Why all the worry about the offense?

[Rob0729]

17 of those 24 points came off turnovers that put the Ravens in OUR red zone or close to it... the 24 point hole was our offense's doing after our defense gave up one score. After the Ray Rice TD, if the offense so much as gets a few first downs and punts the ball so that Bmore is starting from inside their 30 on the next few possessions we would not have been in this 24-0 hole.

Even after we were giftwrapped 7 points to make it 24-7, our defense and ST set us up near midfield on consecutive possesions and the offense did NOTHING with either opportunity. They had 2 solid chances to cut the lead to 10 and we were getting the ball at halftime. You're underestimating just how pathetic our offense was in that game when there were clear chances to get back into the game. Also you conveniently left out the offfensive debacle @ NYJ minus Welker. If we enter the season with the WR's as they are now we are in trouble, unless Welker is somehow healthy and back up to speed by week 1.

Except I don't know if Welker being in the game would have made a difference in the two turnovers. The strip sack was a play that was designed to go down field to try to exploit the Ravens' weak secondary and it looked that Faulk missed a blockign assignment. The INT was play to Moss that it looked like Brady misread the coverage.

My take was that the team came out flat for some reason and feel deeper into a funk whe down quickly. Belichick deserves blame for not having his team mentally ready for the game and not being able to shake off early mistakes, but I am not convinced that most of the problems was the loss of Welker.

 

[BradyFTW!]

If the Pats signed a TE that could catch the ball, a quality guard, a WR who can play split end effectively (doesn't get jammed at LOS, good route runner, good hands, I'm happy), and another WR for depth, I'd have no real worries to speak of.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Except I don't know if Welker being in the game would have made a difference in the two turnovers. The strip sack was a play that was designed to go down field to try to exploit the Ravens' weak secondary and it looked that Faulk missed a blockign assignment. The INT was play to Moss that it looked like Brady misread the coverage.

It may have, it may not have. Regardless, the offense was anemic throughout the game, and even after that start we had a chance to get back into it. But the offense floundered 2 great opportunities in the 2nd quarter, then go 3 and out to start the 2nd half, then another INT puts Bmore in our territory. I can really only credit them with 7 points that came on the 3rd quarter score. IMO This was the worst offensive performance in the postseason under Brady, even looking beyond the early turnovers. And I'm quite certain not only Welker's loss, but the overall lack of WR depth played a huge factor. We have to approach this offseason with the mindset that at least 1 other reliable target needs to be brought in along with a draftee since Moss is likely gone after next year.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with the OP that we shouldn't be concerned with offense.
Someone said we are STILL 2 PLAYERS AWAY FROM 2007. The 2007 that was the best offense ever? Most teams are about 9 players away from that.
If we assume:
Brady is 100%
The OL is healthy, and/or an effective interior OL sub emerges
Whoever we fill in at TE contributes the minimal amount we require
That Moss' legs don't fall off, Edelman progresses just as a 2nd year player would, Welker's injury heals, and whoever wins the compettion for reserve WR spots can actually play,
We have an offense that is at least as good as any of the 3 that won SBs here.

We need a few acquisitions and/or a few things to happen (one doesnt need to be to have another 100 catch guy in addition to Moss, Welker and Edleman by the way) and none of them are unreasonable, and the offense is competitive and by cmparision to 01,03 and 04 good enough to win a SB.

The work that needs to be done is on defense. Since 2004 (03 really when you consider the 04 injuries) the defense has steadily declined. That is nothing shocking because it was a tremendous, deep, epxerienced defense.
In 2005, the D got better toward the end of the season, but lacked the secodnary to go deep into the playoffs.
In 2006, the D actually played well overall, but had a fatal flaw, not being able to stop obvious passing situaitons because of having to put players on the field who could not cover effectively (Harrison, Gay, LBs, Hobbs to an extent)
In 2007 the offense was so good it covered for the same defensive issues, until someone came along and realized that even with a medicore QB if you spread the field and made Harrision and Gay cover receivers who changed direction, all you needed to do was look at those 2 players and they would be open every play.....as long as the pass rush didnt get there.
In 2008, with no Brady the offense was no longer good enough to cover the defensive deficiencies. Note that these were not deficiencies that made the D bad, but deficiencies that showed up in crunch time and made the team LESS LIKELY to beat good teams.
In 2009, a lot of changes were made to address the issues that evolved from 04-08 (not that they were ignored prior to that, but more moves were made in 09 than other years) and while some of those issues were improved upon, others, including inexperience cropped up.

