The loss of Blount, Bennett, and Long is going to hurt us

[Tony2046]

Blount averaged like 1.2 a carry in the playoffs Vs anyone other than Indianapolis...i think they'll be OK without him

Wow. 1.2 yards per carry is probably his average TD rush. He had 15 TD's from inside the opponent's 10 yard line.

Look at his splits. He was a 4+ yard per carry back whose stats were diminished by his RZ carries. i.e. One yard TD's.




One hell of a yard though.

 

[PatsFanNM]

One of the problems with threads like this is that fans think of last year's team, then subtract the guys who left -- what this thread is about -- then add in new guys about which something is known, typically veterans, then figure they can calculate what this year's team is going to be like.

But BB's take, which I think is likely to be more on the money, is that it's a whole new team. Some of the players were on last year's team. Some of the veterans will be older and slower, perhaps to a degree that makes them hardly useful at all, or at least in some cases will make them less useful. Some of the veterans are relatively young and will play a lot better. Some of the guys that are new will catch on and play a lot better than you might expect; some won't catch on at all and may not even make the team.

And then there's the rookies, the rookie free agents, and the guys you add on in training camp, all of whom are pretty much unknown.

It's a whole new team, with some elements you already know about, and how it comes together is pretty unknown, except for Pats Fans, who are able to count on it being pretty good.

By the way, Mike Gillislee is 218-219 lbs. I had remembered 220, so I looked it up. Not a big back, but big enough to make an impression on a tackler. A lot bigger than James White or Dion Lewis.

 

[jimnance]

********. And I say that respectfully.

What he said.

 

[Deus Irae]

How is it impossible for him not to be less effective? You run plays and get results there isn't a bonus for size.

Perhaps I don't understand what role you are talking about.

Yes

It's pretty easy. Gillisle is not a big back. Blount is a big back. Gillislee may, or may not, turn out to be a better workhorse runner for the Patriots, but he won't be a better big back, because he's not a big back. People seem to be reading a lot into that. All I noted was the absence of a big back to close things out, with Blount gone.

 

[FourierSeries]

The OP is such a huge geek. I can already tell that he'll be on the receiving end of a lot of ridicule this season.

 

[Edelmania]

I like those three and all but if you think that the new acquisitions arent an upgrade then you are just wrong. I think you are overvaluing the players we lost and maybe undervaluing what we gained.

 

[Simpelton]

Blount averaged like 1.2 a carry in the playoffs Vs anyone other than Indianapolis...i think they'll be OK without him

Is the contention here that having a great YPC is fundamental to being a great running back? It's not like the Patriots relied heavily on the run game to move the chains after the first 4 games. When they went to Blunt it was usually second or short or first and long or goal and short. The situations in which they used Blount were not situaitons where massive yardage was needed. If they wanted big yardage they usually went to Brady for it -- far moreso than an average team would. Blount's role was as a grinder, not a chain mover. He was there to keep defenses honest, keep them from going all out rushing Brady, wear out defenses trying to tackle him, and scratch some yards if the opportunity presented itself. And he was very good at that.

I see the YPC dropping sharply after Garoppolo and Brissett were done pretending to be starting quarterbacks and I don't see a "decline." I see a role change, one that switches Blount from a primary source of offensive yards, into the scheme of a pass-first offense where his responsibilities are diminished both because the quarterback gets the lion's share of the football and catch-and-run guys play a far bigger role between the 30s.

Kinda think that's not being taken into account by those thinking YPC is the be-all. As far as I'm concerned Blount did his job and did it very well, and when the franchise stocked the RB cupboard without him, he didn't have a hard time finding another team to use his talents afterward either.

Now granted he was mostly a no-show in the playoffs. in the playoffs you put the ball in Brady's hands because he's your best shot to win. If Blount isn't lighting it up in his first few snaps (which tend to come before Brady has worn the defensive line out with endless lightning passes) Brady tends to own the football for the balance of the game and Blount won't get many additional looks. Again, I see a role change. He didn't do well because unless he had a fast start Brady carried the offense and he wasn't asked to do much.

In short I feel that role rather than decline (or rather than solely decline to be more precise) determined the change in Blount's statistics and I really doubt the coaching staff where anywhere near as disappointed with Blount as some of the fans seem to have been. Heck if the rumors are to be believed they tried to keep Blount, but at the end of the day he'll probably get far more snaps with an inferior quarterback on the Eagles.

 

[Tunescribe]

I'm pessimistic we can recapture the magic.

 

[Ring 6]

Ok so I am considering workhorse runner the role. I don't think the difference in size is anything to worry about.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I'm not sure about not knowing if I am not worried about not replacing guys we failed to not loose.

Maybe.

I hate to not be overly negative.

 

[Tunescribe]

I'm not sure about not knowing if I am not worried about not replacing guys we failed to not loose. Maybe. I hate to not be overly negative.

"Blount is not walking through that door, people. Neither are Long or Bennett -- they're not walking through that door! And of they were, they'd be a step slower, want a different playing role or a lot more money. All the negativity in this town sucks!"

 

[Off The Grid]

If the implication here is that this team needs a big back closer like Blount, I'm not sure that Blount is, by his nature, that style of runner. He seemed to either get stuffed behind the line of scrimmage on 3rd and short or break out on a nice long run.

Always thought of him as a little back trapped in a big back body.

Bingo. Perfect.

Blount was Big, but not Strong.

He was remarkably agile for a PowerBack...but somehow lacked Power.

 

[Tunescribe]

Bingo. Perfect.

Blount was Big, but not Strong.

