You mean losing a receiver averaging over 100 catches/year as a Pat leaves a big hole at the position? Of course there is a hole. She is "one of the ones" with "the ones" including everyone. The questions are a) how much of that hole can BTate fill and b) when will Welker be back at near 100%.
There were people who were insisting that Aiken did a fine job last year, regardless of Welker and company. There are also those that are basically arguing "Yeah, Welker is great, but we've got Edelman, so no worries!". I'd expect that she's distancing herself from those people, and rightly so.
The locker room has been/is/will continue to be strong enough to provide the structure and environment for dedicated players to succeed. It never was/isn't/will never be enough to "absorb" anyone that wants to be a problem child. The first sentence also applies to a handful of the top teams in the NFL. The second sentence applies to every team in the NFL.
Given that even players on the team have talked about the locker room issues, I'd say that you're being awfully dismissive of this as an issue.
"Playmakers" is a completely loaded word. It has come to mean everything from "high-priced" to "freakish athlete" to "stat hound". The Pats need none of these things in isolation. The Pats need more players that make big plays in big situations. They could make big bucks (or not). They could be workout warriors (or not). They could be record-breakers (or not). The Pats could have a handful of "playmakers" on the roster right now that haven't had the experience or opportunity to come up big yet. Or not.
I'm with you on this. Belichick's next first round draft choice that goes bust will be his first. When people stop insisting that all players drafted in the first 6 rounds become All-Pro players or be considered busts, a more reasonable draft analysis will be achieved.
I really want the anti-Moss crowd to stand up and be accountable this year. Assuming he and Brady are healthy, Moss should be a huge factor in the Pats success. So if Moss-ageddon doesn't happen, these statements should be revisited.
Moss has had his moments, but has generally been an excellent addition to the Patriots, so I'm not sure why either side feels the need to be so black and white on the topic.
Seriously. The Pats pretty much have 4 gimme games (besides the "any give Sunday" factor)...2xBuffalo, Cleveland, Detroit. That gives the Pats 12 games (7 of them at home) and only needing 6 wins to reach double digits. Let me repeat...12 games, 7 at home, need to win 6. So while 8-8 or worse is certainly a possibility, it strains credibility to say that the Pats are "looking at an 8-8 season".
10 wins last year. A tougher schedule this year. Seeming improvement from the Jets. Welker likely out for a fair portion of the season.
I don't buy the 8 wins scenario, but I don't see where it strains credibility to look at where the team is at this point and come up with that number.
As for the "right now" part. Of course the Pats have roster space they need to fill. This is the deepest draft in a generation and the Pats have a boatload of picks, a handful of them early. A good number of these players will need roles and responsibilities from day one. They won't just be camp fodder or fighting for a special teams spot. So some of those "holes" are actually reserved seats for some talented players (dare I say "playmakers") added a month from now.
I pointed this out on another thread, but it bears repeating here: The Patriots average about 1 successful free agent and 1 starting rookie each year of late. That would not be enough to make up for all the doom and gloom. The odds are that the improvement will need to come from within, particularly if the team keeps largely out of the free agent market.
OLB, DE, TE and WR are definitely needs (how many top 50 picks do the Pats have?). At ILB, the Pats have a relatively high draft pick they haven't even unwrapped yet. Even punting Kaczur, the Pats are relatively deep at all positions but center... and last time I looked you only started one of those. The Pats still have 2 picks from last year who haven't had an opportunity yet. These positions are only needs this year if the Pats are going to flush players, and even then a good number would have to go.
With Neal down, this team was a train wreck at guard last season, so I don't know where you're coming up with the notion of the team being relatively deep at guard, unless you're predicting a successful Kaczur move to the position. As for ILB, Guyton is weak against the run. Counting on an essential rookie (McKenzie) to step into the breach is a risky proposition. Then again, drafting a rookie to do the same thing is just as risky, outside of the injury factor.
Know what other teams had ILB's that weren't strong against the run? They should be familiar because they played in a pretty big game in February. So go ahead and lust for McClain in the draft or look for the next Ted Johnson or wonder how many NT's can fit in a 4-3 alignment. Just don't be surprised when the Pats are sitting at home watching the playoffs after crushing losses against Manning and Rivers and Roethlisberger and Favre and Rodgers and ... This is a passing league and almost all the Pats big losses under Belichick have been the result of the inability to get the opposing QB off the field at crunch time.
Go ahead and mention the Ravens game. Try explaining how a slower, stouter ILB would have stopped that 80 yard run or prevented the Ravens from having a handful of drives start inside the Pats 25.
Generally speaking, if you stop an opponent's running game and make it one-dimensional, you make it much easier to play pass defense. Also, the Ravens destroyed the Patriots almost exclusively on the ground because, if you can't stop the run, opponents have no need to pass against you. As for the explanation you seek, if you can't see how a better run stopper might have helped stop a run, I don't know what to tell you (Of course, the unwritten part of your request requires that someone point out that the team also needs that DE improvement on the right side in order to solidify the run defense). It's not just one position, which is why it's surely a major concern for the Patriots' brass.
I actually agree with you on SMY, but this chat was full of "conventional wisdom" and very little depth or insight. While it is sure to get high ratings from the reactionary "I can run the Pats better" crowd, it is pretty old and stale. There are plenty of legitimate questions around the team-building and on-field play of the Pats. And almost all of it doesn't involve Maroney's breakfast.
Some of it is 'stale', much of it is not. Something else that's 'stale' is the ostrich routine that's ongoing from those who can't bear to hear a discouraging word. It works both ways. In a 24 hour news cycle, with 24 hour message boards, pretty much everything goes stale in a matter of hours or days.
