Offense - Our NEEDS Are Few

[Deus Irae]

cunningham did little to prove he was 'the answer' at one of the OLB spots. a solid player, but he has not earned one of the 2 starting jobs yet, except for default maybe

He played well enough as a rookie to earn the spot, unless the team strikes gold in free agency or the draft. He was able to hold up on the edge, and to get some pressure on the QB. I don't see this as even being in question, so we'll have to just agree to disagree.

assuming the health of and the return of ty warren to previous form is a big assumption and does not do that much to address the pats need to apply pressure on opposing QB's

Correct. But that goes back to the mistake of moving Seymour. With some luck, perhaps this will be the year where that error is fixed.

beyond that, there is poor depth at DE and OLB.

The depth is fine at both positions. It's the starting spots that are the problem.

 

[Shelterdog]

You can't guarantee anything. Using that argument, why bother fixing any problems?

And there is room for significant upgrades at both RB and WR, as well as a desperate need for a starting quality offensive guard. It would be stupid of the team to ignore the weaknesses at those positions.

That means that the only 2011 defensive "needs" are a DE and an OLB. Surely the team doesn't need to devote all 6 top picks on those two positions. The odd reality of this team is that, because of players returning from injury, even though the defense is nowhere near as good as the offense, it's the offense that has more areas of immediate need.

A lot of the players you have pencilled in on defense have been pretty average. The players you list are generally young so hopefully they'll get better but it's not like Spikes/Guyton/Butler/Arrington/Cunningham/Sanders/BMW/Chung have provent themselves as above average starters.

 

[Deus Irae]

A lot of the players you have pencilled in on defense have been pretty average. The players you list are generally young so hopefully they'll get better but it's not like Spikes/Guyton/Butler/Arrington/Cunningham/Sanders/BMW/Chung have provent themselves as above average starters.

1.) You don't need every player to be an above average starter, but having one on each level/player group is important.

2.) Meriweather has proven himself to be an above average starter

3.) The Patriots defense has an "above average starter" at NT, DE, ILB, CB, S

4.) Name the "above average starter" outside WR.

5.) Name the "above average starter" RB


OLB, RB, outside WR..... those are the three levels/groups without any above average starters. As I noted, the defense is the weaker group, but it actually has fewer immediate needs.

 

[Fencer]

Season before last, the Patriots were top 5 in scoring defense. I guess they didn't need to upgrade there, either, especially since all the changes resulted in a lower ranked scoring defense and more points allowed.

Bring back Derrick Burgess!

Well, the question arises as to where on offense the Pats are going to lose talent due to age or contract status.

QB -- not an urgent problem.
WR -- not an urgent problem, Branch's age notwithstanding.
TE -- not an urgent problem; Crumpler is what he is.
RB -- clearly a problem. Faulk has already been replaced, whether or not one things he'll be back next season. (I do.) But 2 of the top 3 bigger backs need replacing due to age.
OL -- clearly a problem. Two starters are FAs. A third is an annual risk to retire, or to get quickly injured if he doesn't. A fourth is aging and seems a bit physically overmatched at times. And the top backup/former starter isn't terribly durable, especially if he can't pop pain pills all the time.

 

[moosekill]

1.) You don't need every player to be an above average starter, but having one on each level/player group is important.

2.) Meriweather has proven himself to be an above average starter

3.) The Patriots defense has an "above average starter" at NT, DE, ILB, CB, S

4.) Name the "above average starter" outside WR.

5.) Name the "above average starter" RB


OLB, RB, outside WR..... those are the three levels/groups without any above average starters. As I noted, the defense is the weaker group, but it actually has fewer immediate needs.

I always hate it when I agree with Deus, but he is pretty well on, except I don't see him mentioning O line, which to me, especially if Mankin leaves needs some help.

I do think wide receiver is a problem too.

I imagine they will add a WR through free agency, if there is free agency. Then we will see what they draft.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, the question arises as to where on offense the Pats are going to lose talent due to age or contract status.

QB -- not an urgent problem.
WR -- not an urgent problem, Branch's age notwithstanding.
TE -- not an urgent problem; Crumpler is what he is.
RB -- clearly a problem. Faulk has already been replaced, whether or not one things he'll be back next season. (I do.) But 2 of the top 3 bigger backs need replacing due to age.
OL -- clearly a problem. Two starters are FAs. A third is an annual risk to retire, or to get quickly injured if he doesn't. A fourth is aging and seems a bit physically overmatched at times. And the top backup/former starter isn't terribly durable, especially if he can't pop pain pills all the time.

Wide receiver is clearly a problem.

 

[Shelterdog]

1.) You don't need every player to be an above average starter, but having one on each level/player group is important.

2.) Meriweather has proven himself to be an above average starter

3.) The Patriots defense has an "above average starter" at NT, DE, ILB, CB, S

4.) Name the "above average starter" outside WR.

