Peter King with a Blood Pumping, Feel Good Piece

[Patriotic Fervor]

Sorry, but the original point about slotting Moss and putting Welker outside was debunked time and again. Just because YOU refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

First, DB, let's acknowledge that this is a quite a complex offense. There have been players that have come and gone because they couldn't master it.

Just like with most every NFL team out there, there are a myriad of pass routes that this offense features. Wee don't have just 5 pass plays, and that's it. No one but those who seek to put words into the mouths of others have argued otherwise. There are lots of lineups, lots of changes that go on during the game. As you stated before, it's not a static enterprise.

I've already stated that Moss can handle slot assignments (post #101). What is less clear is lining up Welker outside as a real game option. Since I've read and printed out all your responses, can you tell me where this has been "debunked"?

Thanks!

As for your original point, it still needs to be a little more detailed. Making blanket statements and acting like they fit for what is being talked about is a fools way of attempting to win an argument.

A little more detailed? How so? Maybe you're reading it as a blanket statement, although I don't see how.

Here. Try this. Just because you can put Welker outside, doesn't mean you should!

Easier for you to grasp?

The Primary reason to line Moss up in the slot is to force a defense to do something it wasn't designed to do. I gave no less than 2 examples of how lining Moss up in the slot causes problems for the defense of which you conveniently ignored.

Again, I'm a little slow in the AM without the proper dosage of caffeine. Can you point these 2 examples out? Just the proper post # should do it.

Looking at your posts that I've printed out, I can find only some semblance of this at post #64, which is an interesting post, even though in the example you create you don't necessarily put Moss in the slot. Although he could be in your example.

As an aside, how many crosses and slants did you see McDaniels call last season?

All of your other posts seem to deal with generalizations (I hate to use the term "blanket statements") that seem to be of little help to me.

The second reason is to cross train him on knowing the other positions and knowing how the players are supposed to react to a certain defense. That way they are all on the same page and no two players end up in the same place.

If we run plays where two players end up in the same place (quite apart from flooding schemes), we have more problems than you're willing, or able, to let on.

As your other antagonist, Mav4, stated, cross training is all well and good. This is the time of the year that the team explores, especially with the new guys on board. Just because they did something in Miami, or Minnesota, or wherever, doesn't mean the team should limit itself to what's been done with them in the past. That's one of the many reasons for off season/preseason workouts.

But you already know that.

Your Bob Gibson analogy was debunked, you just don't want to acknowledge that it was because you can't admit that your analogy was off and didn't really fit the situation.

Again, where was this debunked? Just because you say it has, doesn't mean it has. You may have a problem with it, but I used him to show he rode his talent as hard as he could, as far as he could. The point I made there, DB, was that that is how the Pats should address their talent abundance.

Pray tell - what analogy might you use to further that point?

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Getting Bailey to cover Welker is the whole point, numby.

So you think if Welker lines up outside, Bailey is going to be immobilized until after the snap? You don't think if this particular line up occurs, Denver won't have a clue? They'll see it for what it is immediately, and make the changes they deem necessary.

I think you're cute, too!

 

[DaBruinz]

We know Duncan plays both center and power forward. In the example Mav4 cited, he puts Duncan at small forward, and Ginobili at power forward to highlight the absurdity that this thread has become. He's not saying that's how it is, just that if San Antone were to do such a thing, it really wouldn't make much sense.

Do yourself a favor and work on your reading comprehension before posting non sequiters like this, OK?

That is just it. The only person talking ABSURDITY is Maverick4. He's the one postulating this WAY BEYOND anything King said. But, regardless, the "example" isn't valid because you've got so few positions and so few players on the court. No Basketball team is going to put 5 forwards on the floor at once. However, teams regularly put 4 and 5 WRs on the field. And the WRs need to know the different positions.

All King said was that it was interesting to see Moss in the slot with Welker outside. Maverick4 is the one who started postulating and making implications about what King was saying. Most everyone else hase been saying that Maverick4 was making a big deal out of nothing. And, well, you seem to be doing the same thing.

 

[DaBruinz]

First, DB, let's acknowledge that this is a quite a complex offense. There have been players that have come and gone because they couldn't master it.

This was never in question and doesn't matter to the current "point" that Maverick4 attempted to make.

