Running Game Without Vereen For 10 Weeks

[mgteich]

We were the #7 running team in the NFL last year, with a minimal contribution from Vereen. His part year production this year should be greater than his 2012 production. Besides, we'll have his fresh legs for the playoff run and the playoffs.

We replaced Woodhead with Blount and Washington. Bolden could also be a factor when he is healthy.

Is our running game still top 10 this year?

 

[Big-T]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

Not if Ridley keeps wearing those Soap gloves!

 

[TruthSeeker]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

I think Vereen is as big a loss to the RB crew as Amendola is to the receivers, and Gronkowski is to the TEs. Without those 3, the Pats offense is below average. I'm not jumping off of any bridges, but I think this is going to be a very long season.

 

[Nehalem]

Time for Edelman to showcase his versatility by moonlighting as a RB?

 

[mgteich]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

I think Vereen is as big a loss to the RB crew as Amendola is to the receivers, and Gronkowski is to the TEs. Without those 3, the Pats offense is below average. I'm not jumping off of any bridges, but I think this is going to be a very long season.

I strongly disagree, but then, that is point of this thread.

Gronkowski IS the TE corp. We have none other qualified to catch more than a pass or two, although someone could develop.

Amendola is our #1 WR and the replacement for Welker. He is Brady's go-to man. Even as we celebrate the great success of Edelman, it is good to remember that he is a #2/#3 receiver (which is fine)

Vereen is our backup and 3rd down back. He may be better than Ridley to carry the main load, or not. A couple of fumbles lead to punishment not a change in roles on the team. One game does not change the reality that Ridley was one of the leading RB's in the NFL last year, and that we have reasonable backups in Blount, Washington and Bolden. Washington was signed to replace Woodhead. He is nowhere near the threat of Vereen, and there will be a definite reduction in production.

For me, Vereen would only be "critical" if Ridley weren't on the team. Then the situation would be similar to the situations with Gronkowski and Amendola.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Vereen is only out for the minimum of 8 games.

The only reason it's "10 weeks" (really, 9 weeks) is that the Pats have a bye in Week 10, when he'd first be eligible to play.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

I think Vereen is as big a loss to the RB crew as Amendola is to the receivers, and Gronkowski is to the TEs. Without those 3, the Pats offense is below average. I'm not jumping off of any bridges, but I think this is going to be a very long season.

Agreed re: the impact of Vereen's loss. The whole point of a guy like Vereen is that he isn't 'just' a running back. By being in the game, the Pats are completely avoiding declaring run vs. pass, and instead are forcing the defense to declare.

Ridley's a good running back, but he's a traditional running back who can be defended in traditional ways. You assign a linebacker to cover him in the event that he runs a route out of the backfield, and you're pretty much okay.

Do the same with Vereen, and the Pats are likely to motion him over into the slot, or just have him run a downfield route out of the backfield (like the wheel route that he ran against the Bills that would have been a 25+ yard gain if Brady hadn't overthrown him).

Vereen creates matchup dilemmas on par with Gronk, and forces the defense to declare what they're going to stop, and then allows the Patriots the flexibility to go the other way and isolate individual defenders and force them to do things that they're not capable of doing. Example: Vereen's long TD reception against Houston last year. That was a linebacker chasing him down the field; he had no chance, because that isn't what linebackers do in general, and it certainly isn't what he does. So once the Pats identified that he was in man coverage on Vereen, they motioned him out wide and forced that linebacker into an impossible-to-defend situation. The result was a 32 yard touchdown.

Vereen's versatility is borderline impossible to defend when you have an intelligent QB who identifies what the defense is doing and changes things on the fly to exploit it. And none of this is even mentioning how valuable a guy like that is to a no-huddle offense.

Ridley, as good as he is, just doesn't bring that to the table. It's not even really a knock on him, because almost nobody does. Vereen's just a pretty unique player, and that's why losing him especially sucks. You can't even go and grab someone who can do what he does 80% as well. Instead, I'd imagine that his role (and therefore a not-insignificant portion of the playbook) is basically gone until he returns, unless Washington comes in and shows more ability as a RB and as a receiver than he has at any point before this in his NFL career.

The silver lining, I guess, is that if he's going to get hurt, now is the time to do it. Getting him back around week 11 gives him enough time to be in peak form for the playoffs, and even allows for the possibility of a setback. If Gronk, Amendola, and Vereen are all 100% for the homestretch and hopefully the playoff run, I still like the Pats' chances as much as anyone's/

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

Vereen is our backup and 3rd down back.

He's a whole lot more than that.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

I suspect the Pats superior passing offense contributed mightily to the running attack last year and, if this years passing attack doesn't improve, my guess is teams will have less trouble shutting the run game down.

If so, I think the running game suffers during Vereen's absence.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

He's a whole lot more than that.

Ridley was the #7 back in the NFL last year on a team that was the #7 running team in the NFL last year.

A repeat of 2012, would have us as the #7 rushing team in the NFL.

We have Brady leading our offense (and teaching the kids). We have an improved defense.

For me, losing a player who didn't contribute much last year and who will likely produce a lot this year (even in half a season) is just not critical. I don't see how it could be,

 

[PatsFan2]

We were the #7 running team in the NFL last year, with a minimal contribution from Vereen. His part year production this year should be greater than his 2012 production. Besides, we'll have his fresh legs for the playoff run and the playoffs.

We replaced Woodhead with Blount and Washington. Bolden could also be a factor when he is healthy.

Is our running game still top 10 this year?

