The Two NFL Seasons

[mayoclinic]

They weren't afraid to challenge better secondaries and have the outside WR's to do it. It's pretty clear that dinking and dunking is to easy for good teams with good DB's to gameplan against. I'm not saying that we should just go out and get a 6'4" 4.4 WR. For one, they aren't that easy to find and secondly there's a lot to like about our offense and we shouldn't be looking to change it dramatically. But I think it is possible to find receivers that can fit our offensive style whilst also offering a deeper threat.

Right now, I'm leaning towards DeAndre Hopkins, Markus Wheaton and Nick Kasa as the three players in the draft best capable of combining the two requirements. Cordarrelle Patterson is another but he'll go too high and Stedman Bailey could also work.

1. DeAndre Hopkins - He's Brandon Lloyd plus. Great routes and hands and has Lloyd's body control but unlike Lloyd has very good short area quickness and wiggle. He isn't the fastest or tallest so isn't a #1 guy for most teams but could be in the Patriots system.

2. Markus Wheaton: Does have the speed to get deep and the short area quickness to stretch the field horizontally.

3. Nick Kasa: Rob Gronkowski - 6'6", 265, 4.65 forty. Nick Kasa - 6'5", 271, 4.64 forty (thats NFLDraftScout's low for the 40). He's only been playing the position for a year and is raw but there's a reason he's gone from being a failed DE last year to a Senior Bowl invite at TE this year.

A guy who got some good reviews today from the Senior Bowl practices was Kansas St. WR Chris Harper. His a big dude at 6'1" 228#. We'll have to see how fast he runs and whether he can get separation, but he seems a bit in the Anquan Boldin kind of mold. What do you think about that kind of physical receiver?

 

[manxman2601]

A guy who got some good reviews today from the Senior Bowl practices was Kansas St. WR Chris Harper. His a big dude at 6'1" 228#. We'll have to see how fast he runs and whether he can get separation, but he seems a bit in the Anquan Boldin kind of mold. What do you think about that kind of physical receiver?

I like Harper quite a bit but I've pretty much ignored him because he's not athletic enough for BB in my opinion. To be honest, why bother with Harper when you've got Hernandez and BB's penchant for TE's? Now, if you're talking about Kasen Williams of Washington for next year, then you'd have my attention. Impressed by his size/strength/athleticism combo.

 

[mayoclinic]

I like Harper quite a bit but I've pretty much ignored him because he's not athletic enough for BB in my opinion. To be honest, why bother with Harper when you've got Hernandez and BB's penchant for TE's? Now, if you're talking about Kasen Williams of Washington for next year, then you'd have my attention. Impressed by his size/strength/athleticism combo.

We'll have to see. But it seems like we could use a 6'1"-6'2" 220# bull who can muscle up on DBs and move the chains. Sure, we have the TEs, but then again, we haven't had them a lot of the time, and our red zone offense certainly suffered. Boldin isn't an uber-athletic guy, and I'm not sure Harper couldn't be a fit.

 

[manxman2601]

We'll have to see. But it seems like we could use a 6'1"-6'2" 220# bull who can muscle up on DBs and move the chains. Sure, we have the TEs, but then again, we haven't had them a lot of the time, and our red zone offense certainly suffered. Boldin isn't an uber-athletic guy, and I'm not sure Harper couldn't be a fit.

I suspect BB will be taking one look at his 3-cone time and will take him off the board. Both Terrance Williams and DeAndre Hopkins will be better red zone threats than Harper...but I know, they'll need to be taken in the 1st

I just think we need to do better than Harper personally.

Edit: Surprised to see Harper's time as estimated under 4.5. If that ends up as the case, then he's certainly more interesting. I also like Dobson as a redzone threat. Have you seen "The Catch"?

 

[mayoclinic]

It occurred to me that if you really wanted to treat the year as having "2 seasons", you would manage your personnel and roster very differently:

- Clinching the division around week 12, getting a bye and having HFA advantage don't really matter nearly as much as having your horses healthy for the playoffs
- The Pats have shown they can win without Gronk during the regular season. But his absence in the playoffs has been a major problem the last 2 years

I wonder how the Ravens would have done if Ray Lewis hadn't gotten hurt. Lewis wasn't playing that well before his injury, and at his age would probably have worn down. Instead he got to rest up and get healthy. He's been a beast in the playoffs.

