Six wide receivers

[Horace's Ivories]

Agreed. Can someone explain what Washington brings that Caldwell doesn't in terms of a 4th/5th WR slot?

Its hard to forgive Caldwell for the drops in the AFCCG..Not say Washington is better..

 

[Jimke]

The Pats need 5 healthy wide receivers to start the season. They will

probably have 2 additional wide receivers on PUP as insurance against

any future injuries. They can also carry another wide receiver on their

practice squad to cover an injury in the short term.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Its hard to forgive Caldwell for the drops in the AFCCG..Not say Washington is better..

For the hit he took against Cincinnati and for getting us to the AFCCG by his play against San Diego, I can forgive the drops.

 

[DaBruinz]

Drops happen. Look at Terrell Owens. He led the league last year in drops with 17. And his were a lot more egregious than Caldwell's.

 

[Seven Nation Army]

Owens also led the league in touchdown passes, so go figure. If you're getting a lot of balls thrown your way (like Caldwell was in 2006) both numbers are going to go up.

And, seriously, don't blame Caldwell for what happened in Indy. That's like blaming Brady for throwing that pick while in an extremely desperate situation at the end of the game. The offense played well enough to win the AFCCG. The defense coughing up an 18-point lead is the real tragedy.

 

[DaBruinz]

Owens also led the league in touchdown passes, so go figure. If you're getting a lot of balls thrown your way (like Caldwell was in 2006) both numbers are going to go up.

And, seriously, don't blame Caldwell for what happened in Indy. That's like blaming Brady for throwing that pick while in an extremely desperate situation at the end of the game. The offense played well enough to win the AFCCG. The defense coughing up an 18-point lead is the real tragedy.

I have to disagree with your assessment of the offense for the entire game. I agree that they played well enough to win in the 1st half. But, in the 2nd half, they couldn't get the critical 1st down at the end of the game. This didn't give the defense time to rest and it gave Indy the ball with plenty of time on the clock.

BOTH the offense and defense were responsible for the loss. The entire TEAM lost.

 

[Deus Irae]

I have to disagree with your assessment of the offense for the entire game. I agree that they played well enough to win in the 1st half. But, in the 2nd half, they couldn't get the critical 1st down at the end of the game. This didn't give the defense time to rest and it gave Indy the ball with plenty of time on the clock.

BOTH the offense and defense were responsible for the loss. The entire TEAM lost.

Go look at the Colts first drive in the second half. That's where the game was lost by New England. The Patriots had surrendered an 80 yard drive to end the first half and then got stuck on the field for a 14 play drive to start the 3rd quarter. After that, the defense looked completely gassed while the Colts were surging. It was just a question of whether the defense could slow the Colts down enough to hold on to the win. They couldn't.

 

[DaBruinz]

Go look at the Colts first drive in the second half. That's where the game was lost by New England. The Patriots had surrendered an 80 yard drive to end the first half and then got stuck on the field for a 14 play drive to start the 3rd quarter. After that, the defense looked completely gassed while the Colts were surging. It was just a question of whether the defense could slow the Colts down enough to hold on to the win. They couldn't.

Deus - I've watched the game too many times. BOTH the offense and the defense failed in the second half. The offense couldn't sustain their drives and the defense could get the Colts offense off the field but for 2 times.

My point is that the Patriots had the chance with 4:39 seconds from the Colts 29 to either run the clock down or force the Colts to use their time outs. Had they run the ball 3 times, there is a decent chance they could have gotten a 1st down. At the very worst, they would have bought some time for the defense to rest and then put even more pressure on Manning.

Manning having the ball with over 2 minutes and his 3 time outs = no pressure. Manning having the ball with less than 2 minutes and 0 time outs = LOTS of pressure.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus - I've watched the game too many times. BOTH the offense and the defense failed in the second half. The offense couldn't sustain their drives and the defense could get the Colts offense off the field but for 2 times.

