Why Are We Surprised About The Offensive Line?

[Joker]

we have a new O line coach, MG...a veteran of Tony Sparano's staff AND an ex-Jet.

Joe Kerr does not like...mark that down

 

[Deus Irae]

1. Mankins was not an All-Pro caliber player last year.

2. The OL looked like crap with Mankins in there.

3. Mankins has had some of his worst games on the biggest stage.

4. The idea that his absence is a detriment to the passing game is ridiculous. He was one of the worst pass-blocking G in the NFL last year. You might have an argument in terms of run blocking but that's not really what anyone seems to be discussing.

5. I fail to see how Belichick "decimated the WR group" by letting Welker go and adding Amendola. He also added a 2nd round draftee (Dobson) That's not decimation. The rest of the 2012 WR's were out of the league last year (Stallworth, Lloyd and Hernandez if you want to count him) or on the team (Edelman). The fact that you use the term "decimated" makes your agenda here in regards to the WR's very clear.

There's room to criticize or debate Belichick's personnel moves but you're not making the right arguments at all.

If you post nonsense as if it's true, as you did, it makes things look a lot better than does the truth. Congrats on that.

 

[supafly]

Let us all be clear. All this may work out fine. We may win the conference and the Super Bowl. However, for all the bluster, our concerns are really about getting rid of Mankins and of Kelly (and the defensive game plan). And, yes, we disagree with the solution at S2.

In the end, this is NOT about bad coaching, bad tackling or even bad blocking. I do agree that we have had all of that last Sunday. And those can be improved upon. The three biggest problems/issues are GM/FO issues. We have lost Mankins and Kelly. We are starting Devey, Vellano and Chung. The coaches (defensive and offensive) did incredible work last year. They are still here. It says an awful lot about the team for these three to be starters.

The Mankins and Kelly issues are somewhat different in my opinion, but that's going to be dependent on your personal belief as to whether or not Belichick is to blame for Kelly wanting out. In my opinion, I can see both points, so a "clear cut" person of blame doesn't really stand out to me. I think Belichick assumes that all of his players are going to keep quiet and do what's best for the team, and that Kelly assumed that he'd be able to reach his reasonable amount of escalators rather easily by agreeing to a new pact. Of course, others will see it differently, based on who they see at fault, but I just see it as an unfortunate situation myself.

Mankins, on the other hand, was a gamble due to obvious reasons--so I question the timing of it, but I can definitely see the worth in saving money for other players such as Revis/McCourty. In the meantime, we'll obviously have to hope that they figure out how to get the ball out of TFB's hands quicker, while finding the right combination of players on the OL.

As far as starting Vellano, Devey, and Chung---I'm guessing that is not the case by the 3rd or 4th game at the most; at least for all 3 of them. Hell, I'd bet that all 3 of them don't even start on Sunday.

 

[Deus Irae]

1. Poor IOL personnel, made much worse by the Mankins trade
2. A pair of OTs who struggle against elite speed, and one OT (Solder) who struggles against top strength as well
3. Stupid idea to rotate a lot on the line when you just got rid of your best OL a week ago
4. Facing the Dolphins in the heat of the day

With that, why would anyone say this was surprising?

 

[supafly]

I suggest that we reflect on some of the discussions between minicamp and the last cut. Most here had come to believe that the 4th rounders would make the team, and that Fleming had the better chance of being some help this year. Almost everyone had come to agree that Hilapio was a longshot to make the 53.

I think the past had helped to convince me that the position of OL was not a huge problem, along with the facts that we chose 2 new OL who were fourth round picks, and that Scarnecchia had actually helped to scout and select this talent.

Obviously, no one predicted that Mankins would be gone. If anything, we predicted that one of the undynamic duo of Wendell/Connelly would be broken up, which may have helped contribute in an "addition by subtraction" kind of manner.

One more reason would be the expected improvement in the receiving options, which is reasonable to expect with the return of Gronk, the return to health of Amendola, the addition of LaFell for depth purposes + the second year of the rookies.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

I do not think anyone is surprised by the OL play in week 1, I think the surprise is that Belichick put the team in that predicament by trading an all-pro LG with a week remaining in the preseason. He makes these abrupt decisions too often in recent years.

