After reading this, I am even MORE concerned about our OL

[VrabelMayeWin]

No,I don't think Pollard is a strong blocking tight end,but is he any less than Thomas and Watson right now?

From what I've seen over the years, Pollard may be our weakest blocking TE. But even if he were pretty good he's have to be really good to offset the younger legs of Watson/Thomas who are average blockers IMO.

 

[NEPatriot]

4 preseason games will tell us how OL perform.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

overrated and unreliable vs speed.

PJ, don't watch the SB DVD again as you will see an entire OL that fits that
description. I keep wondering if that game is that watershed moment that
every team finds itself in and the cracks, that always appear, start to become
more serious than simply sticking a finger in them to stop the deterioration.
Or, maybe I am just so bummed after watching the SB game the other night
and trying to understand how that OL could possibly play that poorly.

 

[PonyExpress]

For some reason the only thing I'm worried about is the team's state of mind after last season.

If Light is healthy the O-line will be adequate. Kaczur can move to RG and o'Callahan can handle RT. The team will use Dave Thomas and the rbs in the passing game more to control the pass rush.

Depthwise that still leaves you Hochstein and Yates, with kaczur having the ability to flex to LT if Light goes down. He did it well as a rookie.

 

[Dfresh429]

It is easy to panic, but don't forget. The season is over a month away. I have no doubt that neal and light will be in the starting line-up. In the meantime, this gives the backups a chance to get some playing time.

 

[spacecrime]

That's what we all thought prior to kickoff last February, too...

The OL remains my primary concern because as they go so potentially goes The Franchise. This is when losing that 31st pick really bites. They needed to address the linebackers and corners, but they might have been well served to address the trenches as well. Ultimately that is where games are won or lost irrespective of how much talent you possess behind them.

This OL back at full strength was still something of a concern - was that last game an abboration or a precursor of things to come... That OLine back in dissaray due to injuries limiting the LT and RG is a potential nightmare. Signing Jordan leads me to believe BB's default approach is to try to insure we have a running game come hell or high water because irrespective of the talent at QB and WR the Giants proved once again that disciplined defense wins championships - particularly when facing an unbalanced and frankly one dimentional offense (however prolific).

We're doomed.

We ain't winning more'n five-six games this year, anyway, so might as well tank as many as we can and then use a top-three pick next year to snag the top Olinesman in the draft. Maybe they'll be another Robert Gallery or something.

OTOH, our Oline was so bad in 2001, that our starting LG was signed after the cutdown to 53, picking up a guy who Green Bay cut at the end of training camp.

Time will tell.

 

[spacecrime]

PJ, don't watch the SB DVD again as you will see an entire OL that fits that
description. I keep wondering if that game is that watershed moment that
every team finds itself in and the cracks, that always appear, start to become
more serious than simply sticking a finger in them to stop the deterioration.
Or, maybe I am just so bummed after watching the SB game the other night
and trying to understand how that OL could possibly play that poorly.

Every team has a bad week or two during the season. The 2001 Rams and 2007 Patriots picked the wrong week. Likewise, sometimes a team gets hot and peaks at exactly the right moment, like the 2001 Patriots and 2007 Giants.

Why would anyone take one game out of 19 and say, "This is the real team, the other 18 games were aberrations."

Isn't it more likely that the ONE different game was an aberration?

How people can be so depressed with a team that won every regular season game last year, went 18-1 overall and returned 90% of its core is beyond me.

Even Chicken Little would lilke the 2008 Patriots.

 

[Deus Irae]

Every team has a bad week or two during the season. The 2001 Rams and 2007 Patriots picked the wrong week. Likewise, sometimes a team gets hot and peaks at exactly the right moment, like the 2001 Patriots and 2007 Giants.

Why would anyone take one game out of 19 and say, "This is the real team, the other 18 games were aberrations."

Isn't it more likely that the ONE different game was an aberration?

How people can be so depressed with a team that won every regular season game last year, went 18-1 overall and returned 90% of its core is beyond me.

Even Chicken Little would lilke the 2008 Patriots.

Chicken Little had nothing on New England fans who were forged in the fire of over 80 years following the Red Sox. A New England team could have the GOAT at every position on the team and some people would still cry about team depth.

 

[BradyManny]

That's what we all thought prior to kickoff last February, too...

The OL remains my primary concern because as they go so potentially goes The Franchise. This is when losing that 31st pick really bites. They needed to address the linebackers and corners, but they might have been well served to address the trenches as well. Ultimately that is where games are won or lost irrespective of how much talent you possess behind them.

This OL back at full strength was still something of a concern - was that last game an abboration or a precursor of things to come... That OLine back in dissaray due to injuries limiting the LT and RG is a potential nightmare. Signing Jordan leads me to believe BB's default approach is to try to insure we have a running game come hell or high water because irrespective of the talent at QB and WR the Giants proved once again that disciplined defense wins championships - particularly when facing an unbalanced and frankly one dimentional offense (however prolific).