My point is that the Patriots had the chance with 4:39 seconds from the Colts 29 to either run the clock down or force the Colts to use their time outs. Had they run the ball 3 times, there is a decent chance they could have gotten a 1st down. At the very worst, they would have bought some time for the defense to rest and then put even more pressure on Manning.

Manning having the ball with over 2 minutes and his 3 time outs = no pressure. Manning having the ball with less than 2 minutes and 0 time outs = LOTS of pressure.

If that's your theory, that's fine. However, unless Brady called an audible 3 straight times, your beef is not with the offense, but with the coaching staff. I think that there were a host of individual issues which combined to result in a Colts win, but the offense is the last place I'd start looking.

 

[DaBruinz]

If that's your theory, that's fine. However, unless Brady called an audible 3 straight times, your beef is not with the offense, but with the coaching staff. I think that there were a host of individual issues which combined to result in a Colts win, but the offense is the last place I'd start looking.

Last time I looked, the OC was part of the offense. Also, my beef with the offense is that they didn't execute.

As I said, and you seemed to ignore, the fault goes to both the offense and defense.

And if you think that the offense is the last place to look, then you ignore that one affects the other.

 

[Rob0729]

Its hard to forgive Caldwell for the drops in the AFCCG..Not say Washington is better..

I'm sorry, but if your best arguement to cut a guy is two bad plays in the AFC Championship game, we should cut Maroney, Brady, and Bruschi too. People who hate Caldwell put far too much weight on two dropped passes.

 

[Deus Irae]

Last time I looked, the OC was part of the offense. Also, my beef with the offense is that they didn't execute.

As I said, and you seemed to ignore, the fault goes to both the offense and defense.

And if you think that the offense is the last place to look, then you ignore that one affects the other.

A team is comprised of 4 major 'parts' on game day: offense, defense, special team, coaching. The problem wasn't a lack of execution in the example you gave. They didn't even attempt to run the ball. That's either:

a: playcalling (coaching)

or

b: lack of healthy personnel

In neither case is it the fault of the offensive execution, since the runs were never attempted.



And, please, don't give me that "one affects the other" crap. Break down the situation (I'll use the NFL.com site to make it official):


80 yard drive to 'end' the half with a FG

14 play, 76 yard drive to start the second half

<--- Patriots drive, a 3 and out

6 play, 53 yard drive to follow it up.

<--- Patriots drive, 5 plays for 21 yards and a touchdown

7 play, 64 yard touchdown drive for 3 TDs on 3 Colts drives in the 3rd quarter.



Now, if you're going to claim that the offense is "to blame" because it dared to have a 3 and out, you go for it. Me, I see a defense that didn't get the job done at all. I look at the first half and see a 16-14 minute advantage to the Patriots in time of possession along with a 14-6 score, which tells me that the offense was playing just fine. I notice, however, that the first half and opening drive of the third quarter saw 2 14 play drives and one 15 play drive for the Colts offense, starting at the Indianapolis 20, 12, and 24 and leading to points.

Now, looking further, Indianapolis had 5 3-and-out possessions, New England only had 3. New England punted 5 times and scored 6 times. Indianapolis punted 4 times and scored 7 times.

New England's offense only had the ball twice in the pivotal 3rd quarter, scoring one touchdown and having that 3-and-out mentioned earlier. Indianapolis had the ball 3 times in the 3rd quarter, scoring touchdowns on all 3 possessions.

We need to stop pretending here. The Patriots lost that game because the defense didn't show up in the 3rd quarter.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Deus - I've watched the game too many times. BOTH the offense and the defense failed in the second half. The offense couldn't sustain their drives and the defense could get the Colts offense off the field but for 2 times.

My point is that the Patriots had the chance with 4:39 seconds from the Colts 29 to either run the clock down or force the Colts to use their time outs. Had they run the ball 3 times, there is a decent chance they could have gotten a 1st down. At the very worst, they would have bought some time for the defense to rest and then put even more pressure on Manning.

Manning having the ball with over 2 minutes and his 3 time outs = no pressure. Manning having the ball with less than 2 minutes and 0 time outs = LOTS of pressure.

