Patterson as running back

[varjao]

Of course it was an improvisation and he did ok a few times but most of the time he didn't and that's expected. Anyway it's nice to have a swiss knife like that on the roster and he seems like a guy who understand he has the tools but not the skills and buys into the program, I think his contract is only for this year, I would be OK if the Patriots gets to offer him a contract extension for 2 or 3 years.

 

[Triumph]

Neither White or Barner have the power to run it in from the Five without some sort of trickery. If BB went with Patterson over you at RB I think Barners bags are still packed.

Barner is no burner.

4 cylinder RB. I wish that the Pat's had kept Blount. He had power and deceptive speed

 

[Soliel]

Barner is no burner.

4 cylinder RB. I wish that the Pat's had kept Blount. He had power and deceptive speed

I wish they’d have kept him

 

[Angelpats]

Mixed results so I wouldn’t call it a failure. I don’t think any running back would have succeeded last night because there were few holes and the defenders were busting through our ol consistently. If we can open up some lanes for him then he might have had a chance to succeed:

 

[TommyD4207]

I believe that Patterson could have made that 50 yarder that Gost missed.

Move him around I say.

Do you doubt the guy could kick a 50 yard FG? I don't. I just doubt he could line up and do it without falling over backward first.

 

[mgteich]

Patterson did what he needed to against Buffalo. Patterson is OK as an emergency RB, or a RB in garbage time. He has his role on sweeps and a few pass plays. That plenty for our KR.

Patterson isn't the issue for me. The OPEN question is who is our 3rd RB. Belichick answered in BUFF by giving only two reps to Barner. Patterson is our 3rd RB. For me, that is unacceptable. We need a true backup to Michel, and perhaps someone to be the RB for a series or two to give Michel a rest during a game.

If the answer is NOT Barner or Farrow, then we need to add a RB, perhaps by trade or after we find out that there is no reasonable trade that can be worked out.

 

[mgteich]

I disagree. I believe that Michel at 100% would have improved our running game last night.

Mixed results so I wouldn’t call it a failure. I don’t think any running back would have succeeded last night because there were few holes and the defenders were busting through our ol consistently. If we can open up some lanes for him then he might have had a chance to succeed:

 

[Angelpats]

I disagree. I believe that Michel at 100% would have improved our running game last night.

Of course he would but he wasn’t going to get 100 yards last night.

 

[maineman209]

The OPEN question is who is our 3rd RB. Belichick answered in BUFF by giving only two reps to Barner. Patterson is our 3rd RB.

I interpret that differently.

Aside from his TD, White had arguably his worst rushing performance of the season against the Bills - 1.88 ypc on 8 carries. I'd guess that the Pats knew in advance that none of their RBs was likely to have a particularly spectacular rushing performance last night (even Michel). So, they went with White and Patterson for their versatility (Barner isn't yet a reliable passing target), and then used Patterson experimentally as a runner out of the backfield, partly as a bit of trickeration that they hoped would gain some yards (it did) and allow for some misdirection later (it did).

I don't think that any of that was a reflection of the coaches' overall regard for Barner and his capabilities, as much as it was the specific game situation.

If there's a hierarchy, I'd guess that Michel (when healthy) is the #1 rusher, White is #2 now (and possibly #2b when Burkhead returns from IR).

Barner is the (active-most-games) #3, after Michel is back, and Patterson is the (always-active) #4. When Burkhead returns, Barner becomes the (mostly inactive) bench depth #4, and Patterson is the (always active) #5 (similar to Bolden in that regard).

Of course, it's possible that, once Burkhead is back and contributing (wk-13 at the earliest), the Pats may decide that having a never-active RB as bench depth is a luxury they can't afford, roster-spot wise, and let Barner go.

In the meantime, I don't see much point in sweating about getting an upgrade to Barner. It's halfway through the season already, Barner is already trained in the system, and Burkhead's reinforcement effect is in the pipeline (as far as we know).

If the Pats find out (soon) that Burkhead isn't coming back this season after all, THEN (maybe) it's appropriate to put some effort into finding an upgrade for Barner.

 

[IllegalContact]

so then why is Barner even on the roster?

 

[Nunchucks]

Patterson was terrible. Patriots need Michel back.

 

[maineman209]

Patterson was terrible. Patriots need Michel back.

"Terrible". Really? Compared to who?

Patterson: 10/38 yds, long of 22 ... net 9/16 yds (1.78 ypa) after subtracting his long run
White: 8/15 (1.88 ypa), long of 5 ... net 7/10 yds (1.43 ypa) after subtracting his long run
Barner: 2/4 (2.0 ypa), long of 2

Maybe the Bills run-D was actually good?

 

[TommyD4207]

"Terrible". Really? Compared to who?

Patterson: 10/38 yds, long of 22 ... net 9/16 yds (1.78 ypa) after subtracting his long run
White: 8/15 (1.88 ypa), long of 5 ... net 7/10 yds (1.43 ypa) after subtracting his long run
Barner: 2/4 (2.0 ypa), long of 2

Maybe the Bills run-D was actually good?

