Who's the Nasty, Relentless, Mauler of an SOB to Replace Mankins?

[PatsFanSince74]

Yeah, we should keep Mankins because in six years when his career is done, the Pats will never reach the playoffs again.

Come on. No player is irreplaceable. If you think the Pats cannot ever reach the playoffs ever again once he is gone, fine. But if you think they can recover when he retires in 5-6 years, why can't they recover now?

Besides, you can't look at is the team better off with Mankins or without him. You have to say, Is the team better off with Mankins at OG or Kaczur at OG and $8 mil a year spent on someone else. Like a RDE or OLB.

The difference between a serviceable OG and a stud OG just isn't that great. Like it or not, Justin Tuck killed us in SB42. We had problems other than Mankns, and in another thread we can talk all about them. But here we are talking about Mankins, and anyone who says no one can ever play better than him needs to rewatch that game.

Mankins is good. If he were Evans or Hutchinson, we'd have a 19-0 banner.

I'm fine with $6 mil a year for an OG, nervous about $7 mil a year, and no way do I want the Pats to spend $8 mil a year.

Anyone who thinks that $8 mil a year cannot be put to better use on this team, fine. It's a free country

But you're wrong

This is a good discussion and people are actually putting out reasonable positions on both sides of a tough issue.

Here's where I come down, as I've said.

I look at this through the lens of the window slowly closing on TB's best years and see everything from the perspective of making another run at a ring while he's still on the right side of 35 (i.e., the next three seasons). Of course, he could defy the odds and be another Elway or Favre, but John is the only QB to win an SB after the age of 35.

So, I just think the Pats should avoid the risk of changing an important part of any future success and one that seems to be working. Last year, the OL was told to protect the Franchise and give him every chance to get back to his old form after a career-threatening injury and surgery. They more than excelled at that, allowing only 16 sacks and giving Tommy time to get his feet back under him without ducking "incoming" every other play.

I'm willing to man-up, as I've said elsewhere here, and come out here on the morning of January 3rd. If Brady has put another low 90's pass rating and not missed a play due to injury again and taken around 16 sacks with a Mankins-less line, I'll be the first to say I was wrong. Can I plan to meet you here then?

And, it's you who are are wrong.

 

[BSR]

Hits tend to reflect sacks, so the fewer of the latter the better.

I'm just taking the position that with his OL last year, anchored by Mankins on his blind side, Tommy took only 16 hits, didn't miss a game (or a play as far as I can recall) due to injury and had a pass rating of 92 or so. I'm willing to come out here on the morning of January 3rd, man-up and say I was wrong if a Mankins-less OL produces the same or better results.

I'm not sure what the point of this is. I'm sure most everyone would rather have Mankin's at LG, but that isn't reality. The question isn't whether or not Mankins replacement will do as good as job as Mankins. Unless one of the young guys breaks out, that is unlikely to be the case. The question is really can they be productive given the drop off in talent. That is obviously yes. They have been productive without Mankins before and they can be productive without him again. That isn't to diminish Mankin's worth, its just means that there isn't a reason to abandon ship.

Also, 16 sacks in an insanely low number, the best of Brady's career, and is hardly a measuring stick that should define a good season or a bad one. Its an anomoly, at least as Brady is concerned, as his next best season with regards to sacks was 21. Sack totals in the low to mid twenties are probably more indicative of a typical Brady season.

 

[captain stone]

Caserio once called Ohrnberger a "bulldog, not the type of guy you'd want to be alone in a room with."

Because everyone would know who farted?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm not sure what the point of this is. I'm sure most everyone would rather have Mankin's at LG, but that isn't reality. The question isn't whether or not Mankins replacement will do as good as job as Mankins. Unless one of the young guys breaks out, that is unlikely to be the case. The question is really can they be productive given the drop off in talent. That is obviously yes. They have been productive without Mankins before and they can be productive without him again. That isn't to diminish Mankin's worth, its just means that there isn't a reason to abandon ship.

Also, 16 sacks in an insanely low number, the best of Brady's career, and is hardly a measuring stick that should define a good season or a bad one. Its an anomoly, at least as Brady is concerned, as his next best season with regards to sacks was 21. Sack totals in the low to mid twenties are probably more indicative of a typical Brady season.