It seems like teams start the season with their "first string" players and lose many of them during the season, having to go into the playoffs with second string guys. Should a deep team like the Pats mix it up a bit and pace their players, resting some of them and avoiding the injuries and attrition, so that they can be healthier for the playoffs?

Just a wild thought.

 

[DocHoliday]

It occurred to me that if you really wanted to treat the year as having "2 seasons", you would manage your personnel and roster very differently:

- Clinching the division around week 12, getting a bye and having HFA advantage don't really matter nearly as much as having your horses healthy for the playoffs
- The Pats have shown they can win without Gronk during the regular season. But his absence in the playoffs has been a major problem the last 2 years

I wonder how the Ravens would have done if Ray Lewis hadn't gotten hurt. Lewis wasn't playing that well before his injury, and at his age would probably have worn down. Instead he got to rest up and get healthy. He's been a beast in the playoffs.

It seems like teams start the season with their "first string" players and lose many of them during the season, having to go into the playoffs with second string guys. Should a deep team like the Pats mix it up a bit and pace their players, resting some of them and avoiding the injuries and attrition, so that they can be healthier for the playoffs?

Just a wild thought.

Absolutely. That way you can coach up and develop your backups for a bit and take risks with raw players instead of so and so but ready to contribute players.

One thing that has irked me for a long while about BB is his affinity for low ceiling high floor ST only players.

Players like Cole, Arrington, Martin, Koutivedes, White - ST Aces that bring nothing to the O and D with zero potential of developing into good starters.

There are very few examples and nearly all are overachievers rather than true studs - think Rob Ninkovitch.

While the ST squad here is really good it is riddled with players that IMO can be replaced with versatile depth for other positions. We should have more of Ebner and Wilson.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

While there are some important differences in postseason football, like facing only good teams, adjusting to refs who are suddenly slow to blow a whistle, and offenses losing steam over a long season relative to defenses,

football is still football, regular season or otherwise

The main difference is sample size. In a 3 game, sudden death "season" you can't depend on those trends that you accomplished "more often than not" over 16 games, because if in one postseason game you come up with a "not" then it's over.

2001-2006 we were 70-26 in the regular season and 9-2 in the postseason.

2007-2012 we were 76-20 in the regular season and 5-5 in the postseason.

It would not have taken a lot of events to make that 9-2 in that earlier era to have become 7-4, and it would not have taken much for the 5-5 in the recent era to have become 7-3, either.

The key is to keep putting the talent out there, try to learn from all defeats, postseason or otherwise, and keep taking shots on goal. Over time, talent, execution, and solid schemes win out over gimmicks, and postseason results should eventually approximate regular season success (unless you have a choke artist like Peyton at QB )

 

[DocHoliday]

While there are some important differences in postseason football, like facing only good teams, adjusting to refs who are suddenly slow to blow a whistle, and offenses losing steam over a long season relative to defenses,

football is still football, regular season or otherwise

The main difference is sample size. In a 3 game, sudden death "season" you can't depend on those trends that you accomplished "more often than not" over 16 games, because if in one postseason game you come up with a "not" then it's over.

2001-2006 we were 70-26 in the regular season and 9-2 in the postseason.

2007-2012 we were 76-20 in the regular season and 5-5 in the postseason.

It would not have taken a lot of events to make that 9-2 in that earlier era to have become 7-4, and it would not have taken much for the 5-5 in the recent era to have become 7-3, either.

The key is to keep putting the talent out there, try to learn from all defeats, postseason or otherwise, and keep taking shots on goal. Over time, talent, execution, and solid schemes win out over gimmicks, and postseason results should eventually approximate regular season success (unless you have a choke artist like Peyton at QB )

The Choke Artist played the Ravens better than Tom.

Give him credit.

 

[Sicilian]

Even if you're right and there is a correlation between fighting your way into the playoffs and having success once you get there, how exactly do you plan for that? Do you throw games in the middle of the season so you have to fight in December? You have to breed an attitude on your team that you should win every game. You won't win every game, but once you start gameplanning with the expectation of losing you lose your edge.

It's just hard to win in the playoffs. For all the praise the Ravens deserve this year, they couldn't beat us last year when we had one good wide receiver and no one in the secondary. I just don't think there's a concrete formula to building a playoff ready football team. The best you can do is keep giving yourself a chance.