Well said - too many people blame the D for that loss. Either a Defensive stand (which was asking a lot given travel tired flu bitten injury depleted defensive players) or just ONE additional first down (not asking too much as far as I'm concerned) could have won the game - but it was truly a team loss... and I take nothing away from the Colts for a well implemented 2nd half gameplan.

Last time I looked, the OC was part of the offense. Also, my beef with the offense is that they didn't execute.

As I said, and you seemed to ignore, the fault goes to both the offense and defense.

And if you think that the offense is the last place to look, then you ignore that one affects the other.

McDaniel left a lot to be desired - but so did his personnel. That's never been a good excuse in the past as OCs and DCs for the Pats have found a way to win with what they had.

McDaniel had many lapses of judgment. But he gets a fresh start as far as I'm concerned this season. Let's see if he learns from his mistakes - everyone deserves that opportunity in my book.

 

[mgteich]

Personally, I'd still keep five receivers, cutting Gaffney.

I agree that the issue is health. of Gaffney, of Moss, of Jackson, of Troy Brown, and of Kyle Brady.

I think that the reality is that we have replaced our receivers from last year: Gaffney, Caldwell, Brown, Kight and Graham.

We've replaced them with Stallworth, Moss, Welker, Washington and Kyle Brady. We're keeping Watson, Jackson, Thomas (although Rivers is looking good). I would be comfortable with Jackson as our #5. He wouldn't be active. We're already committed to having Troy Brown being our emergency receiver down the stretch.

HOWEVER, it seems that both Jackson and Brown will be on the PUP. Gaffney is now hurt. My point is that Gaffney should be cut (and signed later if we need). Caldwell is of value now, and through the first half. He knows the offense. He is healthy. Maybe he will be cut when Jackson or Troy Brown come back, maybe not. Maybe he'll be cut when Gaffney is healthy is healthy, perhaps not.

I suppose it depends on the severity of Gaffney's injury.

 

[DaBruinz]

A team is comprised of 4 major 'parts' on game day: offense, defense, special team, coaching. The problem wasn't a lack of execution in the example you gave. They didn't even attempt to run the ball. That's either:

a: playcalling (coaching)

or

b: lack of healthy personnel

In neither case is it the fault of the offensive execution, since the runs were never attempted.

*sigh* You clearly are just being argumentative and MISSING the entire point.

If you bothered to think about the SERIES I mentioned, the Pats THREW and failed to complete on the 1st two downs and then ran a draw. They took a WHOPPING 52 seconds off the clock when they could have taken 2:30 or forced the Cotls to use their time outs. Instead, they ran passing plays and the FAILED pass attempts is the lack of execution I referred to.

And the Pats HAD a healthy running back they could have used to run out the time since they ran Evans on 3rd down.

And, please, don't give me that "one affects the other" crap. Break down the situation (I'll use the NFL.com site to make it official):


80 yard drive to 'end' the half with a FG

14 play, 76 yard drive to start the second half

<--- Patriots drive, a 3 and out

6 play, 53 yard drive to follow it up.

<--- Patriots drive, 5 plays for 21 yards and a touchdown

7 play, 64 yard touchdown drive for 3 TDs on 3 Colts drives in the 3rd quarter.



Now, if you're going to claim that the offense is "to blame" because it dared to have a 3 and out, you go for it. Me, I see a defense that didn't get the job done at all. I look at the first half and see a 16-14 minute advantage to the Patriots in time of possession along with a 14-6 score, which tells me that the offense was playing just fine. I notice, however, that the first half and opening drive of the third quarter saw 2 14 play drives and one 15 play drive for the Colts offense, starting at the Indianapolis 20, 12, and 24 and leading to points.

Why don't you actually refer to the situation I pointed out instead of going off on the earlier series in the game? OH, you can't do that because then it doesn't prove your point.

Now, looking further, Indianapolis had 5 3-and-out possessions, New England only had 3. New England punted 5 times and scored 6 times. Indianapolis punted 4 times and scored 7 times.

