.
Everything else aside, we were not hurt last year by him stepping in.
I am not going to spend the next month cowering in the corner because we may have to start a guy who proved competant in limited action last year. Every other of the 31 teams will end up starting guys they would rather not, due to injury. When its a G and that G is a guy who just last season played capably, thats not a nightmare.
As of today, we have a starter at LG that we would rather have as a backup, but when pressed into starting before did an OK job. Whats so terrible about that?

Then what are you arguing about in this thread?

All I have talked about is that he was capable last year when he had to play. I would guess he will be equally capable if that happens this year.

My point is and has always been that Connolly is a back-up, is not a starter, couldn't beat out a RT for the starting job at LG, and shouldn't be counted on to be a starter at LG without the offense suffering for it.

Repetitive see above.

You keep arguing back with me. In this very post, you try to make points that Connolly could be a starting LG for us because "the offense didn't suffer with him in it last season". In the VERY SAME post, you call him a "good back-up". In post #76, you say...

I'm fine with Connolly as a backup G

So which one is it, Andy? Is he a starting G or a back-up G?

Wow, please try to follow.
He is a solid backup. A holdout and an injury right now has him needing to step in and start. Backups need to start sometimes. When that happened last year, the decline in the offense was minimal.
You keep repeating what I said "he is a good backup" and ask how that conflicts with what I didnt say. Why do you do that?

A backup that plays competantly when he has to step in is a solid backup.
When one player holds out and another gets injured your backup starts.
Thats what we have. Its not the end of the world, every team will have that this year. Ours happens to be a guy who proved he could do a decent job over a 5 game stretch. We shall see how he does over a 16 game run if it comes to that.

 

[Ring 6]

If we both seem to agree that Connolly should primarily be relegated to being a back-up guard, and shouldn't see an extended length of time as a starter, then why are you spending so much time and energy typing these long, drawn out posts to me?

Thats not what I am discussing.
He is a solid backups.Sometimes backups start.
That looks to be the case now.
I look at what he did last year and see the offense was very similarly productive with him in, pretty much didnt miss a beat. You seem to want to be worried, so you are reaching for anecdotal examples to dispute the facts.

I never accused you of saying that the position got better.

You said I am saying the position outlook is 'sunnier' without Mankins. What else does that mean?

I've accused you of trying to argue that there will be no drop-off in offensive line play with Connolly in.

No. Minimal dropoff which is an iron clad fact. The running game was almost identical the pass protection almost identical and the offense averaged 3 points less. I have left out factors such as whether and game plan that contributed to that to keep a focus on the rambling that takes us away from the central point.

That's precisely what you're arguing in this thread. My counterpoint is that if there won't be a drop-off with Connolly, a true guard, then why wasn't a shoe in for the starting LG position instead of Kaczur?

Mankins>Kaczur>Connolly
Again, you are implying that I said there wont be a dropoff. I didnt.
We are best with Mankins at LG. If he doesnt report Kaczur is a 5 year starter who will do a good job there, If he is injured we go to Connolly.
Of course we are worse off at the position. How much? It would seem that Connolly can capably do the job, because he did last year.
What are you trying to get to? Cancel the season because we have a backup playing?

Please point out where I accused you of stating that he was better than Mankins.

Your words:

you're trying to convince me and convince yourself that he's a starter when the fact is that Mankins' position just got a lot sunnier.

On top of that, when you spend as much time and energy as you have trying to say time and time again that there was no drop-off when he was in last year, you're, in effect, trying to form a convincing argument that there shouldn't be a drop-off at LG play with him in this year. That just simply will not be the case.

A) I have said minimal drop off B) That is a fact C) "In effect" I am saying that there was minimal drop off when he played. You being convinced that this means there shouldn't be a dropoff is up to how you interpret those facts. What I am saying is that since he stepped in and was competant last year, I expect competance if he steps in this year, and why wouldn't I?
I would like Mankins to start. If he cant I would like Kaczur. If he cant I would like Connolly to be next in line. If all those events happen, I don't think we are screwed because he stepped in last year and was solid.
\
Normally when your starter is injured its pretty common to look at the backup and assess how they played when they had to.

