****** Official Unofficial Patriots/Rams Postgame Observations Thread ******

[MoLewisrocks]

When an OLman doesn't get mentioned it's usually a positive thing. Neal, Vollmer and Koppen were all singled out and not positively. Light got a nod. Although in fact those were all on individual plays, of which the offense had 39 on the night in roughly a quarter of play scattered across almost 4 quarters and the starting OL probably less than 30 snaps apiece, at one point after a 46 minute break... At times in the early going the failure to convert had nothing to do with the line play... On run plays it's debateable. The one thing that isn't is that the focus wasn't on that aspect of the offense last night, it was on pass in the spread and with some alternate weapons in the arsenal. Brady got sacked once, from the right side, but aside from that he had a tremendous night for someone only on the field for a little more than 10 minutes total and an offense that puts up 21 points under those adverse conditions plus 14 more on a backup offensive score and a ST score to open the game isn't too shabby let alone on a night when you weren't game planning and you were clearly testing lots of things. That the defense gave up 37 points was the problem, and most seem to be in relative agreement as to how and perhaps why that likely transpired.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

Wake up calls are better done in the pre-season than in regular season where one bad game in the ultra-competitive AFC is enough to keep you home from the playoffs.

Nothing breeds overconfidence more than going undefeated in the pre-season, so maybe it is a good thing to get beat by a 1 win team last season. These youngsters (24 in last 2 years + UDFA's) need to realize there are no 'East Carolina State' teams in the NFL. The old cliche 'on any given Sunday' is still true and the sooner these kids learn that - the better.

Yes I am trying to put shine on sh&t - but often times lessons are better learned when there is loss involved. We all tend to easily forget the mistakes (and learn from them) when we have suceeded.

Failure and fear can be great motivators.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I have to admit that I didn't see the because we didn't get it down here, but going from the comments here and in the media, I could conclude one of two things:

1) This is not a good defensive football team and, on offense, it is a team that will have to rely excessively again on the passing game, assuming a shaky O-Line can protect the Franchise. In other words, bad news if we had illusions of returning, at least partially, to the glory days this season.

2) Last night's game was "just one of those things" that happens in all sports, but particularly in the NFL, where a team just doesn't play well on a particular day for reasons that people can agonize over but that might just not be fully explainable. In other words, all we can do is shake our heads and put it behind us.

I'm going to choose explanation Number 2).

Probably a wise choice. Ross Tucker, who used to play for Bill, had a piece up on NFP yesterday that offered some much needed perspective heading into week 3, the week coaches more often than not use as a proverbial dress rehersal week of the pre season:

And even though there is a level of game-planning involved, that doesn't mean the team is going to show its best new stuff schematically. Why unveil a new blitz in the preseason and let your opponents prepare for it?

Lastly, there is no telling what agenda the coaches had when they put together the game plan. They might want to see if their front seven on defense can hold up to the run without bringing a safety into the box, even though in a real game they would do exactly that. Or maybe they just want to focus on the passing game because they already feel extremely confident in their ability to run the football. There's simply no way to know what teams are trying to accomplish, thus everything that happens this weekend should still be taken with a rather sizable grain of salt.


Do Week 3 preseason games matter; Tim Tebow and Broncos; more - Ross Tucker - SI.com

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Probably a wise choice. Ross Tucker, who used to play for Bill, had a piece up on NFP yesterday that offered some much needed perspective heading into week 3, the week coaches more often than not use as a proverbial dress rehersal week of the pre season:

And even though there is a level of game-planning involved, that doesn't mean the team is going to show its best new stuff schematically. Why unveil a new blitz in the preseason and let your opponents prepare for it?

Lastly, there is no telling what agenda the coaches had when they put together the game plan. They might want to see if their front seven on defense can hold up to the run without bringing a safety into the box, even though in a real game they would do exactly that. Or maybe they just want to focus on the passing game because they already feel extremely confident in their ability to run the football. There's simply no way to know what teams are trying to accomplish, thus everything that happens this weekend should still be taken with a rather sizable grain of salt.


Do Week 3 preseason games matter; Tim Tebow and Broncos; more - Ross Tucker - SI.com

Thanks. That's useful stuff. I usually wait until about Week Six before I think about jumping out the window...