I don't think the Loss of Vereen hurts our running game...Riddler and Bolden are better runners between the Tackles. What we will miss is his dynamic threat on Third Downs as both a runner and receiver. I think Bolden have the upside to develop that aspect of his game.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

I don't think the Loss of Vereen hurts our running game...Riddler and Bolden are better runners between the Tackles. What we will miss is his dynamic threat on Third Downs as both a runner and receiver. I think Bolden have the upside to develop that aspect of his game.

Remember, the short passing game to the backs is part of our running attack. Ridley has shown himself to not be much of a receiver. Not sure about Bolden and, although Blount can catch, I'm not so sure he can run effectively enough to justify being out there all of the time. Washington might help but flip a coin.

 

[BTTA]

Hey gang, MGTeich is essentially making an optimistic post, saying that we should be ok with the running game without Vereen, that his injury is an opportunity lost more than a dent in what we have from last year. Let's let him do it, just for the precedent of the optimistic post. We need more of that around here.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

So, without Vereen, the offense will be careening?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

Ridley was the #7 back in the NFL last year on a team that was the #7 running team in the NFL last year.

A repeat of 2012, would have us as the #7 rushing team in the NFL.

We have Brady leading our offense (and teaching the kids). We have an improved defense.

For me, losing a player who didn't contribute much last year and who will likely produce a lot this year (even in half a season) is just not critical. I don't see how it could be,

We're not going to have a repeat of 2012 for a number of reasons, starting with the fact that Gronk is on the shelf and Welker and Hernandez are gone. The offense that the Pats ran last year in order to get to that #7 ranking (2 TE base) isn't viable with the current personnel available.

There are a lot of moving parts involved in this, and I think that trying to oversimplify it is a mistake. The fact is that the running and passing games are linked. The threat of one makes the other more effective. The Pats have gone very far out of their way, over the years and especially in the past couple, to find players who can offer value on running and passing plays, specifically to maximize this effect. It just so happens that the three guys who best exemplified this versatility were Gronk, Hernandez, and Vereen. As of right now, they're all unavailable.

Without that personnel, last year's #7 ranking just isn't relevant to this year's team, because it was achieved using players and formations that aren't currently available.

 

[Ring 6]

We were the #7 running team in the NFL last year, with a minimal contribution from Vereen. His part year production this year should be greater than his 2012 production. Besides, we'll have his fresh legs for the playoff run and the playoffs.

We replaced Woodhead with Blount and Washington. Bolden could also be a factor when he is healthy.

Is our running game still top 10 this year?

I think whoever is on the field in the Woodhead role will put up excellent rushing numbers. I'm more concerned with the receiving and blockng aspect.
Any one of our RBs can run well on shotgun draw plays.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

I understand.

Now tell me, how did the patriots running game rate in yesterday's terrible outing, with no TE's?

We're not going to have a repeat of 2012 for a number of reasons, starting with the fact that Gronk is on the shelf and Welker and Hernandez are gone. The offense that the Pats ran last year in order to get to that #7 ranking (2 TE base) isn't viable with the current personnel available.

There are a lot of moving parts involved in this, and I think that trying to oversimplify it is a mistake. The fact is that the running and passing games are linked. The threat of one makes the other more effective. The Pats have gone very far out of their way, over the years and especially in the past couple, to find players who can offer value on running and passing plays, specifically to maximize this effect. It just so happens that the three guys who best exemplified this versatility were Gronk, Hernandez, and Vereen. As of right now, they're all unavailable.

Without that personnel, last year's #7 ranking just isn't relevant to this year's team, because it was achieved using players and formations that aren't currently available.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

I understand.

Now tell me, how did the patriots running game rate in yesterday's terrible outing, with no TE's?

Who said it was a terrible outing? That's an awfully transparent straw man, and I'm pretty sure that you know better than that. Saying that last year's personnel/formations aren't currently available doesn't automatically make the ground game 'terrible'. A five year old can spot the enormous gap in that reasoning.

In any case, if your point is that the running game is fine without Vereen, then citing the Buffalo is a pretty terrible idea. It was fine precisely because Vereen was there to save it.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

Obviously, the straw man was on purpose. Many posters seem to think that the patriots had a terrible outing Sunday.

Fine, so we are on the same page (different than others).

Vereen had a fine game. There is no reason to think that Ridley will not have the same fine games as he did last year, this week and in the weeks to come.

Who said it was a terrible outing? That's an awfully transparent straw man, and I'm pretty sure that you know better than that. Saying that last year's personnel/formations aren't currently available doesn't automatically make the ground game 'terrible'. A five year old can spot the enormous gap in that reasoning.

In any case, if your point is that the running game is fine without Vereen, then citing the Buffalo is a pretty terrible idea. It was fine precisely because Vereen was there to save it.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

Obviously, the straw man was on purpose. Many posters seem to think that the patriots had a terrible outing yesterday.

Fine, so we are on the same page (different than others).

Vereen Had a fine game. There is no reason to think that Ridley will not have the same fine games as he did last year, this week and in the weeks to come.

Right on, I'd agree with that. The only things terrible about the Buffalo game were the injuries and the turnovers. The turnovers were all pretty flukish--Brady fumbling a snap for the first time in years, Ridley fumbling without being touched, a pass that was in Sudfeld's hands being intercepted--so I'm not even really worried about that. They took what would have been a blowout divison road win and made it into a close division road win. Last time I checked, style points don't get counted in the standings, so I'll take the win.

The injuries, though, will be a big issue going forward. I agree that Ridley will be fine, and he'll probably get 100+ yards tomorrow if I had to guess. Having said that, Vereen is a major loss who will be felt in far more ways than you'd see from losing third down/backup running back. That's part of Vereen's role, but far from the entirety of it.