I've been with this team through some of its worst days, so if i didn't "abandon ship" during the Rust and MacPherson days, I'm certainly not thinking of abandoning them with a HOF QB and HC at the helm.

And, I do disagree with your premise. I don't think it's yet "reality" that the Pats can't hold onto Logan unless something happened this morning of which I am not aware.

As for a "typical Brady season" sacks-wise, what might have worked when he was 25 isn't necessarily going to work as he approaches 35. A "typical Brady season," if you use the median and not his best year, before last season, was 26 sacks, with an average of 29 sacks per year. One bad hit or sack is too many, but I'd say that the odds suggest that keeping it at or under 20 wouldn't be a bad idea. 16 isn't an "insanely low number." Over the last five seasons, Peyton's been sacked an average of 15.2 times.

Could they be "productive" without Logan? For sure. But, if a reasonable scenario is that the Pats have to maximize what they can do for three more runs at the Lombardi before TB passes 35, I'm arguing that it's a mistake to lost Mankins, if, as the media report, they're a million apart.

My view is that I'd rather them work this out than tinker with a critical part of the package that seems to have now come together very well as Tommy gets older and that I think that it would be a mistake not to do so. I'll stand by that, as well as by my offer to come out here on January 3rd and admit I was wrong.

 

[Synovia]

16 isn't an "insanely low number." Over the last five seasons, Peyton's been sacked an average of 15.2 times.

Peyton Manning is way more mobile than Tom Brady. His numbers are historically low.

 

[IllegalContact]

Peyton Manning is way more mobile than Tom Brady. His numbers are historically low.

manning more mobile than brady? maybe last year, but otherwise, this is untrue. cassel was more mobile than either and he got sacked mercilessly.

sacks are partly caused by an inability to locate a secondary target on a given play

 

[IllegalContact]

This is a good discussion and people are actually putting out reasonable positions on both sides of a tough issue.

Here's where I come down, as I've said.

I look at this through the lens of the window slowly closing on TB's best years and see everything from the perspective of making another run at a ring while he's still on the right side of 35 (i.e., the next three seasons). Of course, he could defy the odds and be another Elway or Favre, but John is the only QB to win an SB after the age of 35.

So, I just think the Pats should avoid the risk of changing an important part of any future success and one that seems to be working. Last year, the OL was told to protect the Franchise and give him every chance to get back to his old form after a career-threatening injury and surgery. They more than excelled at that, allowing only 16 sacks and giving Tommy time to get his feet back under him without ducking "incoming" every other play.

I'm willing to man-up, as I've said elsewhere here, and come out here on the morning of January 3rd. If Brady has put another low 90's pass rating and not missed a play due to injury again and taken around 16 sacks with a Mankins-less line, I'll be the first to say I was wrong. Can I plan to meet you here then?

And, it's you who are are wrong.

well, with the bodies the accrued at TE, maybe the pats will revert to the 2 TE set, and use more short passing plays. and hopefully stop playing from the shotgun 80% of the time

 

[JSn]

I'm starting to get that it's the MO of some people here to pick a random Whipping boy. Kaczur's a very good player. We have four good tackles on this team (LeVoir is good in bursts) and three of them are solid SWING tackles.

Kaczur at Left Guard could be excellent and he already knows Brady super-well. This is a chance to shuffle the O-Line from last year, making it possible better overall (long-term) and not lose much communication continuity.

Some of the nonsense on here about Nick would make it sound like he's a half-paralyzed senior citizen. Sheesh.

 

[BSR]

I've been with this team through some of its worst days, so if i didn't "abandon ship" during the Rust and MacPherson days, I'm certainly not thinking of abandoning them with a HOF QB and HC at the helm.

And, I do disagree with your premise. I don't think it's yet "reality" that the Pats can't hold onto Logan unless something happened this morning of which I am not aware.

I didn't mean to imply you would abandon the team. I should have said given up hope for the season, or at least dramatically lowering expectations.

As for a "typical Brady season" sacks-wise, what might have worked when he was 25 isn't necessarily going to work as he approaches 35. A "typical Brady season," if you use the median and not his best year, before last season, was 26 sacks, with an average of 29 sacks per year. One bad hit or sack is too many, but I'd say that the odds suggest that keeping it at or under 20 wouldn't be a bad idea. 16 isn't an "insanely low number." Over the last five seasons, Peyton's been sacked an average of 15.2 times.

