2020 Patriots Season:
Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: at Chargers
Pick Results: NE: 89.4% at LAC: 10.6%

Sun
Dec 6th

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Kdo5

Pro Bowl Player
Dorsett being "phased out"? It's only been the one game, so far. He caught 3 of 3 for 25 yards against Indy and played 42 snaps (61%). I don't think it's a trend, yet.

IDK about Hollister. He played only 14 snaps in wk-2 (JAX), but caught all three of his tgts for 35 yards. Then, he was out for two weeks with a "chest injury" (whatever that might mean). He played only 4 offensive snaps v. IND and then only 3 O-snaps v KCY, but he also played 19 and 16 ST-snaps in those games, so it's not as if he's being "eased back in" after his injury.

BTW, Allen's O-snaps were also reduced for the past two games ... 12 and 11, respctively, after playing 45 against Miami (56%).

Anyway, it might all be game-plan related.
Barring injury I think Dorsett is definitely at the bottom of the depth chart. It was pretty clear that Edelman and Gordon are the 1 and 2 while Hogan is #3. I think we may end up using Patterson more than Dorsett because of gadget plays.
 

PatsDeb

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
9, ST's - Well except for a perfect job by Gotskowskin and the FG team, this was a special teams' disaster. To go along with the 98 yd KO return that led to an easy TD, there were 3 more returns that got passed the 30, PLUS a grounder that didn't get by the KC front 5 and gave KC field position beyond the 40 yd line. Normally I appreciate the thought that would allow a return. In the past we won these match ups, but not recently. The near TD Kick return was particularly disappointing since it had become clear that short kicks were NOT working. After this I'd like to see every future KO go thru the endzone.
This is my biggest complaint about the game. A squib kick while we are ahead (that goes no where to boot)? Why? Not one, but TWO short kick-offs (you didn't learn from the first one?) that lead to big returns and points? Why? And especially why the 2nd one? Just kick it through the end zone all three times and I doubt we end up with a tie at the end of the game and the need for a last minute FG.
 

PScottman

2nd Team Getting Their First Start
Ken, you're just getting to sleep as I'm just getting up writing these thanks for the usual great roundup.

I don't know if its a difference in personnel, or the change in the rules or what, but I don't see us using it too often again.

Starting from zero without the run up is massively different and equalizes the kicking and receiving teams' in regards to how they start the play. The equivalent would be not allowing motion in an offense which is used to both highlight coverage as well as allow the extremely important free release.

That's the corollary - it basically eliminates the "free release" for the kicking team.
 

maineman209

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
Barring injury I think Dorsett is definitely at the bottom of the depth chart. It was pretty clear that Edelman and Gordon are the 1 and 2 while Hogan is #3. I think we may end up using Patterson more than Dorsett because of gadget plays.

I'm not even sure that there IS any rigid "depth chart" for WRs the way most people think of it. I think that every legit passing target on the roster is merely a tool in the McD/Brady toolbox, and each tool has different characteristics that are applicable in different situations.

There's no real "better" between Hogan and Dorsett, just as there's no "better" between Gordon and Edelman. Hogan has proven more reliable than Dorsett on deeper routes (15 yds+), but then, that's been Hogan's sweet-spot since his first season with the Pats. However, Hogan has also been less reliable overall on intermediate, possession-type routes (+/- 10 yards) than Dorsett.

Which one of them gets the most use in a particular game probably depends on what the opposing defense is weakest at defending, and on how the game unfolds.
 

maineman209

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
Interesting take by Cowherd on the Pats final drive.

That was maybe the most intelligent commentary Cowherd has ever made. Of course, the game last night was nearly identical to the Pats-KC game at the end, so he was wrong about that.
 

luuked

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
hat being said, there is no excuse for Hunt and Hill to just get that open deep.

The Hill TD was absolutely awful and whatever happened there needs to be fixed without any excuses.

On the Hunt one everyone did their job except for JMac peeking into the backfield and letting Hunt getting in front of him. Coverage was solid, the pocket got collapsed, Mahomes threw on the move while under pressure. Putting this on the whole defense is like blaming the entire offense when a RB fumbles the ball.

I realize that KC has a lot of weapons, but it is obvious to me that Hill is the type of player that needs to be accounted for everywhere he goes on the field....1 TD OK....2TDs? 3 TDs?!?!!? Shame on the D, IMO.