 

[BradyManny]

Funny.... nothing about Connolly playing "fine" or anything of that sort. Hell, no mention of him at all.

This seems like a leap you wouldn't normally make - if Connolly drew no mention, where do you get that he didn't play well? They aren't going to list the number of players who played "fine" in an Up/Down list. How many times did Logan Mankins make an Up/Down list? Guards don't always draw attention to themselves, and if they do, like with most offensive linemen it's often not for good things. So no mention is not necessarily a bad thing.

We have to use our own eyes. I'm going to rewatch the game at some point and confirm/deny my original opinion that Connolly continued to be the one of, or the, line's most consistent performer of this preseason.

 

[Deus Irae]

This seems like a leap you wouldn't normally make - if Connolly drew no mention, where do you get that he didn't play well? They aren't going to list the number of players who played "fine" in an Up/Down list. How many times did Logan Mankins make an Up/Down list? Guards don't always draw attention to themselves, and if they do, like with most offensive linemen it's often not for good things. So no mention is not necessarily a bad thing.

But I never claimed that he was out there sucking with the force of a thousand tornadoes.

Something else to note.... All the Connolly rumpswabbing seems to have died down. So, if nothing else positive came out of last night, maybe the "Mankins who?" crap ending will be enough to keep us going.

My followup was very tame, as well:

Connolly didn't look fine last night. In his defense, nobody on the line really looked fine.

That was it, until the Patriots publicity agent assigned to Patsfans.com decided to jump into the fray with this nonsense:

The OL looked pretty good in extremely limited action. The pass blocking was effective as Brady's stat line attests. Not sure if the run blocking was sub par or the RB were in limited opportunities.

That same agent even went to the Reiss article as if it supported his contention but, apparently, he didn't bother to actually read the whole thing:

So much for pounding the ball. The Patriots had success running the ball in their first two preseason games, but they leaned more toward the pass in their seven offensive plays. Pass protection was spotty. Overall, like the defense, it hasn’t been an inspiring effort.

There was nothing wrong with my 2 posts, and I stand by both of them. The "no mention of him" was merely in response to the publicist.

 

[BradyManny]

But I never claimed that he was out there sucking with the force of a thousand tornadoes.

That's fine - but I think until someone takes a closer look at Connolly's play, I don't see how his stock would move one way or another from last nite's play. If you're saying that's enough to quiet the "we don't need Mankins" crowd, then sure, you'd have a point - but I'm not sure it is.

I, for one, never said we don't need Mankins. I'd much rather have him. Just not at $8 milli a year.

But, again, I would wager - based on what I saw - that Connolly's play continued to be adequate starter caliber play, in spite of a few struggles along the OL as a whole.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's fine - but I think until someone takes a closer look at Connolly's play, I don't see how his stock would move one way or another from last nite's play. If you're saying that's enough to quiet the "we don't need Mankins" crowd, then sure, you'd have a point - but I'm not sure it is.

I, for one, never said we don't need Mankins. I'd much rather have him. Just not at $8 milli a year.

But, again, I would wager - based on what I saw - that Connolly's play continued to be adequate starter caliber play, in spite of a few struggles along the OL as a whole.

Connolly was getting help from Light and Koppen, which is a very bad thing moving forward. Light's got to be free to focus on his man, because he's facing the best the opposition has to offer.

 

[Garbanza]

Seemed to me that the run game was not really being featured. Although 0-line (run blocking) may be a concern, last night's performance - or lack of - is all on the defense. D-line sucked. No pass rush. Blitz was hit or miss. Secondary was abysmal. LB's can't cover space. Color me concerned.

 

[Ring 6]

Havent had a chance to read the rest of the thread, but here are my thoughts from the first watch last night.

Brace is a beast. I sure hope the injury is minor because Brace is the best DE we have. I dont care about experience or anything else, really. I care that he literally manhandles the guy trying to block him. I have absolutely no question that if he is healthy he will a 'starter' and he will be more than just a run stopper. His bull rush ability is very useful in our 2 gap base D. It doesnt take a lot of film study to know that a guy who drives his blocker backwards relatively often, at least holds his ground consistently in run D and knows how to find the ball is going to be a good player. Brace-Wilfork-Warren with Wright subbing in when needed, give us Wright 100% fresh to play rush DT in the sub packages.