Just like with most every NFL team out there, there are a myriad of pass routes that this offense features. Wee don't have just 5 pass plays, and that's it. No one but those who seek to put words into the mouths of others have argued otherwise. There are lots of lineups, lots of changes that go on during the game. As you stated before, it's not a static enterprise.

I've already stated that Moss can handle slot assignments (post #101). What is less clear is lining up Welker outside as a real game option. Since I've read and printed out all your responses, can you tell me where this has been "debunked"?

Thanks!

I mentioned several different reasons as to why you would line Welker up outside and Moss inside. The least of which is that you can use Moss as a decoy to open up the underneath. Or, on the flip side, by having Moss run short, the Safety stepping up to cover Moss would make it easier for Welker to get open in the space that the safety vacated. Welker, like Brown, can get open on longer post routes because of his precision route running and cutting ability. Had you truly printed out all my posts, You'd have seen me list those out.

A little more detailed? How so? Maybe you're reading it as a blanket statement, although I don't see how.

Here. Try this. Just because you can put Welker outside, doesn't mean you should!

Easier for you to grasp?

Yes, actually it DOES mean you should. It doesn't have to be on a regular basis. In fact, NO ONE is saying to put Welker out there on a regular basis. Not ME. Not Peter King. Only Maverick4 is claiming King implied that, which King didn't do.

Again, I'm a little slow in the AM without the proper dosage of caffeine. Can you point these 2 examples out? Just the proper post # should do it.

Looking at your posts that I've printed out, I can find only some semblance of this at post #64, which is an interesting post, even though in the example you create you don't necessarily put Moss in the slot. Although he could be in your example.

#62, #64, #68, Just to start off with. Zippo's post at 78 and JSP's post at 113 all are points for the idea that having Moss line-up inside on occasion isn't a bad thing. Which is what Maverick4 was saying.

As an aside, how many crosses and slants did you see McDaniels call last season?

The plays depend on the receivers abilities. No one has said otherwise. And he did run SOME. Caldwell and Gaffney didn't have the help to open up the passing game so Crosses and slants could be called.

All of your other posts seem to deal with generalizations (I hate to use the term "blanket statements") that seem to be of little help to me.

I'm sorry if they are little help to you. That is your own issue. Everyone else seemed to understand them fine. Espcially since my point was only that Maverick4 was creating something out of nothing and that the idea of having Moss lined up in the slot with Welker outside was not a stupid one.

If we run plays where two players end up in the same place (quite apart from flooding schemes), we have more problems than you're willing, or able, to let on.

Why do you post a point that I made and act like its a detractor to the point that I am supporting? Its not. If the Pats run a play and Moss and Welker end up in the same place, one or BOTH didn't do their job or didn't understand the adjustments that were supposed to have been made. That is why I SUPPORT the cross-training of the players.

King never a talked about cross-training of players. It was brought up in this thread by posters in SUPPORT of Moss being lined up inside with Welker outside. It was brought up in SUPPORT of the Idea that Maverick4 was making something out of nothing.

Again, where was this debunked? Just because you say it has, doesn't mean it has. You may have a problem with it, but I used him to show he rode his talent as hard as he could, as far as he could. The point I made there, DB, was that that is how the Pats should address their talent abundance.

Pray tell - what analogy might you use to further that point?

It was debunked by MoLewisRocks. Also, if you truly want to believe that Gibson didn't have movement on the ball that he threw and that he just rocked back and grooved them over the plate, you are fooling yourself. Gibson was more than a one pitch pitcher. He had hist fastball, a nasty slider and a great curveball. If you think he didn't mix and match them to get people out, you're fooling yourself.

Maverick4's whole point was that King was implying that Welker on the outside and Moss on the inside was going to be something we would see a lot of in the coming season. Fact is that King never said such a thing nore implied it. Maverick4, before he back-tracked to agree with the cross training, said that it was stupid to have Welker on the outside and Moss inside. He then, after agreeing with the cross-training, turned around and said that Welker shouldn't be on the outside more than 1 play a game.