We have heard for years that the Patriots are about situational football. Play for play, we've been as good since 04 as up to 04, but increasingly we have had situations that we are less effective at and those situations determine the outcome of games (06 AFCC 07 SB to name 2).
The idea that we need wholesale changes is ludicrous. We need either the players on board to perform better in those critical situations (I think we led in the 4th quarter in 14 of 16 games last year, and our record when leading in the 4th was almost unblemished before that) or we need to inject players who perform in those situations into the system.

The offense is definitely not the side of the ball that needs attention, unless we want to be held hostage again by building a team where the offense needs to overcompensate for the defense. The first time it was out of necessity, this time would be out of ignorance.

 

[Badluck]

I don't know if you can make a judgement based on one game. The Pats got into a hole early and were not able to get out of their funk. It doesn't neccessarily mean that it is indicative of what the Pats will do all next season.

Brady had an above average offense in 2006 with Reche Caldwell as his lead WR and Corey Dillon being so broken down that he was spent and out of most games by the second half.

i would take an 06 dillon over any RB we currently have on the roster

 

[Ring 6]

If the Pats signed a TE that could catch the ball, a quality guard, a WR who can play split end effectively (doesn't get jammed at LOS, good route runner, good hands, I'm happy), and another WR for depth, I'd have no real worries to speak of.

1) TE...dime a dozen, especialy the way we use them.
2) G I think having Connolly, Wendell and Ohrenberger as backups is about as good as any team has at backup G.
3/4) Why couldnt Moss, Welker, Edleman, Tate be an effective 4some of WRs (We have never really used a 5th and Aiken will have that spot as the s/t guy) That means we need someone to hold the fort down until Wleker is back and someone to compete with Tate as the last on the depth chart guy. It amazes me that there is such tremendous concern for 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th WRs when we have never really put much prioirty on those roles.
Our 3rd,4th and 5th WRs in the SB years caught the following # of passes:
2001 14,14,4 (1 and 2 combined for 152)
2003 34,16,9 (1 and 2 combined for 97 )
2004 35,17,10 (1 and 2 combined for 100)

Someone help me understand why we need to have 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc, etc WRs better than the ones who never produced much anyway when our 1 and 2 are clearly more prductive than any of the 1 and 2 WRs we won SBs with?
This is absolutely the wrong area to be focussed on.

 

[Ring 6]

i would take an 06 dillon over any RB we currently have on the roster

Why? Nostalgia?

 

[signbabybrady]

Atta boy Andy. You tell them. I fully agree that defense is much more of a pressing need and that while there are some question marks on offense they can be filled internally As in Moss stays at a high level (Should happen), Edelman gets better (year two in a new position should be a no brainer he gets better), Welker Contributes (He likely wont be ready to start but if he can contribute this year that would be huge), Tate shows up (We all liked the idea of drafting him last year as we thought 1st rd talent in the thirs just had to wait a year well the year is up time to pay out), TE (Shouldn't be hard to replace the TE production of late), RB - OL - QB (all return the same core talent). So again some areas are hurt some areas are gettnig old or already there but all areas have something already on the roster that if best case scenarios played out would make for one nasty offense. Yes some youth could be used but I don't see any area that has a need as far as competing this year.

 

[Rob0729]

i would take an 06 dillon over any RB we currently have on the roster

Really?!? You a big fan of RBs who spend more energy waving to the sidelines to pull him from the game and biatching to reporters in the lockerroom than he did running on the field?