Could they be "productive" without Logan? For sure. But, if a reasonable scenario is that the Pats have to maximize what they can do for three more runs at the Lombardi before TB passes 35, I'm arguing that it's a mistake to lost Mankins, if, as the media report, they're a million apart.

My view is that I'd rather them work this out than tinker with a critical part of the package that seems to have now come together very well as Tommy gets older and that I think that it would be a mistake not to do so. I'll stand by that, as well as by my offer to come out here on January 3rd and admit I was wrong.

I think the lower sack number last year, which were similar to Mannings, were a result of a reluctance of holding onto the ball. In years past Brady held onto the ball until the last split second. This led to some higher sack numbers. This year I think he was more inclined to get rid of the ball quicker given his recent injury situation. My hope is that he will return to that previous form, which in turn may lead to higher sack numbers.

 

[IllegalContact]

I'm starting to get that it's the MO of some people here to pick a random Whipping boy. Kaczur's a very good player. We have four good tackles on this team (LeVoir is good in bursts) and three of them are solid SWING tackles.

Kaczur at Left Guard could be excellent and he already knows Brady super-well. This is a chance to shuffle the O-Line from last year, making it possible better overall (long-term) and not lose much communication continuity.

Some of the nonsense on here about Nick would make it sound like he's a half-paralyzed senior citizen. Sheesh.

its not nonsense. if kaczur was such an excellent option, then why wasn't he moved inside to RG when neal went down and put vollmer at RT?

kaczur has the physical stature to be more of an RG anyway. he's not very mobile, and will not be able to get out there on a pull.

 

[SanAngeloState]

Problem is they like mobile athletic guys, but those are the guys who get demolished against a 350 pound NT. See Koppen, roller skates.

I wish they'd change up the offense to have more options instead of just maroney up the middle, maroney up the middle, on run plays.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

I think that Oxy will be OK at LG, though not as good 'n nasty as Mankin$; unfortunately, our backup quality at the interior positions (exc. for hopefully Larsen at Center) is now Jack Shyte.

This, and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who's a little concerned about depth (assuming LM doesn't play). An OL shake-up, moving the pieces around etc is ok with me except that it means adjustments which may put TFB in some peril at times. But it's the depth or lack thereof that worries me:nosmile:

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I have no idea really. I'm just glad I get to look at Ty Warren now instead of his ugly mug every page I browse on the forum.

 

[Kontradiction]

I have no idea really. I'm just glad I get to look at Ty Warren now instead of his ugly mug every page I browse on the forum.

Heh, that's exactly what I thought. Warren is by no means a good looking dude but, compared to Mankins, he looks like Brad Pitt.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

I have no idea really. I'm just glad I get to look at Ty Warren now instead of his ugly mug every page I browse on the forum.

:ditto: Enough already! And good for Ty!!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Peyton Manning is way more mobile than Tom Brady. His numbers are historically low.

Not the Manning I've seen the last couple of years. There are times when he looks like a big ol' midwest plow horse back there. I think he gets the ball away quicker. Marino was the same way. If you have a minute, check out his sack numbers, they were very low as well.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I didn't mean to imply you would abandon the team. I should have said given up hope for the season, or at least dramatically lowering expectations.



I think the lower sack number last year, which were similar to Mannings, were a result of a reluctance of holding onto the ball. In years past Brady held onto the ball until the last split second. This led to some higher sack numbers. This year I think he was more inclined to get rid of the ball quicker given his recent injury situation. My hope is that he will return to that previous form, which in turn may lead to higher sack numbers.

Fair enough on your first point. Sometimes I just remember how looooong some of those cooooooooold afternoons could get with Mark Wilson and Tom Hodson lighting up the skies over Foxboro and Wilson trying to see if it really WAS possible to throw twice as many picks as TD's one year....

On your second point, I wouldn't rely on TB to eat the ball all that often. Manning, like Marino, gets rid of the ball faster than any QB of his generation. I think Tommy may have decided it might help with his own longevity. Anything that brings Brady back to his 29 sack average over those first seven seasons is dangerous with a capital D squared to me.

And, lowering expectations for any Brady season now runs against the clock that remembers that John Elway was the only QB to win an SB after he turned 35.