Is the offense better off without Faulk?

[Off The Grid]

* This forum's stupid is off the charts since the loss to the Jets.

* No, losing one of your most dependable receiving threats and best 3rd down blitz blocking RB in one injury does not help the team.

Concur on BOTH, sir!! :rocker:

 

[Simkin]

stupid question. but i ll take Moss off the field before Kevin Faulk . We ll be fine without Moss. Not sure of who can make 1st downs now...

 

[skinnydog]

Jeez, that's the dumbest statement i've ever seen in print.

We'll see won't we. My prediction is that the second half offense gets better for the rest of the season as compared to last year and the 1st 2 games this year.

Here's a quote from Reiss:

"In writing on how the Patriots' offense might take on a different look without running back Kevin Faulk, the area that comes to the forefront is the shotgun.

The Patriots have been a heavy shotgun team in recent years and the first two games of this season are no exception. When they are in the shotgun, that means Faulk is usually on the field.

Here is the breakdown from this year:

Total offensive snaps: 123
Total snaps in shotgun: 56
Faulk snaps in shotgun: 41

This highlights Faulk's value as a pass-protector and pass-catcher.

The Patriots still figure to use the shotgun without Faulk, especially in the two-minute offense, but it will be interesting to see if they scale back the usage during other parts of the game by keeping quarterback Tom Brady directly under center."​

My real point is not that you somehow get better by getting rid of good players, but that the Pats may very well be better because they will be forced into a different style of offense--Brady under center more.

 

[fair catch fryar]

Let's hear your prediction about the offense without Faulk.

What's the point? It would sound as dumb as your idea. The offense minus Faulk is not better. period

 

[PATSNUTme]

If we could just get rid of all those dependable, clutch players, we might have something.

 

[JoeSixPat]

This highlights Faulk's value as a pass-protector and pass-catcher.

The Patriots still figure to use the shotgun without Faulk, especially in the two-minute offense, but it will be interesting to see if they scale back the usage during other parts of the game by keeping quarterback Tom Brady directly under center."[/INDENT]

My real point is not that you somehow get better by getting rid of good players, but that the Pats may very well be better because they will be forced into a different style of offense--Brady under center more.

I guess I'm just not understanding why limiting Brady's option to use the shotgun - and taking away Faulk's experience offering pass protection when they do use the shotgun - will make the team better.

 

[JMarr]

My real point is not that you somehow get better by getting rid of good players, but that the Pats may very well be better because they will be forced into a different style of offense--Brady under center more.

Losing Faulk is big and to try to paint it in any other way is grasping at straws a bit.

I can kind of see where you're coming from about predictability, but I think having Faulk on the team has very little to do with how many times we run out of the shotgun. Sure, Faulk is great in that role, but all the more reason he will be sorely missed. He was the best clutch third down back in the game, bar none. And they used enough draws and quick handoffs out of the shotgun to keep the defense from totally selling out on the pass when he was in.

When Rodney left, Faulk took over as THE heart and soul of the Patriots, especially in terms of leadership and personifying the Patriot Way. If you didn't watch Faulk closely during the Ravens debacle last year, you should back and take a look--you'll see what this team USED to be all about.

 

[WinstonSmith]

We'll see won't we. My prediction is that the second half offense gets better for the rest of the season as compared to last year and the 1st 2 games this year.

The offense most likely will improve as the season goes along as Brady gets more in sync with the new additions. The question is: would they be even better with Faulk – and the answer is yes.

 

[WhiteWesWelker88]

absolutely



Moss
Faulk

are Big time targets for TFB.

Welker is #1


Faulk out means the tight ends will see ball more (they will get more looks) and Brady will have to find a new option. (Hernandez) etc...

Tight End Sets MORE now

 

[JMarr]

absolutely



Moss
Faulk

are Big time targets for TFB.

Welker is #1


Faulk out means the tight ends will see ball more (they will get more looks) and Brady will have to find a new option. (Hernandez) etc...

Tight End Sets MORE now

Great!!--more looks to unproven rookies who have done plenty so far to show that they're going to have their share of rookie growing pains. Even though I''m excited about Hernandez and Gronk, you're (like most) jumping the gun a bit on both of them.

And Brilliant!!--more tunnel vision to Welker is a good thing Making one of our options (shotgun) less effective is......subtraction by subtraction (?) Sorry, but what you're saying here makes little sense.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Losing Faulk doesn't make the offense better. He does so many little things well, not the least is his excellent pass block skills. But it will force the offense to change some of its options offensively/maybe call a few plays differently because he will no longer be available as a weapon. Whether this is good or bad ultimately, who knows. It depends on if anyone can step up and fill his shoes.