5.) Name the "above average starter" RB


OLB, RB, outside WR..... those are the three levels/groups without any above average starters. As I noted, the defense is the weaker group, but it actually has fewer immediate needs.

I think BMW is at best an average starter. He has athletic ability but he seems to screw up a lot (BB thinks so as well, that's why he keeps benching him).

You can't count on Ty Warren to be an above average starter. My fingers are crossed but he's a 30 year old guy with a lot of miles coming off of an injury.

Right now the offense has more needs with LG and LT open.

 

[bucky]

Wide receiver is clearly a problem.

Welker is an above average WR who was not 100% this past year.

Branch is injury-prone, but perfectly capable starter when healthy.

Gronk and Gonzalez are one of the best pass-catching TE tandems in the NFL.

Since the team has been using 2 TE sets almost exclusively, there #3 WR isn't a starter any more like he was in 2007-2009. So the impact from a "good" #3 WR is probably less that it would be from a good nickel back.

There are 3 young WRs on this team (Tate, Price, Edelman) who have not gotten much of a chance to show what they can do (Tate has gotten some chance and produced marginal results.) I think it would be a mistake to just assume that they are not as good as their counterparts at other positions (such as LB and DL) simply because they are stuck behind a better and healthier set of starters.

 

[IllegalContact]

He played well enough as a rookie to earn the spot, unless the team strikes gold in free agency or the draft. He was able to hold up on the edge, and to get some pressure on the QB. I don't see this as even being in question, so we'll have to just agree to disagree..

depends on your definition of 'well enough'. well enough to be considered a long-term prospect for the pats? yup. well enough to be a starter? hell no....he needs to show a hell of alot more than he did. maybe he will, but I just don't see a 7-9 sack season out of him next year, and I don't see enough experience in coverage to pencil him in full-time. It took mcginest 3 years to pick the system up enough to be a full-time starter showing alot more than cunningham has. what makes you think cunningham will be sufficient next year?

Correct. But that goes back to the mistake of moving Seymour. With some luck, perhaps this will be the year where that error is fixed..

even if the pats hadn't moved seymour, he would not have been on the team in 2010. he was gone anyway. so you can't really call it a mistake.

it was a bigger mistake to dump ted larsen at the beginning of the year

The depth is fine at both positions. It's the starting spots that are the problem.

you have names. they don't necessarily make good depth. who do pats have on the DL that doesn't have a question mark? wilfork, that's it......as starters go, ty warren is coming back, but it is reasonably questionable that he will return to pre 2009 form. he has not played a full season since 2007....who else would you call starting-quality? as for the backups, the only one who has ever been consistently reliable is mike wright, but it seems his bell was rung so bad that he's a question for next year (he's not a starter) Love and Pryor are effective in moments, but they are not ideal for DE in the pats system since they are both only 6'1"

the depth is a problem whan you need to depend on a carousel of woods,crable,moore...its not even like injuries decimated the position. just because you have names there does not mean you have depth. matt chatham would start on this team

 

[Seels]

1.) You don't need every player to be an above average starter, but having one on each level/player group is important.

2.) Meriweather has proven himself to be an above average starter

3.) The Patriots defense has an "above average starter" at NT, DE, ILB, CB, S

4.) Name the "above average starter" outside WR.

5.) Name the "above average starter" RB


OLB, RB, outside WR..... those are the three levels/groups without any above average starters. As I noted, the defense is the weaker group, but it actually has fewer immediate needs.

I agree completely, but I'd add Guard for offense. Even guard was a need going in to this year, it's going to be even more of a need going in to next year - regardless of whether or not Mankins is back. Also, most of the high draft picks have gone to the defense lately, with the exceptions being Maroney and Vollmer.

 

[JackBauer]

I think BMW is at best an average starter. He has athletic ability but he seems to screw up a lot (BB thinks so as well, that's why he keeps benching him).

At best?

That's ridiculous. Despite all of these purported "benchings," which usually consisted of BMW not starting the game and then playing throughout, he still notched 80 percent of the defensive snaps last season.

 

[JackBauer]

well enough to be a starter?

Why yes, now that mention it: he did.

 

[Shelterdog]

Welker is an above average WR who was not 100% this past year.

Branch is injury-prone, but perfectly capable starter when healthy.

Gronk and Gonzalez are one of the best pass-catching TE tandems in the NFL.

Since the team has been using 2 TE sets almost exclusively, there #3 WR isn't a starter any more like he was in 2007-2009. So the impact from a "good" #3 WR is probably less that it would be from a good nickel back.

There are 3 young WRs on this team (Tate, Price, Edelman) who have not gotten much of a chance to show what they can do (Tate has gotten some chance and produced marginal results.) I think it would be a mistake to just assume that they are not as good as their counterparts at other positions (such as LB and DL) simply because they are stuck behind a better and healthier set of starters.

