Logan Mankins Traded

[shmessy]

I don't blame Mankins for getting every last cent possible. It's a brutal sport and leaves linemen crippled by their 60's.

I don't blame the Patriots for making a GREAT trade.

I blame the idiots in Tampa for being so stooooopid. (And I thank them).

 

[Ross12]

Man we really got screwed in this deal. A sophomore athletic TE2 on a UDFA contract plus a high 4th round pick in exchange for an incredibly expensive turnstile?

Tampa really knows how to pull a fast one on us. They took Jeff Demps from us too! **** are they smart.

 

[A man named Brady]

I want to see more Tim Wright, when he's played he's been excellent.

 

[Gronkowski123]

I want to see more Tim Wright, when he's played he's been excellent.

same here, i want wright to more involved. barely played against denver/buffalo.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

same here, i want wright to more involved. barely played against denver/buffalo.

Per Mike Reiss, here were the packages they used:

Zero or one TEs:
3-WR/1-TE/1-RB -- 44 of 86
2-WR/1-TE/1-FB/1-RB -- 10 of 86
3-WR/1-FB/1-RB -- 3 of 86

Two or three TEs:
2-WR/2-TE/1-RB -- 21 of 86
1-WR/2-TE/1-FB/1-RB -- 7 of 86
3-TE/1-FB/1-RB -- 1 of 86

Someone suggested that BB and JMcD purposely kept the two- and three-TE sets a bit "under wraps" here so as to have some things in reserve for the playoffs if the rematch occurs.

 

[patchick]

Someone suggested that BB and JMcD purposely kept the two- and three-TE sets a bit "under wraps" here so as to have some things in reserve for the playoffs if the rematch occurs.

I've heard that, but I find it awfully hard to believe. You keep a trick play or even a scheme "under wraps." You don't keep a player -- especially a young player who is still new to his position and has to build a rapport with his quarterback -- from getting reps and contributing, just in hopes of someday surprising somebody.

 

[luuked]

I've heard that, but I find it awfully hard to believe. You keep a trick play or even a scheme "under wraps." You don't keep a player -- especially a young player who is still new to his position and has to build a rapport with his quarterback -- from getting reps and contributing, just in hopes of someday surprising somebody.

Totally agree. That being said, I will reserve judgement until after the BYE. Wright came in at a not very optimal time and had to get the playbook us every weeks game plan into his brain at the same time.

I hope that he could use the BYE to get comfortable with our playbook without the additional burden of game plans and trainings.

If his snap counts remain similar for the next two games I guess that we shouldn't expect a dramatic change this season. However, I still see a chance that his snaps will go up soon if he was able to catch up with the rest over the BYE.

The same can be said about Dobson btw. I am very curious about his playtime post BYE.

 

[Luxusdk]

I've heard that, but I find it awfully hard to believe. You keep a trick play or even a scheme "under wraps." You don't keep a player -- especially a young player who is still new to his position and has to build a rapport with his quarterback -- from getting reps and contributing, just in hopes of someday surprising somebody.

Ha! And i thought the did the same thing with Amendola, damn they fooled me big time..

 

[1960Pats]

Totally agree. That being said, I will reserve judgement until after the BYE. Wright came in at a not very optimal time and had to get the playbook us every weeks game plan into his brain at the same time.

I hope that he could use the BYE to get comfortable with our playbook without the additional burden of game plans and trainings.

If his snap counts remain similar for the next two games I guess that we shouldn't expect a dramatic change this season. However, I still see a chance that his snaps will go up soon if he was able to catch up with the rest over the BYE.

The same can be said about Dobson btw. I am very curious about his playtime post BYE.

Everyone learns at their own pace.

After my initial (somewhat emotional) reaction to the loss of Mankins, I'm starting to see the light. Call it, dawn breaks over marblehead.

As far as all trades and releases go in the B&B era, this is one that will probably stay on my Disagree list, which is about equal to the size of the Agree list.

 

[DarrylS]

Have posted this somewhere before, so apologize if it is redundant...

Number of sacks allowed by the Pats 2013 after 9 games..... 26
Number of sacks allowed by the Pats 2014 after 9 games.... 15

'nuf said...

 

[1960Pats]

I've heard that, but I find it awfully hard to believe. You keep a trick play or even a scheme "under wraps." You don't keep a player -- especially a young player who is still new to his position and has to build a rapport with his quarterback -- from getting reps and contributing, just in hopes of someday surprising somebody.