He was accounted for as he had 6 catches with around 70 yards for 99% of the game and then caught that one 75yd TD pass on whatever hell happened there. Him and Kelce got held in check for most of the game.

I don't understand peoples grading. The defense played an A+ first half and then a had a D performance in the second with the only reason for it not being an F is that they got screwed by ST and their offense with short fields twice.

How this averages out to anything but a C level overall performance baffles me.
 

mgteich

PatsFans.com Veteran
PatsFans.com Supporter
There were lots more than 2 blown coverages. It's just that Mahomes didn't take advantage of the opportunities we gave him in the first half.

The D was generally good except two third down miss tackles by Van Noy and two blown coverage by the McCourty brothers.

With a absolute speedster like Hill, one mistake is all it takes and the Pats gave him two.

Tom Brady's fumble was bad. I thought he stared down at Gordon a bit too much.
 

mgteich

PatsFans.com Veteran
PatsFans.com Supporter
We have Gordon and Hogan deep. We have Gronk and Edelman everywhere, especially on shorter routes. Our KR Patterson has his role of a couple of opportunities per game.

The question is about what Dorsett adds with Edelman and Gronk healthy.

Depending on Game Plan, I'd even consider having Dorsett inactive. Perhaps we have enough with Gronkowski, Edelman, Gordon, Hogan, Patterson and White. [plus our running game]. Dorsett is important, but I see him with very few reps if everyone else is healthy.

My BOTTOM LINE is that we don't need to have more than 4 healthy WR's active when we have Gronk and White, especially when we seem to want to have 3 TE's active because of Hollisters's ST play.

I'm not even sure that there IS any rigid "depth chart" for WRs the way most people think of it. I think that every legit passing target on the roster is merely a tool in the McD/Brady toolbox, and each tool has different characteristics that are applicable in different situations.

There's no real "better" between Hogan and Dorsett, just as there's no "better" between Gordon and Edelman. Hogan has proven more reliable than Dorsett on deeper routes (15 yds+), but then, that's been Hogan's sweet-spot since his first season with the Pats. However, Hogan has also been less reliable overall on intermediate, possession-type routes (+/- 10 yards) than Dorsett.

Which one of them gets the most use in a particular game probably depends on what the opposing defense is weakest at defending, and on how the game unfolds.
 

patsfanincleveland

Third String But Playing on Special Teams
The defense wasn't QUITE as bad as the score looked because special teams all but gifted a touchdown to the Chiefs on that 98 yard return, and they gave the Chiefs unusually good field position to start drives more than once too.

If you told me the defense would give up 33 to this Chiefs team I probably would have just shrugged.

People have to get comfortable with the fact that Bronco Nagursky, 10-7, 200 yards of offense is not walking through the door.

25-30 points and 425-450 yards to the KC offense is one hell of an effort.

Besides, 2 short fields in the second half equaled 14 points. Ditto HT int.

Also, the reality is great offenses have great players that will make great plays. Just minimize as much as possible. That made the first half a great effort.
 

maineman209

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
We have Gordon and Hogan deep. We have Gronk and Edelman everywhere, especially on shorter routes. Our KR Patterson has his role of a couple of opportunities per game.

The question is about what Dorsett adds with Edelman and Gronk healthy.

Depending on Game Plan, I'd even consider having Dorsett inactive. Perhaps we have enough with Gronkowski, Edelman, Gordon, Hogan, Patterson and White. [plus our running game]. Dorsett is important, but I see him with very few reps if everyone else is healthy.

My BOTTOM LINE is that we don't need to have more than 4 healthy WR's active when we have Gronk and White, especially when we seem to want to have 3 TE's active because of Hollisters's ST play.

For the past four games, the Pats haven't had a healthy inactive from the offensive side who wasn't an OL. For the past two games, it's been only the two healthy OL inactive (no injured offensive players). I see no reason for that not to continue, and I don't have any idea why we're even talking about making Dorsett inactive when he can contribute AND HAS CONTRIBUTED WELL.

Seriously, wtf is with this everybody wanting to denigrate Dorsett?
 

Tapats

Rookie
For the past four games, the Pats haven't had a healthy inactive from the offensive side who wasn't an OL. For the past two games, it's been only the two healthy OL inactive (no injured offensive players). I see no reason for that not to continue, and I don't have any idea why we're even talking about making Dorsett inactive when he can contribute AND HAS CONTRIBUTED WELL.

