DL Randy Starks

[tonyto3690]

Those guys are still too expensive. We don't have 50 million in cap to blow. We have roughly 20 million and a bunch of free agents that need to be resigned or replaced.

We dont need 50 million of cap space, but we certainly have a weak pass rush that needs improvement.


And we have a poor pass rush.
The pass rush issue is at least as big as the coverage issue, and we need starters and key contributors not depth.

You can't base need on the number of players at a position without considering quality.
We have one effective pass rusher at DE, and the other starter is below average with nothing behind them to challenge them.
We have ZERO effective pass rushers at the DT spot.
Arguably, we have one of the worst pass rushing DL in the NFL, and its not even arguable we are among the worst if not the worst pass rushing team from the DT position in the entire league.

How is he budget friendly? We have plenty of run stopping DTs who can't rush the passer, how is wasting money on another one going to make the team better?

It doesn't matter how good your front 4 is if you have Marquice Cole as your starting corner.

McCourty thankfully gives us some flexibility, but we need to sign AT LEAST an outside corner + a slut corner (McCourty to S) or AT LEAST a starting safety and slot corner (McCourty to CB). That's two starters we need to get in the secondary.

Then on offense we were complaining all season about how we didn't have any outside threat, and you want to role into the season with Lloyd as our #1 and Slater as our #2 with who knows what garbage as our #3? You're asking for a 2006 let-down season all over again by doing that.


Sorry, while I really want an upgrade at DE and DT, Ninkovich is passable as as the fourth best starter on the DL and Starks would be an instant upgrade over Love. The more I'm looking at our cap and our needs, the more I'm thinking we don't even have enough money for Starks, let alone someone even more expensive.

You seem stuck on a DT who can rush the passer above everything else. Suh is the best at the game at that and the Lions defense suffered because he couldn't stop the run which is what Belichick hangs his hat on. Starks his entire career has been asked to two gap and draw double teams. He is a far better pass rusher than you're giving credit for, and it's akin to you saying Seymour was a garbage DT/DE because he didn't have a ton of sacks. Just completely stupid logic.

Please tell me how many Patriots defensive linemen have had ten sacks in the Belichick era. Heck how many PLAYERS have had that many sacks in the Belichick era?

I'm pretty sure Carter, Anderson and Vrable are the only ones to have double digit sacks on our defense in the entirety of Belichicks career as headcoach here.

Sacks and pass rush are not as important as a disciplined unit that can stop the run to Belichick. If that means we have to occasionally blitz, that is the price you pay. I would much rather see us force teams to make long arduous drives than to give them big splash plays and hope our splash plays are more frequent.

Would he though? If that is the case then he may be a possibility, but CBS Sports currently has him ranked ahead of guys like Talib and William Moore as the 21st highest ranked free agent available.

I'm not so sure that he will be as budget friendly as you are assuming.

That would be surprising. From what I've seen and read, he doesn't get nearly enough love. Not that the media and fan posters are indicative of how front office talent evaluators feel, but it just seems he's flying under the radar and can be had for a very reasonable price

Oh please. Wilfork is the best run stopping defense tackle in the game. Bryant wasn't even the same planet as him this season. Maybe it was injury, and maybe his level of play will spike next season. But right now, he's Kenyon Coleman on a 5/35 contract.

I'm not saying Bryant is as good as Wilfork. The notion "he doesn't get sacks therefore sux" was stupid and I was pointing to how Wilfork is an example right under our noses to show how stupid that concept really is.

Red Bryant is one of the best run stopping linemen in the entire NFL. Teams run away from him the entire game, exactly like we did in the game against us. He dictated what we did on offense and it became painfully clear that we needed to avoid him about the third consecutive time we ran in his direction resulted in 0 yards.

The Patriots didn't offer him 5/35 because he's not a well rounded, dynamic player. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a great player as the secondary guy to Wilfork.

 

[supafly]

a slut corner

I drive past the local slut corner every day on my way to work, and sometimes if I'm having a bad day I am somewhat tempted to pull over and honk the horn.

 

[Ring 6]

It doesn't matter how good your front 4 is if you have Marquice Cole as your starting corner.

Who is asking for that?
I want a better pass rush. That doesn't mean ignoring the corner position, but you knew that, so out came the strawman.

It also doesn't matter who is covering if Kyle Love, VW, Ninkovich, Deaderick and Cunningham are you pass rushers other than Jones.
The pass rush on this team is worse than the coverage.