To be honest, and maybe I'm just telling myself this so I feel better, I don't think the 31 pick could've been used to help the OL that much. Tackles were going like crazy in the first round, and I think everybody we'd be interested was gone by then - and then the guards that seemed like good fits didn't start going until round 3. We could've taken one of those guys and they didn't, so that means they must have faith in Britt and or Yates and or O'Cal.

As for the OL - I was reading a season preview the other day, and they had a brief scouting report from an opposing coach for each team. For the Pats, the main point was that "Brady makes the offensive line look better than it is". I and some others echoed these thoughts in a thread recently to some criticism, but coming from an NFL coach, it has to be taken seriously.

I think its accurate - as long as Brady is there, and now especially w Moss and Welker, he can take a fairly solid line and make it great. Bottom line, the OL will probably be OK no matter who they plug in.

 

[Deus Irae]

To be honest, and maybe I'm just telling myself this so I feel better, I don't think the 31 pick could've been used to help the OL that much. Tackles were going like crazy in the first round, and I think everybody we'd be interested was gone by then - and then the guards that seemed like good fits didn't start going until round 3. We could've taken one of those guys and they didn't, so that means they must have faith in Britt and or Yates and or O'Cal.

As for the OL - I was reading a season preview the other day, and they had a brief scouting report from an opposing coach for each team. For the Pats, the main point was that "Brady makes the offensive line look better than it is". I and some others echoed these thoughts in a thread recently to some criticism, but coming from an NFL coach, it has to be taken seriously.

I think its accurate - as long as Brady is there, and now especially w Moss and Welker, he can take a fairly solid line and make it great. Bottom line, the OL will probably be OK no matter who they plug in.

Well, they could have packaged pick #31 with other picks and moved up. In an ideal scenario, they could have gotten Clady (or whichever OT they rated highest) and still moved up to get Mayo. Without pick #31, there was no chance of that happening.

 

[mgteich]

We are thin at OT unless either Light or O'Callaghan can play.

I know many here think we have an offense with severe problems because of the OL. They believe that this was so last year as well as this year. All are entitled to their opinions. Mine is that our OL was one of the top OL's in the league last year (3 pro-bowlers and great stats), and that Welbourn/Yates is an adequate replacement for the often injured Neal. I also believe that Hochstein is one of the best BACKUPS in the league. He backs up at RG, LG and TE. The real question is when Hochstein will sign an extension.

We need either Light or O'Callahghan to be available as the game day backup in case of injury. I am also fine with Kaycur at LT and Welbourne at RT.

CURRENT PROJECTION
starters: Britt, Mankins, Koppen, Yates/Welbourne, Kaycur
gameday backups: Welborne/Yates, Hochstein
other on 53: Light, O'Callaghan
PUP: Neal, Ross

This is a fine set of 11 OL's. TWe will have strong OL available after the PUP window is ended.

I'm not concerned about the play of the first team (Britt, Kaczur, Mankins, Yates, Koppen). They have all been in the program for multiple years and the Pats know what they can/can't do. My concern is that some of the first team will have to play longer than optimal in pre-season games because of the overall depth chart at this point in time (possibly only 11 viable OL candidates).

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

As for the OL - I was reading a season preview the other day, and they had a brief scouting report from an opposing coach for each team. For the Pats, the main point was that "Brady makes the offensive line look better than it is". I and some others echoed these thoughts in a thread recently to some criticism, but coming from an NFL coach, it has to be taken seriously.

One semi-scientific test of this hypothethis will be the pre-season when Brady is NOT playing. Let's see how many seconds the cadre of backup QBs manage to get behind the OL, especially w/o Moss and probably Welker at WR. Then again, Ds don't use sophisticated blitz packages as much in those games either.

 

[BradyManny]

One semi-scientific test of this hypothethis will be the pre-season when Brady is NOT playing. Let's see how many seconds the cadre of backup QBs manage to get behind the OL, especially w/o Moss and probably Welker at WR. Then again, Ds don't use sophisticated blitz packages as much in those games either.

Good point(s). [And let's hope we never really find out what the OL or the offense would be like without Brady in a regular season game situation....]

Another semi-scientific test was Football Outsider's QB pressure/sacks breakdown they did for ESPN. It confirmed that Brady was pressured/hit quite a bit, and sacked at a lower rate. The proportion shows that Brady does in fact save the team from a lot of sacks by getting rid of the ball at the last moment.

 

[mgteich]

It doesn't matter much to me how our pro-bowl OL plays behind anyone but Brady. The bottom line is that our OL was good enough to be part of the best offense in the history of football. I believe that we will be even stronger this year with a healthy #2 RB (Morris AND Jordan), even with the loss of Neal.