 

[JoeSixPat]

BRADY - Was not 100% physically or mentally last season, and age is now becoming a factor.

MOSS - Older, struggling with injuries in recent years, worried about his contract


WELKER: His return date is unknown. His play level upon his return is another unknown


FAULK - Faulk's great, although another year older and only getting one year deals from the team. Edelman is a slot guy, meaning the team still has the Aikens of the world at WR3.


OL: As long as an interior lineman doesn't get injured, they're in good shape.


RBS: If healthy, and if the team doesn't upgrade WR3 and TE, this may be the strength of the offense to start the season.


It's pretty bad when almost every spot on the offense has serious question marks. A lot has to go right for this team to rejoin the elite. Given that 'patient' approach the team has taken so far this offseason, it seems as if the draft will be the jumping off point for the more serious upgrades and depth moves. Relying on rookies from the second round and lower to make major contributions, instead of seeing them as potentially pleasant surprises if they can impact the lineup, is also not a great position to be in.

Brady was definitely not 100% mentally or physically. It's the mental mistakes that were most costly and surprising and up to Brady to demonstrate he's in top form mentally this year. I have much less concern about age being a factor.

I'm not sure if that officially makes Brady a question mark however but if he's not in 2007 form, he'll not be able to cover up other mistakes.

Moss going into a contract year is a GOOD thing IMO... whether he can stay healthy is a different question. I'll list him as a question mark.

Welker - I agree it would be wise not to count on him at all this season. That's my expectation given his need to cut quickly on a repaired ACL.

Faulk - age alone should have him listed as a question mark.

OL - how the team plays as a unit and whether Vollmer/Light can handle speed rushers gives them more of a question mark than I'd like

RBs - agreed, I think we'll be pleasantly surprised by them this year, even though most fans just seem to want to knock them.

So I agree there are question marks - just not sure these are all "serious question marks."

Much comes down to player health and quality depth. For all the moves other teams may have made to starting positions, they have the same question marks dependent on good health and quality depth.

When Belichick has quality depth and all cogs of the machine playing their roles well, he can beat anyone, regardless of whether big names are starting.

 

[The Dynasty]

The biggest issue last season on offense IMO opinion was the lack of a 3rd WR. We not only havent addressed this issue yet, we also lost our #2 WR for atleast the start of 2010. This creates a definite immediate need at the WR position for 1 or 2 WR's that can make an immediate impact. It all depends on what we can get from Edelman and Tate, but there is definitely a need for another WR to be added by the start of the year. Also, they need to add a TE that can catch passes. We added Crumpler who is a solid blocking TE, but we need someone who can make some plays in the passing game. I would expect the Pats to draft a TE in the 2nd round and have Crumpler mentor him for a year or two.

WR and TE are the only needs that I see on offense. Brady is fine, people need to relax about him and his age. He has his 2nd best year statistically last season even when he was coming off of missing the whole year before and was pretty banged up all season long. Brady will be fine this year and for years to come. Faulk and the rest of the RBs are fine, we have 5 of them signed, I think 2 or 3 of them have the potential to step up and contribute. RB's arent a concern. The OL is fine as well, they performed pretty well last year concidering all the injuries and Vollmer has a year under his belt and will probably be even better. Overall, the offense needs to add atleast 1 WR and a TE so I wouldnt necarsarily say not to worry about the offense at all, but I wouldnt be losing sleep over it...as of now.

 

[Ring 6]

The biggest issue last season on offense IMO opinion was the lack of a 3rd WR. We not only havent addressed this issue yet, we also lost our #2 WR for atleast the start of 2010. This creates a definite immediate need at the WR position for 1 or 2 WR's that can make an immediate impact. It all depends on what we can get from Edelman and Tate, but there is definitely a need for another WR to be added by the start of the year. Also, they need to add a TE that can catch passes. We added Crumpler who is a solid blocking TE, but we need someone who can make some plays in the passing game. I would expect the Pats to draft a TE in the 2nd round and have Crumpler mentor him for a year or two.

