Are The Patriots Too Dependent On Brady?

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Are Pats too dependent on Brady? - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

Could not agree more with the sentiments of this topic and of the analyst panel on this video which has been talked about for some time now.

It's time for a more pronounced running game,time to take the load off of Brady and a little better defense would be nice as well.


Sure we all want to see those high scoring games and tons of passes and 5,000 yards again,but reality says that it's best to become less pass and increase rushing workload.

It's time for Brady to relax just a little and let the guys behind him become more a factor in games or Brady may not make it 3 or 4 more years,he will eventually get worn down.

 

[Fencer]

The remarkable quote to me was Tedy saying:

I am extremely upset that they let BenJarvus Green-Ellis go.

 

[supafly]

I think a couple things come into play when bringing up this topic:

--I do think we're more dependent on Brady than we were back in 2008, as the defense and backup QB kept us in competition.

--I also think that it's hard NOT to be dependent upon a guy who will go down as one of the greatest QB's of all-time though.

The #'s show that we drifted a bit more towards the pass vs the run last year in 2011. I didn't see the #'s past mid-December or so, but at the time they were approx. 60-40 pass. (I can't find the #'s that I saw in DEC, so if anyone has a link, that'd be great. I'll try again tomorrow at some point)

In the yr before in 2010, the pass still obviously dominated, but it was less of a gap at approx. 55-45 pass. BJGE got his 1,000 yds of course.

With Brady, the emergence of the great young TE's who have redefined the game with matchup nightmares, Welker, and the addition of Llyod, it's hard to imagine a season where they didn't rely on the pass almost as much as last year (60-40).

Maybe they will split the difference somewhere around 57-43 (approx. of course) pass, but still have a running game that keeps the defense off-balance a bit more. I think the key is WHEN they use it, rather than how much they use it, to be honest.

I really don't buy into the whole "Brady getting worn down" theory though...at all. He does not rely on his athletics whatsoever. He relies on his right arm, throwing shorter, timing passes. Even his damn arm isn't overused as much as some other QB's. He doesn't have to worry about losing a step with his legs, since he was slower than a turtle to begin with.

It's his ability to read and react to defenses, audible out of set plays, utilize his leadership abilities, and use his football experience and smarts to keep us in competitive play every year. I believe that TFB plans on playing a bit longer than most of us realize. We've seen it in other QB's, and a lot of them (Elway, Favre) actually had to scramble around a bit more.

As long as we can cut down upon his sacks a bit from last yr (too high in my opinion), then we will be fine. Improving the o-line and taking some pressure off with a more balanced running game certainly wouldn't hurt.

I am happy that they seem to be looking towards the future IMO by running routes and using the talents of the TE's/Welker to allow him to get the ball out quicker, as opposed to having a guy like Moss back there where the damn play took 5-6 seconds just to develop. Those were the plays that I saw him take some major hits on. I could be wrong, but I think that Brady's abilities and longevity are being played to a strength here.

 

[randomk1]

It's a passing league dominated by elite QBs. Every team that has one is overly dependent on that single player.

More consistency in the running game and the D playing better can't hurt though...i'm quite sure of this.

 

[BTTA]

Looks like even ESPN is getting bored during this down time.

 

[Observer]

I think every team is too dependent on the QB, but that's just how the game is designed. Brady didn't throw 5000 yards because we depended on him for it, he threw because he was good enough to and that is a good thing. I don't think over-dependence on the quarterback is a uniquely Patriots problem.

On the other hand, could our running game be better? Certainly, and that is independent of whether or not Brady is reliable or not.

 

[reflexblue]

Are Pats too dependent on Brady? - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

Could not agree more with the sentiments of this topic and of the analyst panel on this video which has been talked about for some time now.

It's time for a more pronounced running game,time to take the load off of Brady and a little better defense would be nice as well.


Sure we all want to see those high scoring games and tons of passes and 5,000 yards again,but reality says that it's best to become less pass and increase rushing workload.