I do not have a problem with the move to trade Logan Mankins I have a problem with the timing of it and the lack of transition time. We were not prepared for the change and timing is everything.

I think BB knew trading Mankins that the Pats could struggle early season, but he made a calculated gamble that his players would work things out. BB waited until week 4 of the pre-season to let Mankins go, because he was still evaluating whether someone among the host of young players could step in. He identified Devey as a potential starter early on and played him close to wire-to-wire in the pre-season, trying to develop him into the player that is needed in front of Brady, but he obviously had a notion that Cannon could step in for Mankins. Cannon replacing Mankins will probably work out, and somebody from the group of Devey-Kline-Stork-Wendell will either develop or suffice to make the Pats competitive. The payoff is that the Pats save $6M this year and next to invest elsewhere. If there were more padded practices, the situation would not be so dire, but there is time to play the OL into shape. That's not saying it won't be the weak link preventing a Superbowl win, but it helps put the Pats in a position to compete effectively through the end of TB's contract.

 

[Triumph]

1. Poor IOL personnel, made much worse by the Mankins trade
2. A pair of OTs who struggle against elite speed, and one OT (Solder) who struggles against top strength as well
3. Stupid idea to rotate a lot on the line when you just got rid of your best OL a week ago
4. Facing the Dolphins in the heat of the day

With that, why would anyone say this was surprising?

5 Abandoning the run and passing the ball 56 times.

Its much harder to pass block and that showed Sunday.

 

[Deus Irae]

5 Abandoning the run and passing the ball 56 times.

Its much harder to pass block and that showed Sunday.

Wrong. Again.

 

[Triumph]

Wrong. Again.

No, its already been proven when Brady passes 50+ times that his numbers plummet.

 

[JayNM]

Hardly a surprise. I really condenm BB on this. He knew about our struggles and yet did nothing to stop this, specially in the short term

 

[Deus Irae]

No, its already been proven when Brady passes 50+ times that his numbers plummet.

Ahh..... so your problem is the inability to grasp the whole "causation/correlation" issue? Got it.

 

[Triumph]

Ahh..... so your problem is the inability to grasp the whole "causation/correlation" issue? Got it.

No, my problem is with having a new OL combination playing their first NFL together and taking the pass happy route hanging them and Brady out to dry.

 

[mgteich]

I think BB knew trading Mankins that the Pats could struggle early season, but he made a calculated gamble that his players would work things out. BB waited until week 4 of the pre-season to let Mankins go, because he was still evaluating whether someone among the host of young players could step in. He identified Devey as a potential starter early on and played him close to wire-to-wire in the pre-season, trying to develop him into the player that is needed in front of Brady, but he obviously had a notion that Cannon could step in for Mankins. Cannon replacing Mankins will probably work out, and somebody from the group of Devey-Kline-Stork-Wendell will either develop or suffice to make the Pats competitive. The payoff is that the Pats save $6M this year and next to invest elsewhere. If there were more padded practices, the situation would not be so dire, but there is time to play the OL into shape. That's not saying it won't be the weak link preventing a Superbowl win, but it helps put the Pats in a position to compete effectively through the end of TB's contract.

So, Belichick CHOSE to weaken the OL for this season in order to have $6M more of 2015 cap room?
Yes, the OL will look better later in the season, but in what world would Devey be expected to contribute more in 2015 than Mankins? I had no problem with Mankins leaving AFTER this season.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, my problem is with having a new OL combination playing their first NFL together and taking the pass happy route hanging them and Brady out to dry.

No, your problem, at least with that initial post, is that you don't understand that passing doesn't cause losing and running doesn't cause winning. If it were a causation, no team would ever run less than they pass. Even Mike Martz would have had nothing but game plans without a single pass.

 

[Triumph]

No, your problem, at least with that initial post, is that you don't understand that passing doesn't cause losing and running doesn't cause winning. If it were a causation, no team would ever run less than they pass. Even Mike Martz would have had nothing but game plans without a single pass.

