Price: Patriots super shortcoming was easy to spot Sunday

[patsfaninpa]

Do you have any reference material to support the notion that, relatively speaking, the Patriots face more third downs than other elite teams in the league?

Pats set the NFL record for most first downs in a season. Kind of shoots his theory down doesn't it?

 

[Jimke]

They didn't rewrite any record book IN THE PLAYOFFS that year.

In 3 playoff games Moss caught 7 passes for 94 yds and 1 TD.
5 of those catches for 62 yds (18 yds came on 1 play) and 1 TD came in the SB.
Hardly all-world/high impact numbers.

With or without Wes Welker, the Patriots' wide receiving corps needs to be rebuilt. Branch, Edelman, Lloyd, and Slater aren't worth a grain of salt.
They need to draft and develop good receivers but haven't done this since
Deon Branch.

 

[upstater1]

The only part that made sense to me was being on third and long far too often. Maybe it's just bad memory but I thought we were spending far too much time in those situations. Gotta do better on first and second.

The Pastriots were by far and away the best in the league at these situations. For instance, incompletions mattered very little because of the way they converted 3rd downs and kept drives alive. There simply wasn't a problem this year in keeping drives going no matter what happened on 1st and 2nd down. We have to remember something. Despite Brady completing only 63% of his passes, the Patriots scored 34 pts a game, had 26 rushing TDs in addition to 30 odd passing TDs, and they had an ungodly amount of first downs.

3rd down conversions were simply not a problem for the Patriots this year. In fact, they had their best year ever in that facet of the game.

 

[DocHoliday]

I'm reading the exact opposite. I'm reading others like me saying, sure, we'd love a great new WR, but that with Gronk this team not only has the best offense, but would have won the SB last year (I'm not going to say they would have won it this year since I think SF handled NE pretty handily this year).

I'm referring to a handful of posters who, over the last couple weeks have derided these opinions as foolish and knee jerky and loudly whined about either the thread being practice squad material or the poster having no idea what they were talking about.

I would hope the clinic shown last night by Boldin and Jones would help change their convictions but I've been here long enough to know they'd never concede a point.

 

[upstater1]

Yes, but it probably lost a little when I put it to writing. Basically we're in too many 3rd and longs. Welker converts many of them, great, but if he misses even one, drive is over. And that's what happens.

One game pats had something like 30 first downs. Which is great. But if you think about it, that means you're getting yards in short chunks, and that means you're going to be in 3rd downs a lot. Being in 3rd down isn't good. A short passing game has the weakness of causing a lot of 3rd downs. Then if you miss just one, drive over.

It makes sense. You just have to think about it.

Whatever they are doing, they are scoring a lot more points than anyone else. So how can they possibly be a problem?

 

[Rob0729]

I'm referring to a handful of posters who, over the last couple weeks have derided these opinions as foolish and knee jerky and loudly whined about either the thread being practice squad material or the poster having no idea what they were talking about.

I would hope the clinic shown last night by Boldin and Jones would help change their convictions but I've been here long enough to know they'd never concede a point.

The thing is Gronk would have provided you a similar weapon as Boldin in that he was a big bodied receiver who can be threat over the intermediate middle (although they achieve that in different ways). And Jones was a none factor except for one play.

Jones would make a strong argument that the Pats need to get a #3 or #4 WR who can be a deep threat specialist. Boldin is a good argument that the Pats need Gronk back.

Torrey Smith was mostly a non factor and drew a lot of one on one coverages. In fact, other than the Broncos' game, he was pretty much a non-factor in the playoffs. Which goes against the argument the last few weeks that the Pats need a deep threat starter.

 

[BradyManny]

Teams tend to win more when they:

• are healthier
• play/coach smarter
• don't have bad calls go against them
• don't lose the turnover battle

When you're talking about the best teams in football matching up in a single elimation tournament, the keys are almost always the same.

Probably one of the best posts that will be written all year.

Pats have been in serious contention for the title 7 times in the last 11 years now and came away with 3 titles.