McCourty thankfully gives us some flexibility, but we need to sign AT LEAST an outside corner + a slut corner (McCourty to S) or AT LEAST a starting safety and slot corner (McCourty to CB). That's two starters we need to get in the secondary.

How does signing Randy Starks fit into that?
We suck rushing the passer. No one is saying don't fill other needs.

Then on offense we were complaining all season about how we didn't have any outside threat, and you want to role into the season with Lloyd as our #1 and Slater as our #2 with who knows what garbage as our #3? You're asking for a 2006 let-down season all over again by doing that.

Strawman 2, which now appears to be assuming you think I want to spend 20mill in cap space on a pass rusher.
We need to keep Welker, btw.

Sorry, while I really want an upgrade at DE and DT, Ninkovich is passable as as the fourth best starter on the DL and Starks would be an instant upgrade over Love. The more I'm looking at our cap and our needs, the more I'm thinking we don't even have enough money for Starks, let alone someone even more expensive.

Starks doesn't help this team.

You seem stuck on a DT who can rush the passer above everything else.

Where did I say above everything else? Just because a need is important doesnt mean wanting to fill that need means not filling others.

Suh is the best at the game at that and the Lions defense suffered because he couldn't stop the run which is what Belichick hangs his hat on.

Suh is not the problem in Detroit. Jesus, where do you come up with this?
BB doesn't hang his hat on stopping the run, or you wouldn't be seeing a 260lb LDE in the base and a 260 DT in sub.
We have plenty of defenders to play the run, we stink rushing the QB.

Starks his entire career has been asked to two gap and draw double teams. He is a far better pass rusher than you're giving credit for, and it's akin to you saying Seymour was a garbage DT/DE because he didn't have a ton of sacks. Just completely stupid logic.

Dude, every sentence you write is saying I have an opinion I never gave. When did I EVER (in my life) judge a pass rusher by sacks, or for that matter any defender by stats?
Seymour is one of the best inside pass rushers the NFL has seen in a generation. Starks cant rush the passer. Its not based on numbers its based on the ability of the player.

 

[supafly]

Then on offense we were complaining all season about how we didn't have any outside threat, and you want to role into the season with Lloyd as our #1 and Slater as our #2 with who knows what garbage as our #3? You're asking for a 2006 let-down season all over again by doing that.

Obviously no one wants the WR lineup that you are projecting, but I thought that I'd remind you that the 2006 "letdown" season consisted of a defense that allowed 14.8 points a game (#2 in the league), and should have produced an easy SB victory over the CHI Bears, had it not been for a blown 21-6 halftime lead in the AFC Championship game.

Most fans/posters were let down by the WR corps which consisted of a couple of scrubs (Caldwell and Gabriel) and more passes to the RBs and TEs, but I was most let down by the fact that a perfect 4th SB opportunity was wasted due to some bad calls and a sick overworked defensive unit.

Personally, I am not buying into the huge need for an outside threat. Not after back to back AFCCG or better appearances in the last 2 seasons and a total of ONE NFL game played in two years after our team was eliminated.

 

[Ring 6]

Obviously no one wants the WR lineup that you are projecting, but I thought that I'd remind you that the 2006 "letdown" season consisted of a defense that allowed 14.8 points a game (#2 in the league), and should have produced an easy SB victory over the CHI Bears, had it not been for a blown 21-6 halftime lead in the AFC Championship game.

Most fans/posters were let down by the WR corps which consisted of a couple of scrubs (Caldwell and Gabriel) and more passes to the RBs and TEs, but I was most let down by the fact that a perfect 4th SB opportunity was wasted due to some bad calls and a sick overworked defensive unit.

Personally, I am not buying into the huge need for an outside threat. Not after back to back AFCCG or better appearances in the last 2 seasons and a total of ONE NFL game played in two years after our team was eliminated.

The 'outside threat' has pretty much become the mantra of 'I don't like that we lose and thats something we don't have, so it must be the answer'

 

[letekro]

The 'outside threat' has pretty much become the mantra of 'I don't like that we lose and thats something we don't have, so it must be the answer'

We have a lot of players that threaten the same part of the field--short/middle. We need to threaten other parts of the field. All other things being equal, do you think it's easier for a defense to defend 20 yards of vertical field or 50 yards of vertical field?

 

[Ring 6]

We have a lot of players that threaten the same part of the field--short/middle. We need to threaten other parts of the field. All other things being equal, do you think it's easier for a defense to defend 20 yards of vertical field or 50 yards of vertical field?

