The Offense

[JR4]

The Giants were the first team to win while scoring fewer than 20 points since 1975. The most prolific offense in history scored only 14 points against a defense they'd chewed up just weeks earlier.

The loss was all about the offense.

I agree! The fact the D faultered in the closing drive changes nothing.
When the offense could not sustain drives during the game what do you
expect from a tired Defense in the 4thQ ... a miracle?????
The defense did its job ... kept the score down and turned the ball over.
That loss was squarely due to PATs Offense out matched by
a well prepared defense.

 

[Deus Irae]

And it will get better by losing Stallworth, Gaffney, and Brady without replacement.

Well, to be fair, I don't think Mankins will be so out of sorts next time, do you? Also, it's not as if Brady brought much to the table. As for Gaffney and Stallworth, Gaffney is still in play and it's now time to see if CJ can play football.

However, it wasn't the tight end or #3 & #4 receivers that lost the game for New England.

 

[Run DMC]

Why not have O'Callahan as "TE"?

 

[stcjones]

And it will get better by losing Stallworth, Gaffney, and Brady without replacement.

You're kidding right? Kyle Brady is at the end of his rope/career.....He was oft injured last year......Thomas should be able to step back in and be productive...although obviously not quite the blocker that Brady was, he should do well.......Stallworth became expendable as soon as they knew Moss would Re-sign here......Stallworth was not a intricate part of our offense .....and hopefully, CJ is going to FINALLY step up and BE that stretch receiver everyone thought he was going to be coming out of college....Lastly, I feel Gaff will sign here again.....He is a good fit here and should see a bigger role this coming year......however it is not imperative that we sign him......Now, DO WE have to do something more to solidify/strengthen the OL? Yes.....their failure and the failure of the OC to adjust led to the SB loss.....would like to see some FA and draft picks brought in to challenge some of these guys.......

 

[Crazyeechrispats1]

Anybody know alot about Shane Olivea?

 

[patsox23]

You are indicating that we are losing Gaffney, Stallworth and Brady and will feel no negative effect whatsoever.

Um. Yeah. He is. What's wrong with that suggestion?

 

[maverick4]

I agree the highest scoring offense ever is set in terms of personnel.

The only thing to improve it is to give Josh McDaniels weekly oral quizzes on how he would react to various defenses and offensive difficulties.

 

[patsox23]

And it will get better by losing Stallworth, Gaffney, and Brady without replacement.

1) The offense doesn't need to get better.

2) Stallworth's contribution was more limited than you may recall.

3) Gaffney's a nice player, it'd be good to have him back, but do you really think they can't get approximate production from someone else in that role?

4) Kyle Brady was, TO EVERYONE BUT YOU, a massive disappointment last year.

 

[cstjohn17]

If we add NO ONE, we are basically returning the best offense ever, with a young talented guy stepping into the role of Stallworth, and Washington stepping in for Gaffney, but will need to fill out the TE spot. It wont take much to replace/upgrade what K Brady gave us anyway.

I agree, I think a WR may be drafted with a bullseye on CJs spot, truly a win win, if he rises up and wins the spot then he is headed in the right direction. If he doesn't win the spot then, see ya, thanks for nothing.

Yates, Hoch., O'Cag., Kaczur and maybe even Neal should be pushed, not the end of the world if they return but an upgrade wouldn't hurt.

I expect at least 3 of the first 4 picks to go towards the back 8 of the Patriots defense.

 

[Ring 6]

You are indicating that we are losing Gaffney, Stallworth and Brady and will feel no negative effect whatsoever. This seems to be a lot of wishful thinking. You are counting on Washington, Jackson and Thomas to all step up, and perhaps also get a TE who will contribute. That's FOUR people you're counting on to get us back to where we were.

Well, first the goal doesnt have to be to get where we were when we had the best offense ever. We do need to deal in reality.

Secondly, losing Gaffney, stallworth, and Brady will have an impact, but that impact will be negated by what the players in their place do.

I am saying that Jackson, Washington and perhaps Gaffney, or more likely a cheaper replacement, plus a TE who can do what Brady did (which wasnt much) will be sufficient.

Is it really asking an awful lot for Chad Jackson and Kelley Washington plus a jag to do what Stallworth and Gaffney did? We just need someone to go to the right place and let Brady get them the ball.
I dont think it will be very difficult to get what Brady gave us out of a non-descript TE, with Thomas possibly adding something.

What do you think we need? I see minor moves as all that is necessary.

 

[Ring 6]

I'd really like to see the Pats keep JAB and maintain the receiver continuity from last year.