Reality is that having Welker line up several times a game outside is a good thing. Whether he goes in motion, runs a deep route or runs a screen, having Welker outside the slot opens things up and makes defenses have to take a second guess about what is going to happen. Having Moss in the slot with Welker outside will make teams pause about what is going to happen. Will Welker go in motion? Will Moss go in motion? Will Moss go long? Will he go short? Will Welker cross behind Moss? Will Welker run a deep route with Moss stopping short to draw the safety up? Will Welker run an out pattern with Moss going deep? By lining them up that way, there are MANY opportunities to confuse the defense and very likely catch someone out of position that the Pats will be able to take advantage of. And that is the name of the game. Creating mismatches so your players (star or otherwise) will succeed.

 

[g-fresh]

Yeah, if it's putting Moss in the slot to split the safeties, then dragging a tight end or a back over to where the space just cleared, that is a smart play. It is using your best asset to create a high percentage play.

If anyone wants to try an unconventional play with Welker, I would suggest putting Welker in the slot but get him the ball on a screen pass, or do a quick out to Welker on the outside. Having him run deep routes isn't scaring anybody. Sure, cross train him there now, but don't use him on deep routes in a game unless Moss and Stallworth are hurt. Guys like Caldwell and Gaffney are more legitimate threats there.

Picture the following: the defense has been playing deep on the Moss/Stallworth the whole game, and Welker/Watson havev been killing them underneath. The guy covering Welker starts cheating up, playing him only for the short pass. The next play Welker is sent in motion to the outside while Moss moves to the slot, the defense shifts accordingly with the man covering Welker moving way up expecting a quick short route while the man covering Moss moves 10 yards back expecting a deep route. They are unclear as to what is coming, they are not prepared to face this like they are the usual formation. The ball is snapped, Welker runs a hitch and go causing the defender to bite on the fake and be caught way out of position to make a play as Welker runs by him, while Moss runs a short crossing route. Chances are at least one of them exposes a flaw in the defense and is wide open, if not both allowing Brady his choice of which one to throw to.

Welker may not have all world speed like Moss but if you put him in the right position and confuse the defense he is just as valid a deep threat as anyone else. This is not going to be the bread and butter of the offense, but it is something they might do if the defense gives it to them.

We know Duncan plays both center and power forward. In the example Mav4 cited, he puts Duncan at small forward, and Ginobili at power forward to highlight the absurdity that this thread has become. He's not saying that's how it is, just that if San Antone were to do such a thing, it really wouldn't make much sense.

Can we stop with the basketball analogies? They are not accurate because the skill sets used by the different positions in basketball are much more varied than the skill sets of wide recievers which are 90% the same. Duncan has never worked at taking guys off the dribble or shooting outside jumpers like a small forward would. Welker has plenty of practice runing deep routes and made big plays going long. It may not be his forte but if the defense is only playing a reciever short, you take advantage and go long. This doesn't mean that Welker is our new outside receiver but you better practice it just in case you want to use it.

 

[DaBruinz]

So you think if Welker lines up outside, Bailey is going to be immobilized until after the snap? You don't think if this particular line up occurs, Denver won't have a clue? They'll see it for what it is immediately, and make the changes they deem necessary.

I think you're cute, too!

If Welker goes outside, with Moss in the slot, I fully expect Bailey to be on him. But, what will the safety do? Will he slide to the outside to give help to the CB out there, leaving Bailey in single coverage on Moss? Will he stay inside to give Bailey help over the top? Will he be drawn away from the seam so that Watson could be open? Will he leave the middle of the field open by helping Bailey with Moss so that Welker or Watson comes into the open area?

My point is that there are NUMEROUS things that can happen. And yes, Bailey could end up on someone like Jabar Gaffney instead of Randy Moss, leaving Moss against a 3rd or 4th CB and making it easy pickings depending on how the defense responds.

 

[pats-blue]

This was never in question and doesn't matter to the current "point" that Maverick4 attempted to make.



I mentioned several different reasons as to why you would line Welker up outside and Moss inside. The least of which is that you can use Moss as a decoy to open up the underneath. Or, on the flip side, by having Moss run short, the Safety stepping up to cover Moss would make it easier for Welker to get open in the space that the safety vacated. Welker, like Brown, can get open on longer post routes because of his precision route running and cutting ability. Had you truly printed out all my posts, You'd have seen me list those out.