What exactly are you arguing?

And you're going to sit here and try to tell me that you're not trying to form an argument for Connolly as a starting LG going in to the 2010 season with the above quote?

I'm not 'forming an argument'.
I have an opinion.
Connolly was a solid reserve who played solidly when he had to start last year.
He IMO is still a solid reserve who will still play solidly when he has to step in this year.
I'd rather have Mankins, I'd rather have Kaczur.
What are you disagreeing with?

Not that it really matters at this point, but I showed you exactly why our offensive schedule was slightly below average using two forms of calculation. Both forms of those calculation agreed.

Actually you miscalculated, and if you had done the math right you would have shown it was exactly average, which means the results we competition-nuetral.
If you want to rehash this, just simply explain how your method that has
has more teams below average than above average can be correct when mine has an equal amount above and below?
I copied the definition of median above, please read that first.

I also showed you why you were defending Sam Aiken by defending the status quo of the 2009 season, a stance which the team clearly disagreed with. But that's beside the point of this debate.

No you STATED that, and it was wrong. STATING your opinion is not SHOWING anything. Are you seriousy going to up the ante on the arrognace by telling me you know what my argument was about better than I do? Are you challenging that you know what I think better than I do? Is there anything more arrogant than that?

I just did. You called him a back-up multiple times in the thread including this very post. When you call a guy a back-up, that would indicate that you think he is a back-up.

I do.

You did it earlier today. Now that Kaczur has a back-injury, your opinion seems to have done a 180 and now that we're looking at Connolly as a starter, you're sitting here trying to say that it's not a big deal because the offense didn't suffer with him playing last season

My opinion has not changed at all. I had the exact same discussion weeks ago when Kaczur was healthy. How can the facts of how he played change?"

when there are clearly a couple of instances that it did.

No there aren't. There are examples of imperfect play, just as there were when Neal was at RG.

If you really thought of Connolly as only a back-up (i.e. - a guy who should only come in due to injury to starters and a guy who we should hope doesn't see significant time as a starter), you wouldn't be going through all of this trouble, would you?

The only 'trouble' is that I have to explain myself 20 times because you respond to things I didnt say.
Connolly is a good backup. Connolly played last year and the offense saw minimal decline, a pretty good result for a starter being out.
It appears that Connolly the backup may spend some time starting this year too.He did OK at that last year, so I guess we shouldn't panic. Lets hope that Mankins and/or Kaczur come back so we have a good starter and good backup instead of a good backup pressed into being a mediocre starter and questionabe depth.
That is what I have been saying. Please read it twice, three times if necessary and ONLY apply what I say to what you think that you think that I might be thinking when I say what I mean and you respond to something I didnt say.
That will turn into 2-3 back and forths and an agreement or disagreement.
When you try to tell me what I think, it gets whacky like this.

The discussion has and is clearly going in the direction of looking at Connolly as a starter this season. You know that as well as I do. If I'm sitting here saying that Connolly is a back-up and we should hope not to see him in the starting line-up this season then common sense should tell you that a guy who agrees with that stance (such as you're claiming to be) wouldn't be sitting in this thread typing out long-winded replies about how the line didn't suffer a drop off this past season.

What do you want me to type? Do you want me to lie and say we sucked because he played last year?
Backups play all the time. In fact, backups having to play and play well had a TON to do with our 3 SB Championships. Backup caliber players are all over NFL starting lineups in December.
The fact that our backup who may be pressed into starting did pretty damn well at that last year is pretty f-ing pertinent.

 

[Ring 6]

To Andy and Kontraction - do what you do best. Post. Don't fight or argue with each other.

Its hard to do that when I post that the walls in my office are white, and get a response asking me how I can possibly argue that purple is a better color than yellow.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Mankins gained some leverage with Kaczur being injured to be sure...

But if Mankins is prepared to sit out this year, and sit out next during a lockout, it's going to be 2 years at least until he sees another NFL paycheck.

One has to wonder if he's really prepared to wait that long - and Mankins should wonder whether his market value will be worth more than the Patriots current offer after he's been sitting on his ***** for two years, or less. (and that's not counting the lost 2 years of salary/bonus).