Even if you can draft a more talented player than our wideouts, the question (for 2011) is whether a more talented player in his first year in the system (and potentially a very short off-season because of the lockout) is going to be better than Branch his years of experience, Edelmand and Tate in their third years, or Price in his second. If it's Larry Fitzgerald, sure he will be. AJ Green and Julio Jones, yup, they'll probably move ahead of Tate (and maybe even Branch) pretty quickly. But a second round pick like Torrey Smith? That's a much tougher question.

Running back is similar. You can definitely improve the postion by getting a backup for BJGE other than Woodhead, but can you improve on BJGE without drafting Mark Ingram? I'm not sure.

 

[Seels]

Welker is an above average WR who was not 100% this past year.

Branch is injury-prone, but perfectly capable starter when healthy.

The problem here is that both of these guys will be over 30 with one year left remaining on their contract.

Gronk and Gonzalez are one of the best pass-catching TE tandems in the NFL.

Hernandez, and yes they are. Sure. But TE isn't WR.

Since the team has been using 2 TE sets almost exclusively, there #3 WR isn't a starter any more like he was in 2007-2009. So the impact from a "good" #3 WR is probably less that it would be from a good nickel back.

The bolded isn't true, and I don't really get your logic. With two guys older than 30 on the last year of their deal a #3 WR is worse than a good nickel back? What?

There are 3 young WRs on this team (Tate, Price, Edelman) who have not gotten much of a chance to show what they can do (Tate has gotten some chance and produced marginal results.)

Meh, I guess. But you're taking some pretty bold assumptions:
1: Branch and Welker are capable of being as good and as healthy as they were this year
2: The 3 young WR can contribute more than they did this year (which won't be hard, but I'd like to see it happen first)
and 3: In the absence of Welker and Branch, that at least one of these 3 is able to fulfill the role of starter in 2012.

Personally I'm not sold on any of those assumptions, nevermind all 3.

 

[JackBauer]

I don't think this team wants to see Branch starting at WR next season.

 

[Shelterdog]

At best?

That's ridiculous. Despite all of these purported "benchings," which usually consisted of BMW not starting the game and then playing throughout, he still notched 80 percent of the defensive snaps last season.

Nope, that's not what happened in those games. He was moved to sub packages throught bascially the entire game three times. He played 28/69 snaps in the first Jets game, 29/73 in the first Fins game, and 14/45 against Chicago.

An above average starting safety shouldn't leave the field if he's healthy and it's not a total blowout.

Now BMW is a guy who might be awesome in another system but he's just not a fit for a Belichick defense.

 

[JackBauer]

Nope, that's not what happened in those games. He was moved to sub packages throught bascially the entire game three times. He played 28/69 snaps in the first Jets game, 29/73 in the first Fins game, and 14/45 against Chicago.

An above average starting safety shouldn't leave the field if he's healthy and it's not a total blowout.

Now BMW is a guy who might be awesome in another system but he's just not a fit for a Belichick defense.

The Chicago game was an aberration due to weather, most likely.

When you use the word "benching," it implies that the guy wasn't playing. He was. And he played more than any other safety on the roster.

That's interesting you've divined him to not be a fit for the Belichick defense. Perhaps someone should notify Bill?

 

[bucky]

The bolded isn't true, and I don't really get your logic. With two guys older than 30 on the last year of their deal a #3 WR is worse than a good nickel back? What?

Thanks for the correction w/regard to Hernandez. What I'm saying is that the Nickel back is more important to this team than the #3 WR because the Pats don't use 3 WR alignments that often any more. And even they do, the #3 WR is going to be the 3rd/4th option on almost every play. Additionally, Hernandez is the kind of TE you can split out as a 3rd WR.

If you assume that both guys will be gone a year from now, they definitely need to be replaced. But like I said, it's quite possible that Price/Tate/Edelman might get us 80% of the way there. What are the other options? You want to draft another 3rd round WR or sign another 30+ year old UFA?

 

[JackBauer]

What are the other options? You want to draft another 3rd round WR or sign another 30+ year old UFA?

Why do those have to be the only options?

When was the last time a team won the Super Bowl with starting wideouts as poor as Branch/Welker?

 

[Shelterdog]

The Chicago game was an aberration due to weather, most likely.

When you use the word "benching," it implies that the guy wasn't playing. He was. And he played more than any other safety on the roster.

That's interesting you've divined him to not be a fit for the Belichick defense. Perhaps someone should notify Bill?

Would you be happy if I said he was moved down the depth chart rather than benched? The point is in three games (Jets, Miami, Chicago) (four if you count the end of season Miami game, but I wouldn't) he was on the field for less of half of the snaps, replaced in the base defense by Sanders or Page, and in four others (GB, Balt, Cincy, Buffalo) he was on the bench quite a bit.

Belichick obviously had problems with his play in 2010. Compare it with 2009 (BMW played 97% of the snaps) or 2008 (BMW played 85% of the snaps but 100% the last ten weeks of the season). And add to that that when BMW was playing 100% of the snaps in the middle of the season both Chung and Page were hurt.