Yes, actually it DOES mean you should. It doesn't have to be on a regular basis. In fact, NO ONE is saying to put Welker out there on a regular basis. Not ME. Not Peter King. Only Maverick4 is claiming King implied that, which King didn't do.





#62, #64, #68, Just to start off with. Zippo's post at 78 and JSP's post at 113 all are points for the idea that having Moss line-up inside on occasion isn't a bad thing. Which is what Maverick4 was saying.





The plays depend on the receivers abilities. No one has said otherwise. And he did run SOME. Caldwell and Gaffney didn't have the help to open up the passing game so Crosses and slants could be called.



I'm sorry if they are little help to you. That is your own issue. Everyone else seemed to understand them fine. Espcially since my point was only that Maverick4 was creating something out of nothing and that the idea of having Moss lined up in the slot with Welker outside was not a stupid one.



Why do you post a point that I made and act like its a detractor to the point that I am supporting? Its not. If the Pats run a play and Moss and Welker end up in the same place, one or BOTH didn't do their job or didn't understand the adjustments that were supposed to have been made. That is why I SUPPORT the cross-training of the players.

King never a talked about cross-training of players. It was brought up in this thread by posters in SUPPORT of Moss being lined up inside with Welker outside. It was brought up in SUPPORT of the Idea that Maverick4 was making something out of nothing.



It was debunked by MoLewisRocks. Also, if you truly want to believe that Gibson didn't have movement on the ball that he threw and that he just rocked back and grooved them over the plate, you are fooling yourself. Gibson was more than a one pitch pitcher. He had hist fastball, a nasty slider and a great curveball. If you think he didn't mix and match them to get people out, you're fooling yourself.

Maverick4's whole point was that King was implying that Welker on the outside and Moss on the inside was going to be something we would see a lot of in the coming season. Fact is that King never said such a thing nore implied it. Maverick4, before he back-tracked to agree with the cross training, said that it was stupid to have Welker on the outside and Moss inside. He then, after agreeing with the cross-training, turned around and said that Welker shouldn't be on the outside more than 1 play a game.

Reality is that having Welker line up several times a game outside is a good thing. Whether he goes in motion, runs a deep route or runs a screen, having Welker outside the slot opens things up and makes defenses have to take a second guess about what is going to happen. Having Moss in the slot with Welker outside will make teams pause about what is going to happen. Will Welker go in motion? Will Moss go in motion? Will Moss go long? Will he go short? Will Welker cross behind Moss? Will Welker run a deep route with Moss stopping short to draw the safety up? Will Welker run an out pattern with Moss going deep? By lining them up that way, there are MANY opportunities to confuse the defense and very likely catch someone out of position that the Pats will be able to take advantage of. And that is the name of the game. Creating mismatches so your players (star or otherwise) will succeed.

STOP IT! Stop talking reality football in this thread! This thread is only for sky is falling OMG King said he saw Welker on the outside on ONE particular play in training camp...fire the OC! OH....and showing off extensive vocabulary skills...and criticizing others paragraphs and such...

 

[ajackson]

I would have to say you are correct. What I knew about Moss was generally from game highlights. The deep bombs are invariably the highlights.

Also, temper that with the fact that I was not a big proponent of bringing Moss here (concerned about him taking plays off) and I wasn't exactly going out of my way to delve deep into his skillset.

If you're a Vikings/Moss fan more insights from someone who watched him for years would always be appreciated around here.

No problem.

 

[maverick4]

That is just it. The only person talking ABSURDITY is Maverick4.

(in DaBruinz' voice):
I'm sorry, but you obviously have reading comprehension problems. YOU misread what I wrote. Your arguments have been debunked TIME and TIME again. You have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[maverick4]

Can we stop with the basketball analogies? They are not accurate because the skill sets used by the different positions in basketball are much more varied than the skill sets of wide recievers which are 90% the same. Duncan has never worked at taking guys off the dribble or shooting outside jumpers like a small forward would. Welker has plenty of practice runing deep routes and made big plays going long. It may not be his forte but if the defense is only playing a reciever short, you take advantage and go long. This doesn't mean that Welker is our new outside receiver but you better practice it just in case you want to use it.

It's not just different positions. Let's say you have two points guards in Steve Kerr and Tony Parker. One is good at driving, the other is good at 3-pointers. You don't reverse their roles just to 'switch it up'. Sure, Steve Kerr might completely surprise a guy ONE TIME by driving to the hoop, but more often than not he's going to not be as good in that role.