We have already been through all of this in the Josh Mcdaniels thread where you were proven wrong by several people. Again, youre coming with the abandon the pass extreme argument. That didn't work over at the other tread and it doesn't work here either. Youre going to have to come up with something new.

Even Peyton Manning and the Broncos offense only passes 36 times and they ran 32 times.

I shouldn't have to explain to you the virtues of having a balanced offense.

 

[Deus Irae]

We have already been through all of this in the Josh Mcdaniels thread where you were proven wrong by several people.

Since that never happened, perhaps it's your entire outlook that's all screwed up. Knowing the difference between claiming victory/actual victory is apparently as difficult for you as correlation/causation.

Again, youre coming with the abandon the pass extreme argument. That didn't work over at the other tread and it doesn't work here either. Youre going to have to come up with something new.

I'm not "coming up" with anything. I'm pointing out the obvious stupidity of your position.

Even Peyton Manning and the Broncos offense only passes 36 times and they ran 32 times.

I shouldn't have to explain to you the virtues of having a balanced offense.

I shouldn't have to explain to you that you don't run the ball when you can't run the ball, nor should I have to again demonstrate that running the ball kept putting the team in bad situations for either the pass or the run, and I shouldn't have to explain to you that using a 50 throws metric is completely asinine, yet here we are.

 

[Triumph]

Since that never happened, perhaps it's your entire outlook that's all screwed up. Knowing the difference between claiming victory/actual victory is apparently as difficult for you as correlation/causation.




I'm not "coming up" with anything. I'm pointing out the obvious stupidity of your position.



I shouldn't have to explain to you that you don't run the ball when you can't run the ball, nor should I have to again demonstrate that running the ball kept putting the team in bad situations for either the pass or the run, and I shouldn't have to explain to you that using a 50 throws metric is completely asinine, yet here we are.

Its all right here to refresh your memory

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/threads/typical-josh-mcdaniels.1111923/

 

[Kontradiction]

And a silver lining to that cloud will, hopefully, be the disappearance of people who fill this board incessantly with negative crap. It won't be worth it, but it'll be close.

Don't hold your breath. If this team hits the skids, the homers will be gone first. Not naming names, but there was someone here that kept stating he was leaving the forum until the team won after the loss Sunday. He stuck around (good for him) but that will be the way it goes when this team is no longer on top. Further, I honestly believe that some of the crazier homers are more apt to be bandwagon fans. Just studying the psychology of it, I believe that those people have trouble admitting anything negative about the team because they simply don't want to face the aspect that the team may not be the top dog. That sort of psychology lends itself to the belief that they're only so rabid because they're only interesting in rooting for a winner. At leas that's my opinion. Either way, they'll be the first to pack up and leave once Brady and Belichick go and the Pats are in the basement again which, hopefully, doesn't happen for a while.

As for the OL? Only people that were in denial were surprised at the performance on Sunday. The interior OL has been a weakness for two years now and was still shaky this offseason even with Mankins on the team. Once they traded away Mankins and started Wendell, it was pretty much a disaster waiting to happen. Now we have to hope that they have the resources already on the team to fix it or our 37 year old franchise pocket passer is going to take the worst beating of his career in 2014.

 

[Deus Irae]

Its all right here to refresh your memory

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/threads/typical-josh-mcdaniels.1111923/

I know the thread. A bunch of the clueless, led by a mod, demonstrated their cluelessness. That doesn't make them right. It just means that they don't understand either that 2nd and 8 is not the goal, or why 2nd and 8 is not the goal.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

So, Belichick CHOSE to weaken the OL for this season in order to have $6M more of 2015 cap room?
Yes, the OL will look better later in the season, but in what world would Devey be expected to contribute more in 2015 than Mankins? I had no problem with Mankins leaving AFTER this season.

I think he valued the $6M in cap room this year more than he valued Mankins contributions this year relative to who he has on hand. I think he expected some growing pains, but thought they would have pulled together better than they showed on Sunday by then. I'm sure getting things sorted on the OL is at the top of his to-do list, right next to sorting out the run fits on D.