It's time for Brady to relax just a little and let the guys behind him become more a factor in games or Brady may not make it 3 or 4 more years,he will eventually get worn down.

IMO they are Way to dependent on Brady. If he has a bad game, or the defense takes away a receiver the pats struggle to win the game. If the Defense was of a higher quality it wouldn't be so bad. For those who say its a passing league what does that mean? Because teams like to pass everybody has to pass? If your pass defense is good enough you could shut down the passing game and make the other team more reliant on the running game.I'd rather see TB go back to being more of a game manager like he was early on and spread the load around, involve the running game more.

 

[BlueThunder]

Agree with most posters that the Pats need more of a running game to take pressure off Brady. It will just make the passing game even better. Make those third down's 3rd and short so the run or pass will be in play. Josh's playcalling will be interesting to watch. Not sure I saw many screen passes last year....but whatever the Pats O uses, it definately needs more cowbell.

Can't wait to see the Ridley/Vereen combo and what it adds to the running game. Also the use of a true FB to help in the blocking. Hey, maybe they'll actually have the FB RUN the ball !!

I have cabin fever from NO FOOTBALL for so long...Come on Draft Days !

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

The remarkable quote to me was Tedy saying:

Somebody should explain to Tedy that drafting RB's in rounds 2/3 means they are the future.

I wonder if Captain Obvious is available to break the news.

The Patriots QB is being paid $18 million......in a QB driven league. Does "less dependent" mean a less than $18 million salary?

The article is really designed for traffic because the topic will pull the "run the ball more, defense sucks" gaggle out of the woodwork.

 

[Triumph]

The current structure of the team is fine. The Pats are winning and making it to the post season and thats the goal. Get to the playoffs.

 

[Triumph]

The remarkable quote to me was Tedy saying:

He always liked BJGE. You knew what you had in him and theres uncertainty going forward with Ridely and Vereen.

 

[upstater1]

Uh, sure, I'm all for better running backs and better defenses.

But if that means you stop doing whatever-the-hell they were doing last year when Brady was in no-huddle and shotgun and multiple TEs/WRs, then hell no! I personally don't see the use of these FBs except by the goalline. Why? Because the Patriots signal run when they come in with those big packages. But when you have a single back there, whether in shotgun or whatever, you can run it to keep the D off balance. Put it this way: no way Woodhead gets any run in the NFL were it not for the Patriots single back offense.

I don't want to see them going away from that, not when last year's offense was the best offense I've seen in New England in its entire history.

 

[IllegalContact]

is this the PC way to say that the defense sucks donkey balls?

 

[Patjew]

is this the PC way to say that the defense sucks donkey balls?

Not a donkey, per se.

 

[randomk1]

I don't want to see them going away from that, not when last year's offense was the best offense I've seen in New England in its entire history.

No way...04 tops this followed by 07.

A legit 1600 yard rusher that could gain tough yards + Brady?

The numbers these days are just inflated. Doesn't mean it was better.

 

[Ron Sellers]

There is no such thing as a perfectly balanced team in today's NFL thanks to the salary cap, free agency and injuries. Because of that every team is overly dependent on something, because they are weaker in another area.


The Packers were almost mirror images of the Pats: very dependent on the passing game, but below average on pass defense and a mediocre running game; they made up for that with timely turnovers when opponents tried to catch up.

The Saints were the same as Green Bay except with better running backs, but their defense against both the run and the pass was below average.

The Steelers had a good defense but their offensive line is bad. The Ravens had a good defense but what happens if Ray Rice is injured? That may be an even better example of being 'too dependent'.

Even the champion Giants have their holes, particularly in the running game and offensive line.


Getting back to the Pats I think it is worth noting that BJGE played all year with a turf toe, an injury that only gets better with several weeks rest. He didn't miss a single game but his performance dropped dramatically. I think it is a distinct possibility that the coaching staff knew this and therefore passed a bit more than they would have had he been healthy. Vereen was a lost cause with his hamstring, Woodhead was slowed down by a concussion early, the coaches apparently did not have faith in Ridley until the end of the year and Faulk was on PUP and then was seldom seen again after the Steelers game. I think there may have been a relatively large emphasis on the passing game simply because they really had nobody to turn to in the running game for long stretches last year.