Burgess is one awful OLB. Which means about the same things as Tom Brady is an awful OLB because he is going to play there about as much. Anyone who watched Burgess last night in the base D will realize why he doesnt play in the base D, except in an emergency. Whether or not he can rush the passer in sub packages is all that matters, and we will see how that goes. I reaffirm my hope that he is playing DT on 3rd and long to get more inside pressure. Could easily happen if Cunningham gets on the field and he and TBC are the DEs.

Count me among those who don't like to see it, get a nagging worry, but truly could care less how our defense looks in a preseason game against a dink and dunk passing team. People on this board are acting like the 1st player taken in the draft shouldn't be able to see we are playing a zone and complete a 5 yard pass in it. Or that BB isnt famous for making his defense play the same D until they get it right in the preseason rather than calling a D that would be best to stop the other team. I gag at the comments about play calling and gameplanning. Duh.

I think that when Tom Brady was 18-22-276-3 TDs, I dont have to worry that we had a few drives stopped because we didnt convert 3rd downs.

I don't know how we can judge running game or run blocking when we never really tried to run.

Gronk is going to make a lot of plays as a Patriot. However, TE plays in our offense tend to come in bunches, so I'm not sure about consistency of production.

I expect next week Hoyer will play almost the full 60, and we will run the ball 40-50 times with Maroney and Taylor getting at least 10 a piece to get ready for week 1. Without Brady playing much if at all, the O will get a good chance to work on the running game, which probably has to do with why it was ignored yesterday.

Lost in all the sadsacking is that Tom Brady looks completely unstoppable. The TD drive that started with the long play to Welker looked like the drive in 07 when he came back in the game against Miami. After they scored, then pick-sixed Cassel, and Brady threw 3 passes for 80 yards and a Td like he was toying with them. With Welker, Tate, Hernandez, Gronk, Faulk, Edelman, we can attack the entire field WITHOUT Moss. I don't know if its more exciting that they may not be able to overcommit to Moss, or how dangerous this offense will be if they don't.

I don't know how a team with Brady looking like he does now, and the weapons that he has wins less than 12 games even if it has a bottom 5 D. Brady is better and has more weapons than Manning when Manning was winning 12 games a season with a bad D. Not tossing the D aside, just saying I think Brady with these weapons wins 12+ win anyones D.

 

[Patspsycho]

Havent had a chance to read the rest of the thread, but here are my thoughts from the first watch last night.

Brace is a beast. I sure hope the injury is minor because Brace is the best DE we have. I dont care about experience or anything else, really. I care that he literally manhandles the guy trying to block him. I have absolutely no question that if he is healthy he will a 'starter' and he will be more than just a run stopper. His bull rush ability is very useful in our 2 gap base D. It doesnt take a lot of film study to know that a guy who drives his blocker backwards relatively often, at least holds his ground consistently in run D and knows how to find the ball is going to be a good player. Brace-Wilfork-Warren with Wright subbing in when needed, give us Wright 100% fresh to play rush DT in the sub packages.

Burgess is one awful OLB. Which means about the same things as Tom Brady is an awful OLB because he is going to play there about as much. Anyone who watched Burgess last night in the base D will realize why he doesnt play in the base D, except in an emergency. Whether or not he can rush the passer in sub packages is all that matters, and we will see how that goes. I reaffirm my hope that he is playing DT on 3rd and long to get more inside pressure. Could easily happen if Cunningham gets on the field and he and TBC are the DEs.

Count me among those who don't like to see it, get a nagging worry, but truly could care less how our defense looks in a preseason game against a dink and dunk passing team. People on this board are acting like the 1st player taken in the draft shouldn't be able to see we are playing a zone and complete a 5 yard pass in it. Or that BB isnt famous for making his defense play the same D until they get it right in the preseason rather than calling a D that would be best to stop the other team. I gag at the comments about play calling and gameplanning. Duh.

I think that when Tom Brady was 18-22-276-3 TDs, I dont have to worry that we had a few drives stopped because we didnt convert 3rd downs.

I don't know how we can judge running game or run blocking when we never really tried to run.