 

[jbb9s]

If you think this offense is better without Faulk, I should be able to search your posting history and find where you were in favor of cutting/trading Faulk prior to last week. And I read these boards a lot and I never saw any proponent of that.

Therefore the answer is no.

However, to to diverge the topic too much, but I always wondered how Faulk passed that drug test after the concert incident? I mean, clearly Faulk is a magician to pull that off, and I have the same sentiments about his performance on the field.

 

[WhiteWesWelker88]

Great!!--more looks to unproven rookies who have done plenty so far to show that they're going to have their share of rookie growing pains. Even though I''m excited about Hernandez and Gronk, you're (like most) jumping the gun a bit on both of them.

And Brilliant!!--more tunnel vision to Welker is a good thing Making one of our options (shotgun) less effective is......subtraction by subtraction (?) Sorry, but what you're saying here makes little sense.

there are so many "great" receivers out there......... why have they not reached that status??? They are never thrown to.

I speak the truth. I make plenty of sense. How do you get discovered if the QB never throws it your way?????

sigh

 

[pdangle]

So that's why Brady should be benchef. Because somehow, for some reason, the playcalling will get better with him gone and the team will actually get better because of it.

You sir, are acting like a buffoon. We are NOT talking about Brady. So please stop.

When was the last time do you think a team game planned around K Faulk? I know you are probably still thinking about benching Brady, so I'll tell you.

Never.

Not once.

Despite all the naysayers, it wouldn't be the first time in sports history a team has benefited from an injury to a player. Especially when the player is

1. Past his prime.
2. A role player, that plays only a small portion of the game.
3. One of his biggest asset is "clutch"
4. Several younger (but as yet unproven) options exist.
5. Opposing teams know his tendencies.
6. Opposing teams know the team tendencies with him on the field.

That and F'n bench Brady.

 

[skinnydog]

If you think this offense is better without Faulk, I should be able to search your posting history and find where you were in favor of cutting/trading Faulk prior to last week. And I read these boards a lot and I never saw any proponent of that.

Therefore the answer is no.

I have thought for a while that they needed to get Brady under center more. I posted about that last year. My preference of course would be that they would have done this without losing Faulk. I think it's clear their 2 minute offense will suffer without him. But, and this is a big but, I'm looking for the silver lining and I do think that if this does force them to change their style of offense, then overall that would be better.

I liked the first half offense against Cincy a lot and overall all I thought they were putting Brady under center more. Then I thought they reverted back to last years form in the Jets game.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You sir, are acting like a buffoon. We are NOT talking about Brady. So please stop.

When was the last time do you think a team game planned around K Faulk? I know you are probably still thinking about benching Brady, so I'll tell you.
Never.

Not once.

Well that's just not true. If you're planning on stopping the Pats on third down, you'd better have gameplanned for Kevin Faulk. And the benchef Brady stuff is a pretty obvious joke, sorry you missed it.

Despite all the naysayers, it wouldn't be the first time in sports history a team has benefited from an injury to a player. Especially when the player is

1. Past his prime.
2. A role player, that plays only a small portion of the game.
3. One of his biggest asset is "clutch"
4. Several younger (but as yet unproven) options exist.
5. Opposing teams know his tendencies.
6. Opposing teams know the team tendencies with him on the field.

That and F'n bench Brady.

Most of those criteria aren't true, though. That's the whole point. Just because he's a 3DRB doesn't mean he plays only a small portion of the game; he plays a lot of snaps. And opposing teams don't know his tendencies or the team tendencies when he's on the field, because the whole point of having him out there is that he *doesn't* tip your hand. He can expertly block, run a draw, or go out and receive the ball. When Faulk's out there, you have to account for every possibility, and there's nobody else on the roster for whom you can say that.

And what younger options exist? Danny Woodhead? I take it you've never seen Woodhead play, if you think that he can come even close to filling Faulk's shoes. By all means, though, keep believing that the team will be better without him. For the record, why don't you go ahead and state all of the other players that you think the team would be better off without, rather than waiting for them to get hurt and then pretending that you 'always thought' it.

 

[HowardRoark]

No. I don't think anyone can replace Faulk. But we should benchef Brady.

 

[jsull87]

God, please make it stop. My ears are bleeding.

geeze these threads suck after a loss. Maybe it should have said "do we use the shotgun too much?"

But yeah we r way better off without one of the best 3rd down backs in the league... killer

 

[PatsChamp88]

Is this offense better off without Brady?

 

[skinnydog]

Is this offense better off without Brady?

Uh, No. Brady's on of the best QBs ever, Faulk?