And thats exactly what I mean. Our offense has been top 12 IN HISTORY in each of the last 3 seasons. That pretty much proves that people saying that is a weakness are wrong. And don't give me the argument that it only matters in the playoffs after 4PM against teams that once were considered physical, and have Armenian LGs. Its bs

 

[Ring 6]

We have a lot of players that threaten the same part of the field--short/middle. We need to threaten other parts of the field. All other things being equal, do you think it's easier for a defense to defend 20 yards of vertical field or 50 yards of vertical field?

And you make defenses defend the entire field by running routes to it, not by having a guy fans think 'scares' defenses,
Watch games, esp from all22. Defenses cover our deep routes just like other teams. The difference is we are so good otherwise, we don't need to throw them if the man isn't open. Of course if they didn't defend that part of the field they would be open.
You don't really think we run the only offense in the NFL that doesnt send recievers to all parts of the field to draw the defense where they want them, do you?

 

[TriplecHamp]

And you make defenses defend the entire field by running routes to it, not by having a guy fans think 'scares' defenses,
Watch games, esp from all22. Defenses cover our deep routes just like other teams. The difference is we are so good otherwise, we don't need to throw them if the man isn't open. Of course if they didn't defend that part of the field they would be open.
You don't really think we run the only offense in the NFL that doesnt send recievers to all parts of the field to draw the defense where they want them, do you?

If I'm a corner playing against Brandon Lloyd or Dieon Branch. Im getting up in their face at the line and getting my hands on them. Im playing anything underneath 1st and over the top 2nd. I'll give them a step on anything down the field because I know they won't run away from me. Defenses obviously have to defend the entire field but against us the most certainly can and do cheat up.

 

[letekro]

And thats exactly what I mean. Our offense has been top 12 IN HISTORY in each of the last 3 seasons. That pretty much proves that people saying that is a weakness are wrong. And don't give me the argument that it only matters in the playoffs after 4PM against teams that once were considered physical, and have Armenian LGs. Its bs

You should watch a game every now instead of mindlessly repeating stats that everybody is well aware of.

In each of the recent playoff losses (I'm talking '10, '11, and '12), it is not hard to see that there are defenders in the jocks of all of our receivers. In other words, the defense is selling out against stopping the short stuff--taking a calculated risk that they will get the benefits of that strategy without having to pay for it. A legitimate deep threat would help take teams out of that strategy. That seems pretty clear, although I'm sure you will argue just for the sake of arguing.

You're right that not all years are the same. In 07, the offensive line didn't hold up; in 09, the team just wasn't very good in a number of areas. But the last three playoff losses have been pretty similar.

 

[supafly]

the last three playoff losses have been pretty similar.

They've been pretty similar in the sense that the defense completely ***** the bed in every game, allowing 33, 28, and 28, and also very similar in the sense that some weird, crazy stuff that can't be predicted happened in all of those games to turn the momentum completely. It's hard to get much truth to any patterns due to the fact that you can't take into account dropped passes, botched fake punt attempts, injuries, crazy winds, and blown calls.

I still think that the current offense has proven to be good enough that they routinely beat top rated competiton with their regular scheme, so that should be taken into account. Sometimes the other team just plays better that day, and it's hard to guage how often that has happened. I'd be interested in hearing Belichick's take on what his opinion is.

As far as the WR "need" goes, I would definitely agree that they should look to the position in the draft, but that's probably more due to the fact that they have an obvious lack of current and future players signed at that particular position.

I would also bring in a couple of middle/lower tiered WR's through the free agency route in hopes of hitting on a more complete receiver who will not cost very much, although the odds are probably not very good for that to pan out. Either way I certainly expect Belichick to address the problem...or more importantly "his version" of the problem.

Those who want to play musical chairs and change up the team with the removal of Welker (and the 'hope' that will work) aren't thinking this through, and I can't really see many other options of addressing all of the needs AND spending bigger type money for that kind of receiver, especially when you take the cap and the future into perspective.

 

[Ring 6]

If I'm a corner playing against Brandon Lloyd or Dieon Branch. Im getting up in their face at the line and getting my hands on them. Im playing anything underneath 1st and over the top 2nd. I'll give them a step on anything down the field because I know they won't run away from me. Defenses obviously have to defend the entire field but against us the most certainly can and do cheat up.

Then how is our offense so successful?
The point I am not making is not if you can make such an argument but that there is absolutley no evidence it limits the offense.

