How good was the Patriots D against Detroit?

[patchick]

Considering that our biggest defensive weaknesses are defending TEs and defending depth at WR, I think the offense would match up really well and do some damage to the defense.

Gronk is a mismatch with every team, but as for "depth at WR" -- only 2 Pats WRs had a catch in yesterday's game. They have a very strong overall receiving corps with Gronk, Edelman, LaFell and Vereen, but IMO WR depth remains one of the weaker spots on the roster.

The question I'd ask for this supremely game-planning defense: what would you try to take away to hobble the Pats' offense? Gronk is the obvious lynchpin, but the offense can play just about any style required.

 

[Oswlek]

WR depth remains one of the weaker spots on the roster.

Just wait until Dobson's 9 catch 178 yard 2 TD performance. It's coming. You know it's coming.

 

[mayoclinic]

Gronk is a mismatch with every team, but as for "depth at WR" -- only 2 Pats WRs had a catch in yesterday's game. They have a very strong overall receiving corps with Gronk, Edelman, LaFell and Vereen, but IMO WR depth remains one of the weaker spots on the roster.

The question I'd ask for this supremely game-planning defense: what would you try to take away to hobble the Pats' offense? Gronk is the obvious lynchpin, but the offense can play just about any style required.

Right now the Pats are on schedule to have 3 receivers with over 1000 yards each (Gronk, LaFell, Edelman), 1000 yards combined rushing/receiving from Vereen, and 1000+ yards power rushing from the Ridley/Gray/Blount combo. Plus Tim Wright and Danny Amendola, both capable of being significant weapons.

All offenses have skill player depth issues. Look at Green Bay, virtually tied with the Pats as the top scoring offense: Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb are the mainstays, plus Eddie Lacy. Would you rather have Andrew Quarles, Richard Rodgers and Davante Adams for depth?

The Pats have 2 main advantages over other offenses: (1) they have more weapons (and rely on any one less), so it is harder to take away their key elements; and (2) they have the ability to play just about any style, so it's hard to predict how they are planning to attack.

 

[patchick]

The Pats have 2 main advantages over other offenses: (1) they have more weapons (and rely on any one less), so it is harder to take away their key elements; and (2) they have the ability to play just about any style, so it's hard to predict how they are planning to attack.

Agree completely. I wasn't grousing about WR depth, just disagreeing with the suggestion it was a particular strength of the team.

IMO the offense's greatest strength is its lack of weaknesses: Big, strong WR; smaller, shiftier WR; classic TE; move TE; power RB; receiving RB; all-round FB; OL pass protection; OL run blocking; QB who can make any throw. Check, check, check, check, check. How do you scheme against that?

The one tool you might argue is missing from that football Swiss Army Knife is a genuine speedster who can run away from the defense.

 

[supafly]

Right now the Pats are on schedule to have 3 receivers with over 1000 yards each (Gronk, LaFell, Edelman), 1000 yards combined rushing/receiving from Vereen, and 1000+ yards power rushing from the Ridley/Gray/Blount combo. Plus Tim Wright and Danny Amendola, both capable of being significant weapons.

All offenses have skill player depth issues. Look at Green Bay, virtually tied with the Pats as the top scoring offense: Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb are the mainstays, plus Eddie Lacy. Would you rather have Andrew Quarles, Richard Rodgers and Davante Adams for depth?

The Pats have 2 main advantages over other offenses: (1) they have more weapons (and rely on any one less), so it is harder to take away their key elements; and (2) they have the ability to play just about any style, so it's hard to predict how they are planning to attack.

The receiving additions in the names of LaFell and Wright have just been enormous in this offense. It was such a glaring weakness last year in my opinion (without Gronkowski early/late in the year), and I'm very glad that we have those options, because I agree that this is a much more complete offense when you factor in the running game.

The fact that I didn't even bring up Edelman or Gronkowski speaks volumes to how much better things are than last year.

If we can get a guy like Amendola, Tyms, or Dobson going, I don't know how I could explain my excitement. That said, let's hope that isn't needed.