He was remarkably agile for a PowerBack...but somehow lacked Power.

Solid anecdotal evidence that he never existed.

 

[FCB02062]

Is the contention here that having a great YPC is fundamental to being a great running back? It's not like the Patriots relied heavily on the run game to move the chains after the first 4 games. When they went to Blunt it was usually second or short or first and long or goal and short. The situations in which they used Blount were not situaitons where massive yardage was needed. If they wanted big yardage they usually went to Brady for it -- far moreso than an average team would. Blount's role was as a grinder, not a chain mover. He was there to keep defenses honest, keep them from going all out rushing Brady, wear out defenses trying to tackle him, and scratch some yards if the opportunity presented itself. And he was very good at that.

I see the YPC dropping sharply after Garoppolo and Brissett were done pretending to be starting quarterbacks and I don't see a "decline." I see a role change, one that switches Blount from a primary source of offensive yards, into the scheme of a pass-first offense where his responsibilities are diminished both because the quarterback gets the lion's share of the football and catch-and-run guys play a far bigger role between the 30s.

Kinda think that's not being taken into account by those thinking YPC is the be-all. As far as I'm concerned Blount did his job and did it very well, and when the franchise stocked the RB cupboard without him, he didn't have a hard time finding another team to use his talents afterward either.

Now granted he was mostly a no-show in the playoffs. in the playoffs you put the ball in Brady's hands because he's your best shot to win. If Blount isn't lighting it up in his first few snaps (which tend to come before Brady has worn the defensive line out with endless lightning passes) Brady tends to own the football for the balance of the game and Blount won't get many additional looks. Again, I see a role change. He didn't do well because unless he had a fast start Brady carried the offense and he wasn't asked to do much.

In short I feel that role rather than decline (or rather than solely decline to be more precise) determined the change in Blount's statistics and I really doubt the coaching staff where anywhere near as disappointed with Blount as some of the fans seem to have been. Heck if the rumors are to be believed they tried to keep Blount, but at the end of the day he'll probably get far more snaps with an inferior quarterback on the Eagles.

No, the point is blount lost yards or gained less than 3 yards probably more than half the time... In five career playoff games not Vs Ind he has 57 carries for 156 yards and ONE touchdown...2.7 yards a carry and 1 td. He was a solid back but Vs good teams he didn't perform in the playoffs

 

[supafly]

I appreciated Blount and was certainly happy with the production we received from him on the cheap. He was a fine reclamation project.

That said, I think our running game needed to be improved, and while I don't think it's fair to put everything on Blount, it was obvious that Belichick wanted to go in a different direction, and/or just didn't see the value at meeting Blount's asking price.

I don't think he's going to replicate that level of success in PHI this season, but that's just my personal opinion which may be wrong. Either way, I wish him the best and am excited to see our running game this year, which I expect to be a bit improved.

 

[Rob0729]

If Gronk is healthy and back to his old self this season, Bennett won't be missed at all. If Allen returns to what he was two years ago, he may be an upgrade to what we got out of Bennett.

Long had a good year for the Pats, but he is the type of guy the Pats seem to get every year. He was a solid role player. Nothing more, nothing less.

Blount's production may tougher to replace, but with so many receiving weapons the Pats may be able to run easier because opposing defenses will allow the run to add more protection in the passing game.

 

[TBR]

Bennett was a good blocker, but was almost non-existent as a pass catcher.

After Gronk went down, Bennett averaged a measly 25 yards per game for the rest of the regular season. Or 39 per game if you factor in the post-season.

As for Blount, while he had some great moments in a Pats uniform, he was pretty irrelevant in the post-season against any defense that wasn't the Colts'.

 

[Ivan]

One of the problems with threads like this is that fans think of last year's team, then subtract the guys who left -- what this thread is about -- then add in new guys about which something is known, typically veterans, then figure they can calculate what this year's team is going to be like.

But BB's take, which I think is likely to be more on the money, is that it's a whole new team. Some of the players were on last year's team. Some of the veterans will be older and slower, perhaps to a degree that makes them hardly useful at all, or at least in some cases will make them less useful. Some of the veterans are relatively young and will play a lot better. Some of the guys that are new will catch on and play a lot better than you might expect; some won't catch on at all and may not even make the team.

And then there's the rookies, the rookie free agents, and the guys you add on in training camp, all of whom are pretty much unknown.

It's a whole new team, with some elements you already know about, and how it comes together is pretty unknown, except for Pats Fans, who are able to count on it being pretty good.

By the way, Mike Gillislee is 218-219 lbs. I had remembered 220, so I looked it up. Not a big back, but big enough to make an impression on a tackler. A lot bigger than James White or Dion Lewis.

I can't believe Gillislee is only 219 lbs., he really looked 220 to me.

 

[Ivan]

Bennett was a good blocker, but was almost non-existent as a pass catcher.

After Gronk went down, Bennett averaged a measly 25 yards per game for the rest of the regular season. Or 39 per game if you factor in the post-season.

As for Blount, while he had some great moments in a Pats uniform, he was irrelevant in the post-season against any defense that wasn't the Colts'.

Bennett played seriously hurt for the 2ndhalf of the season. By numerous accounts he could have gone IR but played through it because he was needed. I have nothing but respect for him.

 

[TBR]

Bennett played seriously hurt for the 2ndhalf of the season. By numerous accounts he could have gone IR but played through it because he was needed. I have nothing but respect for him.

That's not really relevant, though. Perhaps it would be if we were judging Bennett as a player, but this topic seems geared more towards whether the production from these players the Pats lost can be replaced.