 

[Kontradiction]

They've been pretty similar in the sense that the defense completely ***** the bed in every game, allowing 33, 28, and 28, and also very similar in the sense that some weird, crazy stuff that can't be predicted happened in all of those games to turn the momentum completely. It's hard to get much truth to any patterns due to the fact that you can't take into account dropped passes, botched fake punt attempts, injuries, crazy winds, and blown calls.

I still think that the current offense has proven to be good enough that they routinely beat top rated competiton with their regular scheme, so that should be taken into account. Sometimes the other team just plays better that day, and it's hard to guage how often that has happened. I'd be interested in hearing Belichick's take on what his opinion is.

As far as the WR "need" goes, I would definitely agree that they should look to the position in the draft, but that's probably more due to the fact that they have an obvious lack of current and future players signed at that particular position.

I would also bring in a couple of middle/lower tiered WR's through the free agency route in hopes of hitting on a more complete receiver who will not cost very much, although the odds are probably not very good for that to pan out. Either way I certainly expect Belichick to address the problem...or more importantly "his version" of the problem.

Those who want to play musical chairs and change up the team with the removal of Welker (and the 'hope' that will work) aren't thinking this through, and I can't really see many other options of addressing all of the needs AND spending bigger type money for that kind of receiver, especially when you take the cap and the future into perspective.

I think the defense played well enough in this year's AFCCG until the flood gates finally busted open. The offense was primarily at fault for this one. The loss of Gronk hurt the red zone offense big time. That's why I'd love to see the addition of a bigger, more physical receiver. One would make the offense more dynamic with Gronk and would keep the red zone offense potent without him.

 

[supafly]

If I'm a corner playing against Brandon Lloyd or Dieon Branch. Im getting up in their face at the line and getting my hands on them. Im playing anything underneath 1st and over the top 2nd. I'll give them a step on anything down the field because I know they won't run away from me. Defenses obviously have to defend the entire field but against us the most certainly can and do cheat up.

It's sounds good in principle, but if it were that simple then we wouldn't be setting records every year in different offensive categories.

You aren't taking into account how much of that is offset by superior playcalling or scheme design.

You also aren't taking into account how important Gronkowski would have been in attacking the Ravens nickel defense with the running attack, which is yet another way to make teams choose their poison and will likely be more effective moving forward.

I think we all would like a younger and more complete WR (including BB), but we are not necessarily agreeing on the right way to acquire that kind of player. We are also not agreeing on the level of "need" that the offense has for this player either, so that is a popular debate.

 

[Ring 6]

You should watch a game every now instead of mindlessly repeating stats that everybody is well aware of.

How many points and offense scores is not 'stats'. I would assume if everyone was well aware then these misconceptions wouldn't happen.

In each of the recent playoff losses (I'm talking '10, '11, and '12), it is not hard to see that there are defenders in the jocks of all of our receivers. In other words, the defense is selling out against stopping the short stuff--taking a calculated risk that they will get the benefits of that strategy without having to pay for it. A legitimate deep threat would help take teams out of that strategy. That seems pretty clear, although I'm sure you will argue just for the sake of arguing.

First of all, that really isn't even what they have done, but lets just assume it is. We still moved the ball against all of those teams. In those 3 losses we threw for 845 yards, and in the 3 wins around them we threw for another 932.
So in 6 playoff games in the last 3 years we threw for 1777 yards. That is the equivalent of 4739 over a season.
Yes, we lost 3 of those games. But the phenomena you describe is not why.

You're right that not all years are the same. In 07, the offensive line didn't hold up; in 09, the team just wasn't very good in a number of areas. But the last three playoff losses have been pretty similar.

Only becuase the other team scored more points.
A more consistent similarity is turnover differential, as well as the lack of a pass rush or ability to stop long drives, or even be competitive on the key ones.

 

[Ring 6]

It's sounds good in principle, but if it were that simple then we wouldn't be setting records every year in different offensive categories.

You aren't taking into account how much of that is offset by superior playcalling or scheme design.

You also aren't taking into account how important Gronkowski would have been in attacking the Ravens nickel defense with the running attack, which is yet another way to make teams choose their poison and will likely be more effective moving forward.

I think we all would like a younger and more complete WR (including BB), but we are not necessarily agreeing on the right way to acquire that kind of player. We are also not agreeing on the level of "need" that the offense has for this player either, so that is a popular debate.