 

[Rob0729]

Whatever they are doing, they are scoring a lot more points than anyone else. So how can they possibly be a problem?

That's the problem with the entire arguments that have been going around the last few weeks. The Pats have the most prolific offense in the NFL and one of the best of all time this year and one game where the offense struggles without their best receiving threat and all of the sudden people make it sound like it is a mess and we should be emulating inferior offenses. I just don't get it.

The offense isn't perfect, but people act like it is seriously damaged.

 

[Fencer]

1. The Patriots surely had one of the best scoring offenses in the league.

I say "one of the better" rather than "best" because I haven't done or seen the math on adjustments like # of possessions or starting field position.

2. Without checking, I'm pretty sure it did well in terms of opponent's field position as well. (Low giveaways, and Mesko kept kicking inside the 20.)

I.e., it was simply a highly successful offense.

3. This was with pretty good health at QB, RB, and OL, but questionable health in the receiving positions. (The top TEs weren't healthy together much; Edelman was lost; the reporters thought Welker was a bit gimped; the bench receivers had their own health issues.)

So why would the playoffs need a different kind of offense? The main theories would be:

A. The Patriots' style of offense is fundamentally easier to shut down than a big-play one.

B. In the dramatic big-game clutch, a "big-play" offense has the edge in coming up with big plays, while the defense has a similar the edge against a more methodical offense.

But I haven't seen a persuasive argument for A or B. And by the way, I don't recall the Patriots winning any Super Bowls with big-play offenses.

 

[DocHoliday]

That's the problem with the entire arguments that have been going around the last few weeks. The Pats have the most prolific offense in the NFL and one of the best of all time this year and one game where the offense struggles without their best receiving threat and all of the sudden people make it sound like it is a mess and we should be emulating inferior offenses. I just don't get it.

The offense isn't perfect, but people act like it is seriously damaged.

If the offense collapses against the Ravens and Giants of the NFL without Gronk and you have no suitable backup for his role then it would stand to reason that riding your postseason hopes on Gronk every year is a little foolish isn't it?

The offense needs enough depth to withstand the loss of any one player (except brady).

Let's look at it another way - why should a team with poor depth (pass rushers also come to mind) even deserve to win a Superbowl?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

In 11 postseason games, not one team won its game while losing the turnover battle.

In the 4 divisional games, the two championship games and the Super Bowl, only one winning team didn't also win the turnover battle (Seahawks), and that game was decided by a field goal with 13 seconds left in the game.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the take from this year's playoffs was the same as it is from every year's playoffs. Teams tend to win more when they:

• are healthier
• play/coach smarter
• don't have bad calls go against them
• don't lose the turnover battle

When you're talking about the best teams in football matching up in a single elimation tournament, the keys are almost always the same.

I agree. But SF having lost the turnover battle still had the game within reach and simply blew it on crappy play calling exacerbated by crappy officiating that went against all they did in the regular season. Baltimore also got the explosive ST play that is often a game changer. And Flacco had the weapons to limit turnovers while attempting explosive plays. Hell, Boldin snagged one on an attempted throw away.

You know Price is right. You've been calling for a middle deep threat forever. You and I simply haven't agreed on the cost or the specific player. They could have won with two explosive TE's in tandem and Welker and tandem backs running and receiving and just a little something in reserve on the outside. But they didn't really have that for one reason or another and that that keeps happening to them means they need a viable plan B that revolves around 3Wide. And for me that starts with at least one big physical WR who can beat jams and outmuscle or outwit coverage and make explosive plays a possibility even if Gronk isn't available. Not sure I'd swap Welker for that, but I'd absolutely swap Lloyd in exchange for $5M. Locating youngsters like Smith and Jones via the draft or FA is something they should still attempt. Only if the only veteran WR on the roster is Lloyd not sure how well youngsters develop. Same would go for Wallace or Bowe. A guy like Bolden could be a role model and mentor as well as a weapon. If Welker goes they will truly need another veteran presence in that unit even if they persue youth for the position.

