Mid season "additions" to the offense

[BradyManny]

Last season, the Patriots team had what I'd call mid season additions - aka, some of their best players returning to health - Seymour, Bruschi - and it was as comparable to trading deadline moves in baseball. Suddenly we were [back] in the NFL's elite.

I don't see such additions coming from the injured list this season, but from the rookies - Chad Jackson, Garrett Mills and Dave Thomas - who up to this point have had little to no contribution. If they all start to contribute and we start to use them, this will be a much more dangerous offense.

So far all those disappointed with the offense thus far this season - and I am certainly one, maybe my expectations were too astronomically high - look forward to a few mid season "additions" in the form of 3 talented offensive rookies working their way into the offense.

Note: This thread was mainly inspired by a reaction to the silly "trade for somebody!!" talk I heard on the way into work today on EEI.

 

[JoePats]

Mills's role is very limited, Thomas did have the big catch against the Jets...

But I agree w/ you regarding Jackson. Remember he practiced only 3 times in training camp. He showed against the Jets he has the ability, give him some time.

 

[BradyManny]

Mills's role is very limited, Thomas did have the big catch against the Jets...

But I agree w/ you regarding Jackson. Remember he practiced only 3 times in training camp. He showed against the Jets he has the ability, give him some time.

Good points - and Thomas did have a sensational grab yesterday as well. But my point mainly was that all three of these guys will have some say in the Pats success in the second half of the season. They will be akin to trading for offensive help, just as Seymour and Bruschi coming back was akin to trading for D help last season.

 

[BradyManny]

Wow, was my thread really only worthy of 3 posts (2 of which were mine!)? No one agrees with the assesment[that the 3 rookies will improve the O like Seymour/Bruschi becoming healthy did to the D]?

 

[Poll]

It's not really a matter of additions, but of learning.

 

[amazinPats]

Wow, was my thread really only worthy of 3 posts (2 of which were mine!)? No one agrees with the assesment[that the 3 rookies will improve the O like Seymour/Bruschi becoming healthy did to the D]?

Appreciate your point, but I say that you cannot look at injury returnees as additions since you're likely to have injury subtractions over the course of the season. They should cancel each other out.

I never paid much attention to columnists who claim a team should be much better because they will have certain players back who were injured the previous year. But what of the players who will fall to injuries this year? Injuries both add and subtract to teams. One simply assumes that they roughly cancel each other out. We get Rodney back--sure--but then lose Randall Gay (for example.)

 

[patsox23]

It's not really a matter of additions, but of learning.

I totally agree. Some might read this thread and think, "Great - THIS year we're getting mid-season help from unproven rookies (as opposed to getting Seymour and Bruschi back). That's a big downgrade." But the point is, the offense is going to improve as many elements (not just rookies) adjust to the scheme and each other.

 

[BradyManny]

We get Rodney back--sure--but then lose Randall Gay (for example.)

Rodney Harrison = Randall Gay Don't let Rodney hear you say that.

I was speaking more along the lines of last season, the Pats were sort of biding their teams, grinding out wins until some of their main contributors returned to health. Then, they become an elite team which could have won the Super Bowl. This team already has a chance to win a Super Bowl as is, but I think it has players on its roster who have not contributed who will make a difference and take the team to another level.

 

[sarge]

I think two things have contributed to the weak offensive showing, and you will thing I am crazy when I bring up the second one.

First, I think people who feel Brady should pick up were he left off with a completely new group of receivers are kidding themselves. This can take time. A lot of time.

The second. Brady doesn't play particularly well with a lead. He never really has. I don't know what it is about Brady, but the guy can start playing badly when he is ahead.

And for the most part (Exeption Denver who for some reason or another owns Brady's soul save one game), the Pats have lead.

I'm sure you can dig up a game somewhere here or there where Brady dominated with a lead (I bet in those cases you will find it was a revenge game,ie against Pitt or Buff). But his whole career, he has played his best ball from behind.

Think of it like how Manning sucks when he plays quality opponents in the Playoffs with presure. Brady just doesn't play well without presure.

 

[Drewwho]

Think of it like how Manning sucks when he plays quality opponents in the Playoffs with presure. Brady just doesn't play well without presure.

I can't agree. How can he have been a QB of a team that won 3 SB in 4 years, 21 straight, and no back to back loses in the past 54 games?

Brady does just fine with and without the lead. His sense of urgency maybe kicks in more visibly, but it's not like he is giving up when they are in the lead. He can't be the QB with a 72-24 record (best winning percentage in the SB era) if that was a true statement!

 

[Patriotic]

And Brady is 52-2 when the Pats lead at halftime. Not bad!

 

[jczxohn1]

For whatever reason, Brady has looked erratic this year. Make no mistake about it.

 

[Fencer]

Brady doesn't play particularly well with a big lead. He never really has. I don't know what it is about Brady, but the guy can start playing badly when he is way ahead.

Fixed that for you. He's money with a small lead, as is demonstrated by his phenomenal track record at closing out games he leads after two or three quarters.

 

[sarge]

And Brady is 52-2 when the Pats lead at halftime. Not bad!

I'm not saying he was giving up games when he has the lead. Just doesn't convert as many third downs mainly.

I'm saying he doesn't play as well with a lead as he does without.

Am I really the only one who perceives this?

 

[Drewwho]

For whatever reason, Brady has looked erratic this year. Make no mistake about it.

Don't you think this is too much of a conicidence on why Brady has look so off all year? He is still not meshing with these guys. Until they play more games I am not willing to blame this on Brady just yet. Sure, he does not look great, but I think the problem is the entire offense including play calling and timing at WR and timing for the OL. At times the OL has looked great, but when they are blitzed they fall apart too easily.

I think that Brady is working his butt off trying to right this thing and I have confidence that he and the coaches will.

I just hope they can get one guy that can stretch the field. Brady's deep balls look horrid this year and I think 50% of that is due to not having the speedy guy on the roster to get down the field.

I say that Brady = Fustrated!

 

[DarrylS]

One of the things they were babbling about on the big show is that the new receivers are not reading the blitz packages, Brady is gettin it but Caldwell et al are not. Troy Brown got his receptions based on this last week. When these guys all get into sinc the offense will look much different, I do not view it as play calling, but more of execution of the offense. Brady looks fine this team has a lot of depth and I would look for more varied play calling as the season progresses and the receivers become more acclimated to this team.