WR and TE are the only needs that I see on offense. Brady is fine, people need to relax about him and his age. He has his 2nd best year statistically last season even when he was coming off of missing the whole year before and was pretty banged up all season long. Brady will be fine this year and for years to come. Faulk and the rest of the RBs are fine, we have 5 of them signed, I think 2 or 3 of them have the potential to step up and contribute. RB's arent a concern. The OL is fine as well, they performed pretty well last year concidering all the injuries and Vollmer has a year under his belt and will probably be even better. Overall, the offense needs to add atleast 1 WR and a TE so I wouldnt necarsarily say not to worry about the offense at all, but I wouldnt be losing sleep over it...as of now.

I don't understand the hysteria over a #3 WR.
Our 1 and 2 caught 200 passes.
In our 3 SB years our 1 and 2 caught between 97 and 152 and we never had a #3 catch more than the 37 Edelman caught last year.
When did #3 WR become a critical part of our offense?

In other words compared to our SB winners our #1 and 2 WRs caught between 50 and 100 more passes last year, and our #3 caught more than any #3 on those teams. Why is #3 WR our biggest issue when it was as productive as in any SB year even with much more production from the 1 and 2? Wouldn't you need a better 3 when your 1 and 2 are worse not when they are better?

 

[The Dynasty]

I don't understand the hysteria over a #3 WR.
Our 1 and 2 caught 200 passes.
In our 3 SB years our 1 and 2 caught between 97 and 152 and we never had a #3 catch more than the 37 Edelman caught last year.
When did #3 WR become a critical part of our offense?

In other words compared to our SB winners our #1 and 2 WRs caught between 50 and 100 more passes last year, and our #3 caught more than any #3 on those teams. Why is #3 WR our biggest issue when it was as productive as in any SB year even with much more production from the 1 and 2? Wouldn't you need a better 3 when your 1 and 2 are worse not when they are better?

In the SB years we had 3 and 4 quality WR's which made defenses not be able to focus on one or two particular guys which is why Brady was able to spread the ball around so much. This past year with only 2 WR's defenses could devote all of their attention to Moss and Welker and essentially take them out of games and make another member of the Pats beat them. Sam Aiken couldnt do that. You need a 3rd WR that can make plays when teams focus their whole attention on Moss and Welker.

To further my point of a 3rd WR being important look at the SB teams from this year the Colts and the Saints. They both were pass dominant offenses and all had quality #3 WRs that contributed on a weekly basis. In this age in the NFL the #3 WR is very important to a passing teams success.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't understand the hysteria over a #3 WR.
Our 1 and 2 caught 200 passes.
In our 3 SB years our 1 and 2 caught between 97 and 152 and we never had a #3 catch more than the 37 Edelman caught last year.
When did #3 WR become a critical part of our offense?

In other words compared to our SB winners our #1 and 2 WRs caught between 50 and 100 more passes last year, and our #3 caught more than any #3 on those teams. Why is #3 WR our biggest issue when it was as productive as in any SB year even with much more production from the 1 and 2? Wouldn't you need a better 3 when your 1 and 2 are worse not when they are better?

1.) Different scheme offensively, different stylistic emphasis both offensively and defensively, huge talent difference defensively.

2.) Aiken was terrible

2003 receivers = Brown/Branch/Givens. All could get open. Patten was #4. 66 catches from the tight ends

2004 receivers = Branch/Givens/Patten. All could get open. Brown and Bethel were on the team that year. 56 catches from the tight ends.

 

[Ring 6]

1.) Different scheme offensively, different stylistic emphasis both offensively and defensively, huge talent difference defensively.

2.) Aiken was terrible

2003 receivers = Brown/Branch/Givens. All could get open. Patten was #4. 66 catches from the tight ends

2004 receivers = Branch/Givens/Patten. All could get open. Brown and Bethel were on the team that year. 56 catches from the tight ends.

Part of the issue is the scheme. Thats exactly why I do NOT want an emphasis on a #3 WR.
In any event, who lined up in those positions doesnt diminish the fact that getting more production from #3 on top of more production from 1 and 2 (entirely dwarfing the TE #s also) can hardly make #3 wr the biggest weakness.