Me too, but I think the cost will be too high, and better spent on the other side of the ball. Gaffney came here as a guy who had no job a few weeks into the season. a street FA. I dont really think he improved a ton, but getting the opportunity to run routes with Tom Brady at QB made it seem like he did. I think there are 40 guys out there we can get for peanuts who can do the same thing.

 

[Ring 6]

And it will get better by losing Stallworth, Gaffney, and Brady without replacement.

Who said without replacement?

You seem to think the replacements already here are incompetant. I do not. I would add a Gaffney type that is cheaper, and a Brady type that isn't done and unable to contribute.

 

[Ring 6]

The Giants were the first team to win while scoring fewer than 20 points since 1975. The most prolific offense in history scored only 14 points against a defense they'd chewed up just weeks earlier.

The loss was all about the offense.

When you allow 14 points in a quarter of a 7-3 game and 150 yards passing in a quarter, your defense failed. When you allow 2 80+ yard drives when making a stop wins you a Championship, your defense failed.
Sure, the offense didn't play great, but they handed over a lead at 14:52, it was given away, they handed it back and with 2 minutes left it was given away again.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree! The fact the D faultered in the closing drive changes nothing.
When the offense could not sustain drives during the game what do you
expect from a tired Defense in the 4thQ ... a miracle?????
The defense did its job ... kept the score down and turned the ball over.
That loss was squarely due to PATs Offense out matched by
a well prepared defense.

I guess this is just a disagreement on what wins Championship. My opinion has been, where the Pats are concerned since 2001, and where football is concerned, long before that, that you win Championships by playing your best when the game is on the line. You can eliminate 18 3/4 games from this discussion in my opinion because all those 18 3/4s games did was put the team into a position to win a Championship if they did what Champions do, and made plays when the game was on the line, played there best when it mattered most. The defense failed tremendously in that test.

 

[Metaphors]

No matter what else happens in a football game, if in the last 14:52 your D allows an 80 yard TD drive, gets the lead back and allows an 83 yard TD drive, and allows 150 passing yards in 14:52, your D lost you the game.

Buh-bye Asante.
See ya Blue.
Later Eugene.
Nice knowing ya Rosie.
Adios Collier.

Hmmm...I think Belichick might just agree with you.

 

[Metaphors]

I'd really like to see the Pats keep JAB and maintain the receiver continuity from last year.

CJack and DThomas need room to grow. Gaff and KBrady were in the way. Turnover is a healthy thing.

 

[Ring 6]

Let me explain in greater detail.

1) Gaffney. I think there are a ton of receivers who can replace him and we wouldnt miss a beat.
2) Brady. I think there are a ton of TEs who can replace him, and we will be better. The Kyle Brady we thought we signed would be a hole to fill, the Kyle Brady who wore a Patriots uniform last year was a liability.
3) Stallworth. He was never critical to the offense. I have absolutely no problem putting Chad Jackson in his spot. If there is a dropoff it will get picked up by Moss, Welker, more use of Maroney in the passing game, more use of Watson. But there doesnt really have to be a dropoff because Stallworth didnt really produce all that much.

Stallworth had 7 games with 0, 1 or 2 catches. His best was 7, his second best 5. He averaged 2.8 catches a game, and less than that in the playoffs.

Let me understand this. If Chad Jackson earns the job as the third WR, are we really saying he will catch so much less than 2.8 passes a game that it will ruin our offense? That he will go a lot more than 7 out of 16 games catching 2 or less passes?

I think the objection to what I am saying here is that people think Stallworth, Gaffney and Brady did a whole lot more than what they did for us, and somehow did it all by themselves, and catching 2.8 passes from Tom Brady is a very difficult thing to do, so you need at least 3 superstars running routes if you have Brady as your QB.

 

[ATippett56]

And it will get better by losing Stallworth, Gaffney, and Brady without replacement.

While losing Stallworth and Gaffney will hurt, losing Kyle Brady while Dave Thomas returns from injured reserve may be a blessing in disguise. Meanwhile, Belichick will select the "obligatory" tight end somewhere between rounds four and seven in the 2008 NFL Draft.

 

[ATippett56]

I think the objection to what I am saying here is that people think Stallworth, Gaffney and Brady did a whole lot more than what they did for us, and somehow did it all by themselves, and catching 2.8 passes from Tom Brady is a very difficult thing to do, so you need at least 3 superstars running routes if you have Brady as your QB.

That contradicts your earlier statement:

"And it will get better by losing Stallworth, Gaffney, and Brady without replacement."