Gronk is going to make a lot of plays as a Patriot. However, TE plays in our offense tend to come in bunches, so I'm not sure about consistency of production.

I expect next week Hoyer will play almost the full 60, and we will run the ball 40-50 times with Maroney and Taylor getting at least 10 a piece to get ready for week 1. Without Brady playing much if at all, the O will get a good chance to work on the running game, which probably has to do with why it was ignored yesterday.

Lost in all the sadsacking is that Tom Brady looks completely unstoppable. The TD drive that started with the long play to Welker looked like the drive in 07 when he came back in the game against Miami. After they scored, then pick-sixed Cassel, and Brady threw 3 passes for 80 yards and a Td like he was toying with them. With Welker, Tate, Hernandez, Gronk, Faulk, Edelman, we can attack the entire field WITHOUT Moss. I don't know if its more exciting that they may not be able to overcommit to Moss, or how dangerous this offense will be if they don't.

I don't know how a team with Brady looking like he does now, and the weapons that he has wins less than 12 games even if it has a bottom 5 D. Brady is better and has more weapons than Manning when Manning was winning 12 games a season with a bad D. Not tossing the D aside, just saying I think Brady with these weapons wins 12+ win anyones D.

So you think Maroney is not going to play much next week?

 

[Ring 6]

So you think Maroney is not going to play much next week?

I think he and Taylor will each get 10 carries or so to get them ready, mostly in the first half.

 

[Patspsycho]

I think he and Taylor will each get 10 carries or so to get them ready, mostly in the first half.

It has been BJGE, then Taylor, then Morris, and the logical assumption would be that Maroney will carry most of the load next week.

Makes for plenty of intrigue. One could be tempted to read something into it if he doesn't get much snaps next week.

 

[Ring 6]

It has been BJGE, then Taylor, then Morris, and the logical assumption would be that Maroney will carry most of the load next week.

Makes for plenty of intrigue. One could be tempted to read something into it if he doesn't get much snaps next week.

There are many ways to read into it. In the end all of the speculation after next week will live for a week until game 1 answers the question.
I think that Maroney, like most other pre-seasons is being kept of the field to keep him from being exposed to injury. Taylor has also, but I from what I've read he was sluggish in practice and BB probably felt he could use the work last week.
I think that Maroney is a known commodity who has never played much in the preseason anyway.
If Maroney were behind all 3 of those guys on the depth chart, he would have been on the field battling for a job or being show cased.
The idea that he isn't playing becuase he is 4th on the depth chart is IMO, a creation of fans who don't like him and are looking for reasons to believe BB agrees with them.
But thats just my opinion, backed up by the facts as I see them.

BTW, 10 carries would be a lot of playing time in an exhibition game.

 

[Ring 6]

BTW, I would expect Maroney to not even dress next week (like last year, when the same conspiracy theories were floating around) except that his lack of work so far makes me think he needs a tune up.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Maroney will be the starting RB against Cincy in week 1 - I beleive

Belichick has heard another of Maroney's proclamations that he will be a factor in games this season and he will probably start off the season with him as the starter to see if there is an an indication that its not another BS quote from LoMo

 

[Ring 6]

Maroney will be the starting RB against Cincy in week 1 - I beleive

Belichick has heard another of Maroney's proclamations that he will be a factor in games this season and he will probably start off the season with him as the starter to see if there is an an indication that its not another BS quote from LoMo

You are kidding, right?
You don't truly believe that BB reads the paper and says, oooo I better start him to see if he is right that he is going to have a good year. Do you? Do you?

Maroney and Taylor will split the RB snaps that arent Faulks.

 

[pherein]

Did I hear right? Watching the game again today, before ours starts, and Im pretty sure I heard the Super Domes "Crunk" song being played at Foxboro.
Did I hear that right?

 

[juny]

I read that Gronkowski had a tremendous game, but didn't see Hernandez on the stat sheet. Did he even play yesterday (he looked great in game 2)? So far both TEs look like solid picks!

 

[Sciz]

I read that Gronkowski had a tremendous game, but didn't see Hernandez on the stat sheet. Did he even play yesterday (he looked great in game 2)? So far both TEs look like solid picks!

Nope. Hernandez was held out after not practicing all week. Supposedly it's not serious.