*sigh* You just don't get it and usually you are a pretty intelligent poster. The total number of 3 and out possessions doesn't matter. What matters is that the Pats punted 3 times in the 2nd half. What also matters is that the Pats offense failed to execute the passing plays after they got to the Indy 29 with 4:39 left. What also matters is that the coaching staff should have run the ball, chewing up time or forcing the Colts to use time outs.

The number of times they scored doesn't matter. Its the number of points that they put up on the board. If you score 7 times, but they are all field goals it doesn't match to a team that scores 3 TDs and 1 FG.

New England's offense only had the ball twice in the pivotal 3rd quarter, scoring one touchdown and having that 3-and-out mentioned earlier. Indianapolis had the ball 3 times in the 3rd quarter, scoring touchdowns on all 3 possessions.

You have your facts wrong. Indy did not have the ball 3 times in the 3rd quarter and they didn't score 3 TDs in the 3rd quarter. Indy had the ball 3 times and scored twice.

Indy score 3 times in the 4th quarter. The last time a touch down because they had way too much time on the clock when they got the ball back.

We need to stop pretending here. The Patriots lost that game because the defense didn't show up in the 3rd quarter.

You need to stop pretending like the 3rd quarter was the all pivotal quarter and that the Pats didn't have a chance to win the game with less than 5 min left. You can't ignore that when the Pats had the ball at the Indy 29, they failed to execute the pass plays. As I said, I don't understand WHY they were PASSING instead of RUNNING. Had they run the ball, they would have accomplished one of three things. 1) Run the clock down close to the 2 minute warning. 2) Forced Indy to use their time outs. 3) Gotten a 1st down which probably would have sealed the game when the Pats kicked their FG.

OH, and maybe you should go back and read where I said the offense and the defense were both to blame instead of just insisting that it was one or the other. Anyone who understands the game would acknowledge that.

Actually, never mind. Since you don't believe that the ONE affects the other, there isn't any point in going on with this because you won't listen to what someone else has to say even if it came up and hit you in the face.

You just go right on believing that the offense had NOTHING to do with the loss and that it was all on the defense.

 

[Seven Nation Army]

DaBruinz is obviously correct that the New England Patriots collectively lost the game. That includes both the offense and the defense. Either side could have won the game in various ways. My original point was merely that blaming Reche Caldwell is silly. The coaching staff should have forced Indy to spend its timeouts. The offense shouldn't have had 12 men on the field. The defense should have stopped the Colts on the final drive. Brady shouldn't have thrown that pick to seal the game. Etc, etc, etc.

Holding a grudge against a player for a mistake in a game six months ago is childish.

 

[Deus Irae]

*sigh* You clearly are just being argumentative and MISSING the entire point.

If you bothered to think about the SERIES I mentioned, the Pats THREW and failed to complete on the 1st two downs and then ran a draw. They took a WHOPPING 52 seconds off the clock when they could have taken 2:30 or forced the Cotls to use their time outs. Instead, they ran passing plays and the FAILED pass attempts is the lack of execution I referred to.

Failed pass attempts isn't 'lack of execution' as normally meant, and you know better than that. As for the pass plays, that's my point about it not being on the offense. That's a coaching decision.

Why don't you actually refer to the situation I pointed out instead of going off on the earlier series in the game? OH, you can't do that because then it doesn't prove your point.

I did, and then expanded.

*sigh* You just don't get it and usually you are a pretty intelligent poster. The total number of 3 and out possessions doesn't matter. What matters is that the Pats punted 3 times in the 2nd half. What also matters is that the Pats offense failed to execute the passing plays after they got to the Indy 29 with 4:39 left. What also matters is that the coaching staff should have run the ball, chewing up time or forcing the Colts to use time outs.