As upstater said, I am all for improving the play from the safeties, a better pass rush, better run defense, better running game, you name it ... but I don't want a return to where we all knew exactly what the call was going to be based on either the personnel (empty backfield, 2 RB) or the formation (shotgun vs under center).

Contrary to popular belief the offense is not broken; why fix something that's not broke? A little tweak, sure, but a forklift change is not necessary.

 

[Rob0729]

The running game is becoming less and less important in the NFL. That is just the simple fact of the NFL. Of the top 10 rushing teams, only the Saints (6th) and the Panthers (3rd, but that is because Cam Newton rushed for 706 yards) had a top QB . All the rest run a lot because they had to.

Yes, a better running game will help, but I don't think it is as needed as the original poster suggests. I think the offense is fine as it is if they have to back into the season as is. I don't think they over-rely on Brady in that aspect.

Of course, the defense could use an improvement. Unless this was a top 5 defense, it always could use an improvement. This defense, contrary to the numbers and perception, was middle of the pack. So it could be upgraded to take some of the pressure off the offense.

The Pats were a little over one minute away from winning the Super Bowl. I think people want to manufacture issues.

 

[Rob0729]

Uh, sure, I'm all for better running backs and better defenses.

But if that means you stop doing whatever-the-hell they were doing last year when Brady was in no-huddle and shotgun and multiple TEs/WRs, then hell no! I personally don't see the use of these FBs except by the goalline. Why? Because the Patriots signal run when they come in with those big packages. But when you have a single back there, whether in shotgun or whatever, you can run it to keep the D off balance. Put it this way: no way Woodhead gets any run in the NFL were it not for the Patriots single back offense.

I don't want to see them going away from that, not when last year's offense was the best offense I've seen in New England in its entire history.

I agree. Yes, the Pats could upgrade their RB situation. Other than a handful of teams, everyone can. But the Pats aren't the Jets. The Jets proved last year that they need a strong running game to take pressure off of Sanchez. The Pats don't need that for Brady.

This offense will be most dangerous with Lloyd, Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez all on the field. That means the running play options will be limited. Maybe McDaniels will throw a whole new wrinkle and either Ridley or Vereen can emerge. I think Vereen living up to his promise could be huge because he has the potential to be a threat as a runner and a receiver.

Also, I love the way they use Woodhead (and Faulk before him). The RB draw with Brady in the shotgun can be very deadly if used right.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I agree. Yes, the Pats could upgrade their RB situation. Other than a handful of teams, everyone can. But the Pats aren't the Jets. The Jets proved last year that they need a strong running game to take pressure off of Sanchez. The Pats don't need that for Brady.

This offense will be most dangerous with Lloyd, Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez all on the field. That means the running play options will be limited. Maybe McDaniels will throw a whole new wrinkle and either Ridley or Vereen can emerge. I think Vereen living up to his promise could be huge because he has the potential to be a threat as a runner and a receiver.

Also, I love the way they use Woodhead (and Faulk before him). The RB draw with Brady in the shotgun can be very deadly if used right.

Beautifully, written Rob

The reality is "needing" to run "more" vs "less" is academic.

Teams need to run successfully when success is required.

 

[upstater1]

No way...04 tops this followed by 07.

A legit 1600 yard rusher that could gain tough yards + Brady?

The numbers these days are just inflated. Doesn't mean it was better.

I saw last year's offense as unstoppable even by great defenses, whereas the 07 offense had hitches coming down the stretch. It's hard to really tell because the schedule in 07 was a murderer's row. So that may have a lot to do with it. 04, you make a great point, but there were many close games when the offense WASN'T scoring at the proficiency they showed last year. If I had to take one offense, I would choose last year's.