 

[Rob0729]

If the offense collapses against the Ravens and Giants of the NFL without Gronk and you have no suitable backup for his role then it would stand to reason that riding your postseason hopes on Gronk every year is a little foolish isn't it?

The offense needs enough depth to withstand the loss of any one player (except brady).

Let's look at it another way - why should a team with poor depth (pass rushers also come to mind) even deserve to win a Superbowl?

So let's go without a defense. If the Pats need ANOTHER go to receiver because they cannot count on Gronk, they better be able to put up 40 points ever game because the other team is going to score at least 30.

Sorry, but saying that Gronk is going to be out of the playoffs every year is silly at this point. Certainly trying to retain Welker and getting a marque deep threat will guarantee the defense will have their own problems defending the pass.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The thing is Gronk would have provided you a similar weapon as Boldin in that he was a big bodied receiver who can be threat over the intermediate middle (although they achieve that in different ways). And Jones was a none factor except for one play.

Jones would make a strong argument that the Pats need to get a #3 or #4 WR who can be a deep threat specialist. Boldin is a good argument that the Pats need Gronk back.

Torrey Smith was mostly a non factor and drew a lot of one on one coverages. In fact, other than the Broncos' game, he was pretty much a non-factor in the playoffs. Which goes against the argument the last few weeks that the Pats need a deep threat starter.

Jones made a couple of plays...unless you're not counting ST. He scored two TD's in what came down to a 5 point game.

 

[upstater1]

If the offense collapses against the Ravens and Giants of the NFL without Gronk and you have no suitable backup for his role then it would stand to reason that riding your postseason hopes on Gronk every year is a little foolish isn't it?

The offense needs enough depth to withstand the loss of any one player (except brady).

Let's look at it another way - why should a team with poor depth (pass rushers also come to mind) even deserve to win a Superbowl?

I really don't understand your point.

If you take the biggest offensive weapon from any team, you weaken them considerably. Especially when they are game changing players like Gronk. No question that the Patriots need more guys that singlehandedly can break open a game, since they really only have one. But I'm pretty sure that every team out there is looking for a second.

To translate this, Boldin is the biggest force out there for the Ravens. Take him away last night, and they lose. It's as simple as that.

 

[Ivan]

I would revisit Moss for next season and draft a deep threat with size who goes after the ball. The bottom line is that they do need that aspect to their offense but aren't going to change their approach altogether and will still use that option sparingly, so spending big money for the deep threat doesn't make much sense. This team is a couple of pieces away so you don't make them worse on purpose.

 

[DocHoliday]

I really don't understand your point.

If you take the biggest offensive weapon from any team, you weaken them considerably. Especially when they are game changing players like Gronk. No question that the Patriots need more guys that singlehandedly can break open a game, since they really only have one. But I'm pretty sure that every team out there is looking for a second.

To translate this, Boldin is the biggest force out there for the Ravens. Take him away last night, and they lose. It's as simple as that.

Pitta can also catch those balls, as can their other big TE.

My point is you need a team with depth, and for all the next man up mentality of this team it has none of it at crucial positions.

 

[DocHoliday]

I would revisit Moss for next season and draft a deep threat with size who goes after the ball. The bottom line is that they do need that aspect to their offense but aren't going to change their approach altogether and will still use that option sparingly, so spending big money for the deep threat doesn't make much sense. This team is a couple of pieces away so you don't make them worse on purpose.

After his showing in the SB I don't want any of moss.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree. But SF having lost the turnover battle still had the game within reach and simply blew it on crappy play calling exacerbated by crappy officiating that went against all they did in the regular season. Baltimore also got the explosive ST play that is often a game changer. And Flacco had the weapons to limit turnovers while attempting explosive plays. Hell, Boldin snagged one on an attempted throw away.

I don't disagree with what you're writing here. "Crappy play calling" would fall under play/coach smarter, as would the ST play.