 

[Deus Irae]

Part of the issue is the scheme. Thats exactly why I do NOT want an emphasis on a #3 WR.
In any event, who lined up in those positions doesnt diminish the fact that getting more production from #3 on top of more production from 1 and 2 (entirely dwarfing the TE #s also) can hardly make #3 wr the biggest weakness.

Ummm.... what you're calling a "fact" is:

1.) opinion

2.) based upon a seemingly poor claim:

2003 (537 attempts): Givens 34 receptions, Branch 57 receptions, Brown 40 receptions. Hell, Bethel had 16 receptions.

2004 (485 attempts): Branch 35 receptions in 9 games, Givens 56 receptions, Patten 44 receptions

2009 (592 attempts): Aiken 20 receptions


On a team that throws the ball far more often, the WR3 had significantly fewer receptions.

 

[Nonentity]

Part of the issue is the scheme. Thats exactly why I do NOT want an emphasis on a #3 WR.
In any event, who lined up in those positions doesnt diminish the fact that getting more production from #3 on top of more production from 1 and 2 (entirely dwarfing the TE #s also) can hardly make #3 wr the biggest weakness.

Sorry, but how does that make any sense at all?

If we use 3 receivers each play, all 3 receivers need to be able to get open. If the opposition know they can just cover Aiken (or whoever the 3rd WR is) with a linebacker, they will never have to worry about the consequences of doubling both Moss and Welker.

Following your logic, if we only have two bona-fide receivers each play then we may as well use a 2WR/2TE set and make our running game better at the same time. The entire point of having 3 WRs on the field at any one time is to create mis-matches against the defense, you can't do that if one of the WRs is incompetent.

 

[Ring 6]

Ummm.... what you're calling a "fact" is:

1.) opinion

2.) based upon a seemingly poor claim:

2003 (537 attempts): Givens 34 receptions, Branch 57 receptions, Brown 40 receptions. Hell, Bethel had 16 receptions.

2004 (485 attempts): Branch 35 receptions in 9 games, Givens 56 receptions, Patten 44 receptions

2009 (592 attempts): Aiken 20 receptions

On a team that throws the ball far more often, the WR3 had significantly fewer receptions.

Aiken was 4th. Edelman had 37 receptions. That is more than the #3 WR on each of the SB Champ teams.

 

[Ring 6]

Sorry, but how does that make any sense at all?

If we use 3 receivers each play, all 3 receivers need to be able to get open. If the opposition know they can just cover Aiken (or whoever the 3rd WR is) with a linebacker, they will never have to worry about the consequences of doubling both Moss and Welker.

Following your logic, if we only have two bona-fide receivers each play then we may as well use a 2WR/2TE set and make our running game better at the same time. The entire point of having 3 WRs on the field at any one time is to create mis-matches against the defense, you can't do that if one of the WRs is incompetent.

My logic was that #3 WR cant be the biggest weakness on the team when the #3 WR in 2009 caught more passes than the #3 WR on our 3 SB Champs, while the 1 and 2 ALSO caught more. IT would actually make sense that having better 1 and 2 would diminish the production of the 3, but actually #3 caught more also.

 

[stinkypete]

Two words: red zone! (or as Belichick would say, "red area!")

The Patriots red zone offense was atrocious in 2009. It was terrible in the beginning of the year, it was terrible in the middle of the year and it was terrible at the end of the year. The team had no problem moving the ball, they were among the league's best, they just couldn't punch it in.

If the defense were elite, like it was during the championship years, then the offense wouldn't be a worry at all. Bottom line is that this young defense WILL be younger in 2010. I expect it to be better, but it can't be expected to eek out a win if the O can't get beyond the 10 yerd line.

This problem is solved simply. The offense needs a big bodied, sure handed target, and a RB who can consistently gain 2 yards when 2 yards are absolutely needed. These guys need not be studs, just be reliable at those tasks.