This is a load of nonsense. The Patriots only punted one time more than Indianapolis did. Both teams punted twice in the first half and New England punted 3 times in the second half to Indianapolis' 2 punts. You keep acting as if the offense played poorly when, in fact, it did nothing of the kind. The offense put up 13 points in the second half and 14 points in the first half. 27 points for a team that also picked up 7 points by the defense should have been more than enough. Time of possession in the game was, essentially, 31-29. Given that New England basically won TOP 16-14 in the first half, that means the second half was essentially 17-13, which is not exactly terrible given how poorly the defense played in the third quarter.

The number of times they scored doesn't matter. Its the number of points that they put up on the board. If you score 7 times, but they are all field goals it doesn't match to a team that scores 3 TDs and 1 FG.

27 points by the offense should have been plenty.

You have your facts wrong. Indy did not have the ball 3 times in the 3rd quarter and they didn't score 3 TDs in the 3rd quarter. Indy had the ball 3 times and scored twice.

Indy score 3 times in the 4th quarter. The last time a touch down because they had way too much time on the clock when they got the ball back.

No, I don't have my facts wrong, although I mustn't have been clear. Indianapolis had the ball 3 times in the 3rd quarter and scored touchdowns on all 3 drives. The third drive began on their own 33 yard line with 1:25 left in the quarter. That drive ended in a touchdown about a minute and a half into the 4th quarter.

You need to stop pretending like the 3rd quarter was the all pivotal quarter and that the Pats didn't have a chance to win the game with less than 5 min left. You can't ignore that when the Pats had the ball at the Indy 29, they failed to execute the pass plays. As I said, I don't understand WHY they were PASSING instead of RUNNING. Had they run the ball, they would have accomplished one of three things. 1) Run the clock down close to the 2 minute warning. 2) Forced Indy to use their time outs. 3) Gotten a 1st down which probably would have sealed the game when the Pats kicked their FG.

No, the third quarter (and last drive of the first half) was clearly the problem for the Patriots. You can argue about should'a would'a for the rest of the game, but 4 drives resulting in 4 straight scores for 24 points against that defense is where the game was lost.

OH, and maybe you should go back and read where I said the offense and the defense were both to blame instead of just insisting that it was one or the other. Anyone who understands the game would acknowledge that.

And maybe you should go back and read where I talked about the 4 aspects of the team, not just two. Again, the problem with the offense wasn't execution. It put up 27 points. The Patriots defense, the mainstay of the team all season, allowed 38 points, by far the most all season. The previous high in points allowed had been 27, also by the Colts.

Actually, never mind. Since you don't believe that the ONE affects the other, there isn't any point in going on with this because you won't listen to what someone else has to say even if it came up and hit you in the face.

Now you're just being ridiculous. During that pivotal 4 drive stretch for the Colts, the Patriots offense only got the ball twice and scored a touchdown on one of their two possessions (this took place after Hobbs returned a kickoff to the Colts 21 yard line). Of course in a team sport it takes all parts of the team to win. However, as you well know, because you are a smart poster, it only takes one part to lose. And stop with the childish semantics about ONE affecting the other, because you know full well that I'm not claiming the offense was perfect.

You just go right on believing that the offense had NOTHING to do with the loss and that it was all on the defense.

Go look to my posts and find where I said the offense had NOTHING to do with the loss. It's a team game, but the offense played well enough to win and the defense failed the team.

 

[PatsSteve1]

Go look to my posts and find where I said the offense had NOTHING to do with the loss. It's a team game, but the offense played well enough to win and the defense failed the team.[/QUOTE]

* The O didn't play well enough in the 2nd half. One 1st down may have not left enough time. IMO, had the O done that no one would be complaining about either the O or D. Or had the D made 1 stop, too.

 

[PatsSteve1]

I admit it. I don't know who the WR's will be that make the final 53 man roster. It might be easier if they were all healthy and playing in the PS games. Then again maybe it wouldn't - Not knowing the extent of those injuries doesn't help either.

 

[Water Boy]

Its hard to forgive Caldwell for the drops in the AFCCG..Not say Washington is better..

What about his catch and run in the San Diego game?