I'm not buying that theory either. If they aren't using multiple TEs it's for another reason.

 

[1960Pats]

Have posted this somewhere before, so apologize if it is redundant...

Number of sacks allowed by the Pats 2013 after 9 games..... 26
Number of sacks allowed by the Pats 2014 after 9 games.... 15

'nuf said...

'nuf with the 'nuf said stuff.

The number of sacks is not just a reflection of the play of one LG. For all we know, the higher number last year could be more of a reflection of the lack of a passing game or some other reason. The sack number might have been even smaller than 15 this season with Mankins.

 

[DarrylS]

'nuf with the 'nuf said stuff.

The number of sacks is not just a reflection of the play of one LG. For all we know, the higher number last year could be more of a reflection of the lack of a passing game or some other reason. The sack number might have been even smaller than 15 this season with Mankins.

It could have been a lot of variables, but if you look at a tangible number it makes sense, at least to me.. a small number maybe, but this is a significant difference.

In the absence of any other metrics, will stick with the facts as presented...

 

[pwes]

'nuf with the 'nuf said stuff.

The number of sacks is not just a reflection of the play of one LG. For all we know, the higher number last year could be more of a reflection of the lack of a passing game or some other reason. The sack number might have been even smaller than 15 this season with Mankins.

I also think it has to do with Brady being far more mobile than he was last year.

 

[patchick]

I also think it has to do with Brady being far more mobile than he was last year.

...and finding more receivers open. It's amazing that last year's offense accomplished as much as it did with Gronkowski rehabbing, Hernandez paying his debt to society, Amendola limping around with a torn groin, etc. Heck, a rookie who couldn't even make the team in his second year was an 8-game starter.

 

[mayoclinic]

Someone suggested that BB and JMcD purposely kept the two- and three-TE sets a bit "under wraps" here so as to have some things in reserve for the playoffs if the rematch occurs.

I've heard that, but I find it awfully hard to believe. You keep a trick play or even a scheme "under wraps." You don't keep a player -- especially a young player who is still new to his position and has to build a rapport with his quarterback -- from getting reps and contributing, just in hopes of someday surprising somebody.

That was me, and I still think it's a distinct possibility. Wright played only 12 of 86 snaps against the Broncos. The Pats played predominantly 3 WRs to spread the field. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Pats specifically wanted to keep Wright under wraps for the future, but their basic game plan seemed to emphasize spreading the field more than using 2 TE sets, and there was no need to show Denver more than they had to.

 

[JMC00]

I also think it has to do with Brady being far more mobile than he was last year.

The line has allowed Brady to be more mobile. You didn't see him moving around like he has in the first 4 games because he couldn't.

 

[Patriot Missile]

I like the idea of Pats being able to play different formations game to game. I could care less if Wright plays every snap as long as when he is out there he is effective when called upon.

Why play 2 te's if your killing them with other formations? It just makes it harder for other defensive coordinators to game plan for this team and that is a good thing. For all we know Del Rio was expecting a lot of two TE sets and he barely got any? The most important thing is coming up with a game plan that works against that opponents weaknesses (or just flat out whoop their ass at what they are good at) and exposing them.

I would be willing to bet when they go into NY it will be the Wright and Gronkowski show being they are so bad vs te's and the game won't be close. A Seattle Super Bowl? Yeah, probably then too. Love the flexibility of this offense week to week.

 

[RayClay]

Per Mike Reiss, here were the packages they used:

Zero or one TEs:
3-WR/1-TE/1-RB -- 44 of 86
2-WR/1-TE/1-FB/1-RB -- 10 of 86
3-WR/1-FB/1-RB -- 3 of 86

Two or three TEs:
2-WR/2-TE/1-RB -- 21 of 86
1-WR/2-TE/1-FB/1-RB -- 7 of 86
3-TE/1-FB/1-RB -- 1 of 86

Someone suggested that BB and JMcD purposely kept the two- and three-TE sets a bit "under wraps" here so as to have some things in reserve for the playoffs if the rematch occurs.

Considering some of the WR trade threads, how much time do the 4th and 5th receivers play in a 3 WR set?

 

[shmessy]

The line has allowed Brady to be more mobile. You didn't see him moving around like he has in the first 4 games because he couldn't.

Or last year for that matter.