It is good. It's been good for several years. The last guy that put up a bill against them was Ridley, I think.

10/38 from a WR who, to my knowledge, has never lined up in the I-formation and taken handoffs, isn't really that bad.

Obviously, you'd like it to be better, but 'terrible' is far too strong.

 

[Simpelton]

Mixed results so I wouldn’t call it a failure. I don’t think any running back would have succeeded last night because there were few holes and the defenders were busting through our ol consistently. If we can open up some lanes for him then he might have had a chance to succeed:

Agreed. The Bills defense isn't great, but one thing they do have is a solid defensive line and a couple above average linebackers. They're not all that easy to run against.

 

[mgteich]

So let's have NO RUNNING GAME until and if the injured are healthy?

I agree that Barner is warming the bench for Bulkhead.

I interpret that differently.

Aside from his TD, White had arguably his worst rushing performance of the season against the Bills - 1.88 ypc on 8 carries. I'd guess that the Pats knew in advance that none of their RBs was likely to have a particularly spectacular rushing performance last night (even Michel). So, they went with White and Patterson for their versatility (Barner isn't yet a reliable passing target), and then used Patterson experimentally as a runner out of the backfield, partly as a bit of trickeration that they hoped would gain some yards (it did) and allow for some misdirection later (it did).

I don't think that any of that was a reflection of the coaches' overall regard for Barner and his capabilities, as much as it was the specific game situation.

If there's a hierarchy, I'd guess that Michel (when healthy) is the #1 rusher, White is #2 now (and possibly #2b when Burkhead returns from IR).

Barner is the (active-most-games) #3, after Michel is back, and Patterson is the (always-active) #4. When Burkhead returns, Barner becomes the (mostly inactive) bench depth #4, and Patterson is the (always active) #5 (similar to Bolden in that regard).

Of course, it's possible that, once Burkhead is back and contributing (wk-13 at the earliest), the Pats may decide that having a never-active RB as bench depth is a luxury they can't afford, roster-spot wise, and let Barner go.

In the meantime, I don't see much point in sweating about getting an upgrade to Barner. It's halfway through the season already, Barner is already trained in the system, and Burkhead's reinforcement effect is in the pipeline (as far as we know).

If the Pats find out (soon) that Burkhead isn't coming back this season after all, THEN (maybe) it's appropriate to put some effort into finding an upgrade for Barner.

 

[maineman209]

So let's have NO RUNNING GAME until and if the injured are healthy?

I agree that Barner is warming the bench for Bulkhead.

Well, first of all, I doubt that the Pats would've had much of a running game against the Bills, regardless what move they made.

Second, if the Pats suspect that Michel will be out for yet another week, I'd guess they'll just promote Farrow (he's already familiar with the system, etc.). It's not clear to me if the Packers' run-D is on a par with what we saw from the Bills last night or if it's weaker. Either way, there's no miracle, Michel-level RB walking through the locker room door this week who will be a master of the Pats' offensive system from the jump.

Third, if the Pats weren't confident that Michel would be back really soon (like, week-10 at the latest), or that they knew already that Burkhead was unlikely to return, I have to guess that they would have made a relatively major move/investment at RB by now.

Anyway, I'm not sure that White + Barner + Patterson (+ Farrow) = NO RUNNING GAME whatsoever. It might be a mediocre ~85 yds/game for a game or two, like back in wks 2 & 3. But the Pats have other weapons now, and other options in the playbook - enough so they can make things work. Maybe not 38 points/game worth, but probably enough to keep the defenses honest and get the job done.

 

[Coolade2]

To expand on the OP,. Patterson is on the roster, so posts suggesting another body could execute as well are just dumb since they have another body... varner.

Next you discuss offense and the need to continue innovation with different looks . From running game perspective , if have the bodies blocking , you need an aggressive fast playmaker to carry the ball and secure it. Check.

Next you breakdown the nuances of the position, why gillislee sucks for example, and then understand a guy who can read holes on a kickoff return might have success making reads from a deep running back formation. Check.

Then you have the simple philosophy of getting the ball into the hands of playmakers in as many creative ways as possible .. as often as possible. Game planning week to week , you use who you got in creative ways to exploit the obvious talent. Check.

 

[bobbutts]

Nobody in NFL history has ever run as high as Ricky Williams.

I hate to do this but can't resist, Josh Gordon had 5 carries for 88 yards in '13.

 

[Coolade2]

Another way of looking at this is thru the eyes of the defense. If you see Patterson in the back field, he is a threat. This means play action gets enhanced. I think the pats will have a package of plays off Patterson as RB. It just makes sense to expand this usage as a unique wrinkle in the offense. It may be run heavy with some throws mixed in.. gives white a break on his usage and this could move the chains and who knows maybe pop one to the house. ​

 

[Kdo5]

I wasn't a fan of putting him in the backfield on multiple carries. I don't blame him for failing most of the time. He has a place on this team but not as a RB.

Why not just hand it off to Barner? Give him those carries.