 

[Ring 6]

Buh-bye Asante.
See ya Blue.
Later Eugene.
Nice knowing ya Rosie.
Adios Collier.

Hmmm...I think Belichick might just agree with you.

Here is my thinking on this, with the caveat that it is optimistic.

We have the best offense in the NFL.

We have a great defensive mind coaching our defense. The defense has been good, but broken down the last 3 years. (Remember turnovers and Champ Bailey aside, we went into the Denver playoff loss in 2005 playing very well on D, and played poorly, with a lot of big plays allowed in that game)

There have been very few times that BB has put a defensive player on the field and he stunk. (2002 Steve Martin comes to mind, 2005 Starks, Beisel, etc come to mind) But almost never with a young player. We have this idea around here that BB hates young players, or doesn't trust them, etc. I think the truth is that he likes the reliability of veterans (especially injury wise) vs young guys so if he can find a vet to keep the spot warm for the youngster he will.

However, lets look at our rookies on defense:
Seymour, Warren, Wilfork. All started and played well as rookies.
Meriwhether. Played a lot as a rookie.
Wilson. Started as a rookie.
Samuel nickel as a rookie starter in year 2.
Sanders. Contributed as a rookie, started a lot in year 2, full time in year 3.
Gay. Started at the end of his rookie year.
Hobbs. Started secondhalf of rookie year and ever since.
I just named 9 rookies over the past 7 years and 6 of them got a ring as a rookie, contributing a lot.

Look at the FAs who came in to start.
DL- Really none recently.
LB- Vrabel, Colvin, Thomas, Seau(sort of a starter) Beisel
CB- Starks (really started by default becuase of injuries) Harrison

2 were bad, and neither was signed to start, but did because of injury.

Where are all of the bad players that BB brought in to starting positons as rookies or FAs?

My opinion, and I recognize everyone does not share it is that BB believes winning is about making plays in situations, particularly when the game is on the line. He has built, tweaked and rebuilt his entire defense since coming here. As of today, the only players left that started SB XXXVI on defense are Seymour, Vrabel, Bruschi. That is 73% turnover in 6 years, and 2/3 of what didnt turn over were in their first year here.
I think that we have more consistently than any team I have ever seen kept the talent level on our defense consistent. (And good)
I think BB has recognized that he built a defense that overall is not one that plays its best when the game is on the line. Its good, but it is imperfect in finishing.
I believe this is because the fatal flaw in the defense became 2 minute D, covering when the offense is obviously going to throw. In the SB it materialized IMO, in Gay and Harrison, both who lack speed and cover skills for their postions, but bring other strengths.

I think that BB plans, in this off-season, to revamp (not rebuild because there are too many good pieces in place) his defense. And I believe he is going to do it with speed and talent and let the coaching take care of the rest.
I expect the difference between our 2007 D and our 2008 D to be:
DL- No change
LB- We need to cover better in the 2 minute. I expect we will obtain either or both a LB who has more speed than we typically look for, with coverage ability to go with it. Probably a guy who wont play a ton in the base D but will play on 3rd down. (Alternatively making Rodney Harrison a LB in the nickel/dime works too) And/or a pass rusher who can allow Vrabel or Thomas to be in coverage more often in those situations.
I'm not at all worried about our ability to defend the run at the LB postion. We probably need to add an inside guy, but that will not be hard to do.
S- I think that Meriwhether plays an awful lot next year. I see a 3man rotation, with Rodney playing in base, but not in nickel/dime, 2 minute (unless at LB) Meriwhether and Sanders playing in the nickel/dime/2 minute, and splitting time in the base. We will no doubt add a safety, but rather than our typical lean toward a special teams good run S, it will be a cover guy. Cheap FA, or draft pick I assume.
Corner- I absolutely see a round 1 corner. I'm fine with skilled and raw also. I would like to see this guy expected to be the nickel in 2008, but capable of starting. I think we need to bring in another corner who could start, could move behind the rookie. I think Richardson also can contribute. I think we've moved past the smarter, slower guys like Chad Scott. A second corner in the draft, maybe round 3 or 4 seems like a good fit too.

We will have a second year S playing a big role, a 1st round corner playing a big role, and will have depth with some combination of Ruchardson, another rookie, or FAs we pick up.

We will field a more athletic defense. We will have youth that the coaching staff must coach to the NFL level, and we will rely on them.

If there is one thing I would be certain the 2008 off-season will result in is that we are better in 2 minute and red zone pass defense. This is because I believe BB sees it as the flaw and sees it as unacceptable, and when that happens, I trust him to fix it.