Lets put it this way. Our offense lacks the facet of the deep route runner who scares people (and catches one every 2-3 weeks or so) but without that facet we have been better than all of the offense that have it.
Should we be clamoring for a Larry Csonka type FB who can lead block and run for 1000 yards, since we don't have one of those either?

 

[Ring 6]

I think the defense played well enough in this year's AFCCG until the flood gates finally busted open. The offense was primarily at fault for this one. The loss of Gronk hurt the red zone offense big time. That's why I'd love to see the addition of a bigger, more physical receiver. One would make the offense more dynamic with Gronk and would keep the red zone offense potent without him.

I don't know how you can give a defense a pass that:
Allowed 3 consecutive TD drives (changing the game from 13-7 to 13-28)
Those drives totalled 197 yards
The Ravens only faced a 3rd down once on all 3 combined and ran for 11 yards on 3rd and 2

Its pretty much impossible to play worse defense than that.
You can't give up 3 consecutive easy TDs without resistance in the second half of a playoff game and hope to win.

Sure the offense didn't do its part, but the defense was equally as bad.
This was a total team loss.

 

[supafly]

I think the defense played well enough in this year's AFCCG until the flood gates finally busted open. The offense was primarily at fault for this one. The loss of Gronk hurt the red zone offense big time. That's why I'd love to see the addition of a bigger, more physical receiver. One would make the offense more dynamic with Gronk and would keep the red zone offense potent without him.

I think it's a chicken vs egg kind of thing for many, and your points are certainly recognized and they make sense.

For me though, it's hard to necessarily blame the offense more than I do the defense for giving up 3 late game TD's in a 13-7 game with 5 min remaining in the 3rd quarter. Our past success especially in the playoffs was primarily determined by the ability of the defense to win close, low-scoring games. Like I said, during the dynasty years the offense averaged 18.4 pts in those 9 key playoff victories, so that's a huge difference.

There were many factors at play in the AFFCG though, including the key injury to Talib which forced the inadequate depth at CB to be pushed to Arrington on the outside and Cole in the slot (mainly facing Boldin). The intense crosswinds certainly came into play as the team had to punt 3x when they had the ball inside the BAL 35, which normally doesn't happen. The key drop again by Welker didn't help as the score would have been at least 16-7 or even 20-7 later in the 3rd quarter, and then you had the back to back longer/successful drives which resulted in a concussed fumble and a tipped pass at the LOS.

For me it's hard to blame the offense when they proved they could move the ball very effectively and put up a 7/15 third down conversion rate. Where we can agree that they failed though, was their red zone execution, but the loss of Gronk and inability to run probably has a lot to do with that too.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm curious if the people claiming the lack of deep threat is such a critical need, could give a list of the WRs in the NFL that fit that description. Please give a list that has at least 10-15 players. That way it is a realistic list of the type of player we would have if we focussed on it and we at least as good at that spot as 1/3-1/2 of the teams.

 

[Ring 6]

I think it's a chicken vs egg kind of thing for many, and your points are certainly recognized and they make sense.

For me though, it's hard to necessarily blame the offense more than I do the defense for giving up 3 late game TD's in a 13-7 game with 5 min remaining in the 3rd quarter. Our past success especially in the playoffs was primarily determined by the ability of the defense to win close, low-scoring games. Like I said, during the dynasty years the offense averaged 18.4 pts in those 9 key playoff victories, so that's a huge difference.

There were many factors at play in the AFFCG though, including the key injury to Talib which forced the inadequate depth at CB to be pushed to Arrington on the outside and Cole in the slot (mainly facing Boldin). The intense crosswinds certainly came into play as the team had to punt 3x when they had the ball inside the BAL 35, which normally doesn't happen. The key drop again by Welker didn't help as the score would have been at least 16-7 or even 20-7 later in the 3rd quarter, and then you had the back to back longer/successful drives which resulted in a concussed fumble and a tipped pass at the LOS.

For me it's hard to blame the offense when they proved they could move the ball very effectively and put up a 7/15 third down conversion rate. Where we can agree that they failed though, was their red zone execution, but the loss of Gronk and inability to run probably has a lot to do with that too.

I think what this board consistently misses is the distinction of what went wrong in a game, and what needs to be changed to make the team better. That seems to be why we get square peg in round hole comments such as the playoff losses have been to similar teams when it isn't close to accurate.
Sometimes you play poorly. When that happens the moronic thing to do is to change for change sake and get rid of yor strengths.