You know Price is right. You've been calling for a middle deep threat forever. You and I simply haven't agreed on the cost or the specific player. They could have won with two explosive TE's in tandem and Welker and tandem backs running and receiving and just a little something in reserve on the outside. But they didn't really have that for one reason or another and that that keeps happening to them means they need a viable plan B that revolves around 3Wide.

I agree 100%. For maximum efficiency, this team should keep Welker and add a WR3 who's capable of either beating opponents deep or physically beating the hell out of opponents with size and strength outside the hashmarks. The problem is that you're not going to get all that and depth, too, and injuries are killing this team in the playoffs.

And for me that starts with at least one big physical WR who can beat jams and outmuscle or outwit coverage and make explosive plays a possibility even if Gronk isn't available.

I'd say that it doesn't need to be a big player if it's a guy who can beat teams deep. It needs to be one or the other. Right now, Lloyd can do the sideline stuff fine and can get an occasional deep shot, but that's not enough when your #2 option is on the sidelines and your #5 option is a game, but seemingly incapable, Deion Branch.

Not sure I'd swap Welker for that, but I'd absolutely swap Lloyd in exchange for $5M. Locating youngsters like Smith and Jones via the draft or FA is something they should still attempt. Only if the only veteran WR on the roster is Lloyd not sure how well youngsters develop. Same would go for Wallace or Bowe. A guy like Bolden could be a role model and mentor as well as a weapon. If Welker goes they will truly need another veteran presence in that unit even if they persue youth for the position.

I'll repeat my (by now) old saw, just because we're looking at money and replacements here:

Keep Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, Edelman and Lloyd, and you've got your two tight ends, two of your three wide receivers and your top backup WR/Swiss Army Knife. If Ballard comes back and is still capable of playing, you've also got your top TE backup, and you're deciding if either Uh Oh or Fells is good enough to be TE4. Assuming one of them is capable, you're all set at TE.

Maneuver your draft board so that your low second round pick becomes a high second round pick without damaging your chances to get the best safeties by trading down in round one. Draft a safety and a WR with those top two picks. You've now finished stocking the WR spot to at least 4 deep (Welker, Lloyd, Rookie, Edelman), and you've not lost out on any money in the process. You've also stocked the safety position with McCourty, Gregory, Wilson, Rookie, Ebner.

If they do that, they'll only have true need at the CB positions, and arguably at RT. Everything else will be replacement/upgrade/competition level problems. That should, barring massive decline/catastrophic injury to player(s) in 2013, set 2014 up to be the next OL/DL draft, and position the Patriots as the clear favorites to win the SB next season.

 

[Rob0729]

Jones made a couple of plays...unless you're not counting ST. He scored two TD's in what came down to a 5 point game.

For the sake of the discussion on this thread, I am only talking about Jones' offensive contributions, not special teams.

Jones is a spectacular special team player and a decent role player on offense.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

That's the problem with the entire arguments that have been going around the last few weeks. The Pats have the most prolific offense in the NFL and one of the best of all time this year and one game where the offense struggles without their best receiving threat and all of the sudden people make it sound like it is a mess and we should be emulating inferior offenses. I just don't get it.

The offense isn't perfect, but people act like it is seriously damaged.

This is the problem with far too many Patriot fans. You guys are bedazzled with these silly and irrelevant regular season stats.
WHO GIVES A CRAP that Brady and Co routinely whip up in a record setting way on bad defenses.
WHO CARES????
The bottomline is they stunk at home against the Ravens this year. 13 points and shutout in the 2nd half?? Are you kidding me?? Btw, Brady was even worse against the Ravens last year in a game the Patriots had no business winning, i.e, the Ravens blew it and big. The offense did nothing after the 1st 5 or 6 minutes of the 3rd qtr in last years SB. Awful against the Jets a couple of years ago. Brutal against the Ravens in that blowout Raven win. Impotent against the Giants in that 1st SB loss to NY.
When are some of you fans going to get it through your heads that this razzle dazzle Indy Colt offense means JACK CRAP in the playoffs??