One semi-scientific test of this hypothethis will be the pre-season when Brady is NOT playing. Let's see how many seconds the cadre of backup QBs manage to get behind the OL, especially w/o Moss and probably Welker at WR. Then again, Ds don't use sophisticated blitz packages as much in those games either.

 

[Deus Irae]

Good point(s). [And let's hope we never really find out what the OL or the offense would be like without Brady in a regular season game situation....]

Another semi-scientific test was Football Outsider's QB pressure/sacks breakdown they did for ESPN. It confirmed that Brady was pressured/hit quite a bit, and sacked at a lower rate. The proportion shows that Brady does in fact save the team from a lot of sacks by getting rid of the ball at the last moment.

That's a misleading stat, however, because Brady also frequently spends all day in the pocket due to the great protection he gets. This was commented on by the talking heads in game after game after game last season. While Brady 'saves' a lot of sacks, he 'causes' a lot of pressures at the same time.

P.S. taking the time given is in no way a bad thing, and I'm not bashing Brady for this in any way.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

That's what we all thought prior to kickoff last February, too...

The OL remains my primary concern because as they go so potentially goes The Franchise. This is when losing that 31st pick really bites. They needed to address the linebackers and corners, but they might have been well served to address the trenches as well. Ultimately that is where games are won or lost irrespective of how much talent you possess behind them.

This OL back at full strength was still something of a concern - was that last game an abboration or a precursor of things to come... That OLine back in dissaray due to injuries limiting the LT and RG is a potential nightmare. Signing Jordan leads me to believe BB's default approach is to try to insure we have a running game come hell or high water because irrespective of the talent at QB and WR the Giants proved once again that disciplined defense wins championships - particularly when facing an unbalanced and frankly one dimentional offense (however prolific).

Awww, come on, Mo. You know better than this!

Everyone and his grandmother knows about the Pats' passing game from last year, but their running game was more than adequate. 13th in rushing yardage (thanks to that passing O!), they were 9th in the league in rushing attempts per game. That's not bad balance, given the circumstances.

Beyond that, their return game was ranked 4th, with a 25.2 average.

They had a bad game at the wrong time last year, Mo. I think it would be unfortunate to read too much more into it than that.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

Every team has a bad week or two during the season. The 2001 Rams and 2007 Patriots picked the wrong week. Likewise, sometimes a team gets hot and peaks at exactly the right moment, like the 2001 Patriots and 2007 Giants.

Why would anyone take one game out of 19 and say, "This is the real team, the other 18 games were aberrations."

Isn't it more likely that the ONE different game was an aberration?

How people can be so depressed with a team that won every regular season game last year, went 18-1 overall and returned 90% of its core is beyond me.

Even Chicken Little would lilke the 2008 Patriots.

Unfortunately, the last game was not the only 'aberration'. The Ravens,
Philadelphia, and Giants regular season games were wins for sure, but
according to their opponents W-L record at the time the Pats should not have
struggled against any of them. And they did, mightily! I can deal with the
any given Sunday, but the Pats were not the juggernaut we saw in the
early season. If that is chicken little so be it. I'll stand by my concerns.

 

[tombonneau]

Not sure how you can not be concerned about an OL currently missing it's Pro Bowl LT and it's starting RG.

I think it's just a matter of how much.

Until more is revealed about Light's injury, I'm not overly concerned, but I don't have my head in the sand either.

Neal I'm not as concerned about, as RG is probably the least important position on the line, and Hochstein should be able to hold that down.

What probably concerns me most, is that even if Light & Neal come back healthy, the line has missed lots of valuable time working together in camp. Hopefully because they've played together all last year though, they'll be fine.

 

[BradyManny]

That's a misleading stat, however, because Brady also frequently spends all day in the pocket due to the great protection he gets. This was commented on by the talking heads in game after game after game last season. While Brady 'saves' a lot of sacks, he 'causes' a lot of pressures at the same time.

P.S. taking the time given is in no way a bad thing, and I'm not bashing Brady for this in any way.

Just to throw another variable in there - I think that's largely due to the way teams were playing the Pats the first half + of the season. Some teams were so afraid of Moss and the wideouts that they were keeping more men back and not rushing more than 4.

When they faced teams with better d-lines and ballsy enough to try and attack the Pats, not surprisingly, Brady didn't have a whole lot of time.

Ultimately, I think it boils down to what Mo referenced - the team is probably better off going for a little bit more conservative approach. The Pats - and every team - are going to face defensive lines that are going to wreak havoc on any offensive line. There's no way around it.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Harumph, OL - what me worry?

OLB! Oh Chit! Zero proven depth behind the starters. Let's panic about the right issues peoples.