Seriously, wtf is with this everybody wanting to denigrate Dorsett?
No need to denigrate Dorsett as he has contributed alot and will continue as a powerful weapon in this great offense. As someone pointed out, ranking the wrs is not really fair as they all are talented and thrive in different ways from one another. There has been no need to make him inactive although going with 5 wrs may not be necessary either.
 

maineman209

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
No need to denigrate Dorsett as he has contributed alot and will continue as a powerful weapon in this great offense. As someone pointed out, ranking the wrs is not really fair as they all are talented and thrive in different ways from one another. There has been no need to make him inactive although going with 5 wrs may not be necessary either.

I'm not seeing any compelling need to go without 5 WRs active, either. It's not as if the defense suffers for the lack of guys like Rowe, Davis, Rivers, Jackson, etc.
 

supafly

Suddenly sad and Brady-less
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
I'm not seeing any compelling need to go without 5 WRs active, either. It's not as if the defense suffers for the lack of guys like Rowe, Davis, Rivers, Jackson, etc.
Patterson has a clear role carved out, and while the roles would obviously change around, Dorsett goes in on the first injury to the WR position, no matter what.

It’s almost as if there are 4 active WRs + a ST only player (Patterson), and that we need a backup to Edelman/Gordon/Hogan in some capacity. In other words, I agree that there’s probably not much of a need to have an inactive WR for more than a couple/few games this year, assuming that the situation remains the same at other positions. As we know, injuries at various positions tend to change this thinking.
 

luuked

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
We have Gordon and Hogan deep. We have Gronk and Edelman everywhere, especially on shorter routes. Our KR Patterson has his role of a couple of opportunities per game.

The question is about what Dorsett adds with Edelman and Gronk healthy.

Depending on Game Plan, I'd even consider having Dorsett inactive. Perhaps we have enough with Gronkowski, Edelman, Gordon, Hogan, Patterson and White. [plus our running game]. Dorsett is important, but I see him with very few reps if everyone else is healthy.

My BOTTOM LINE is that we don't need to have more than 4 healthy WR's active when we have Gronk and White, especially when we seem to want to have 3 TE's active because of Hollisters's ST play.

Unless you know going into a game that 11 personnel is not something you want to use much for schematic reasons I don't see how you can afford to make Dorsett inactive.

If something happens to any of Hogan, Edelman or Gordon you can close down the entire 11 personnel section of the playbook and with that all the possible mismatches you can create out of it.

Similarly you want to have the schematic diversity to even go with 4 WRs at times if you feel strongly about a certain mismatch.

CP is not a WR and can't run the route tree good enough to be used in those situations. He limits the available concepts, the use of no huddle and the 2min offense. He is a "nice to have" piece that can have immense impact at predesigned times but certainly not a key cog and his snap counts reflect that.
 

DarrylS

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
Even though I am a couple of days late, great work PFK....

When Tyreek Hill was heading toward the endzone with 3 minutes left, I was yelling "let him score, let him score" as the last thing I wanted was for KC to hold on to the ball and either win or tie..

There was no doubt in my mind that #12 would engineer a drive to get us in FG goal range at least.. being used to this level of greatness for such a long time makes me view Pats Football differently..

As someone mentioned before chess and checkers.. perhaps even 3D chess.
 

supafly

Suddenly sad and Brady-less
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
He was accounted for as he had 6 catches with around 70 yards for 99% of the game and then caught that one 75yd TD pass on whatever hell happened there. Him and Kelce got held in check for most of the game.
Not meaning to come off as argumentative this morning, but it’s hard to view the following statline and come off with the idea that Hill was held in check, prior to his 75 yd TD:

6 catches for 70 yards and 2 touchdowns?

That’s hardly keeping anyone in check in any capacity. At any rate, he finished for 7 catches for almost 145 yards and 3 touchdowns anyway, as it’s a 60 minute game. This wasn’t any type of victory versus Tyreek Hill. He absolutely destroyed our secondary. When was the last time a WR put up those kinds of numbers against this team?
 

PP2

Pro Bowl Player
CP is not a WR and can't run the route tree good enough to be used in those situations. He limits the available concepts, the use of no huddle and the 2min offense. He is a "nice to have" piece that can have immense impact at predesigned times but certainly not a key cog and his snap counts reflect that.

Ding! Ding! Ding! You win the prize.

The idea that Patterson was ever going to replicate Amendola in any way, still makes me laugh to this day.

Dorsett is the new Amendola. He is here to stay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top