 

[g-fresh]

It's not just different positions. Let's say you have two points guards in Steve Kerr and Tony Parker. One is good at driving, the other is good at 3-pointers. You don't reverse their roles just to 'switch it up'. Sure, Steve Kerr might completely surprise a guy ONE TIME by driving to the hoop, but more often than not he's going to not be as good in that role.

Your making the point for us here. Watch the game tonight, Parker can shoot it when they leave him wide open because they are so scared of him driving. Just like you say, every once in a while Steve Kerr could get to the hoop because the defender is over playing his shot. Neither is a one dimensional player, and they will obviously rely on their strengths but that does not prevent them from successfully catching the opposition off guard by doing what they do not expect. In exactly the same way Welker can be successful going deep past a defender playing him only for the short pass. This doesn't mean he is running mostly go routes, but when Brady sees the defense is ripe to be taken advantage of he will call for his receivers to do the unexpected.

 

[maverick4]

Maverick4's whole point was that King was implying that Welker on the outside and Moss on the inside was going to be something we would see a lot of in the coming season. Fact is that King never said such a thing nore implied it.

Reality is that having Welker line up several times a game outside is a good thing.

(in DaBruinz' voice)
YOU are twisting MY words, just like you always do with people. I did not say we would see a lot of it, but it would be a part of our base plays, which I said was stupid. Those are DIFFERENT things which you can't seem to tell apart. YOU would have caught onto this if you had read more CAREFULLY.

You also CONTRADICTED yourself by first saying King did not imply that Welker would be lined up outside much, and then proceeded to defend WHY it would be a good idea as if that were his contention.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I think it's an unfounded concern until/unless an abnormally large number of injuries hit again. We played a weak group of offenses last year but largely did well against the good ones we faced. Yes, the Colts killed us in the second half of the playoffs. But since then we all know we have added/returning : Harrison, Gay, Wilson, Meriweather, Thomas, Seau. And unless Samuel is gone we've lost no-one except TBC who is irrelevant with Thomas and Seau here now. I'm not even mentioning the guys who were out the second half of the Colts game with fatigue, sickness, minor injuries, the list above is long enough to realize how different it will be IF those guys can stay on the field.

I hope you're right, but I think the concern is legit.

 

[BelichickFan]

I hope you're right, but I think the concern is legit.

If 75%+ of the injuries recur, then yes it's legit. If more like 50% do we have a couple of starters back on the field plus add Meriweather and replace TBC with Thomas then I don't think it is. Let's say Harrison and Gay are hurt again. We add Thomas, Meriweather, Seau, Wilson to the defense.

 

[DaBruinz]

(in DaBruinz' voice)
YOU are twisting MY words, just like you always do with people. I did not say we would see a lot of it, but it would be a part of our base plays, which I said was stupid. Those are DIFFERENT things which you can't seem to tell apart. YOU would have caught onto this if you had read more CAREFULLY.

Maverick4, I am not twisting your words around in any way, shape, or form. Whether it was a LOT OF, or "part of the base plays" it doesn't matter. What matters is that you made a fool of yourself claiming that Welker on the outside with Moss in the slot shouldn't show up more than 1 time a game. And that was just ridiculous.

Again, it was your FALSE implication of King that has dragged this thread on. You can't even support the claim that "the way King described it makes it seem like this is going to be part of some base sets we have, which I think is making the LEAST of your talent" because its just NOT there.

BTW, the Patriots "BASE SETS" change depending on the game plan. How do you know that some of their "BASE SETS" won't have variations that have Moss in the slot and Welker outside. I am fairly confident that some will based on what I have seen of the Belichick led Patriots over the past 7 years.

You also CONTRADICTED yourself by first saying King did not imply that Welker would be lined up outside much, and then proceeded to defend WHY it would be a good idea as if that were his contention.

How can I contradict myself when they are two seperate issues? Man, you are really flailing around and grasping for any sort of straw you can.

First off, I was pointing out that your CLAIM was false. YOU were the one saying

Then, later, you came out with this doozy:

This whole thing is premature, but the way King described it makes it seem like this is going to be part of some base sets we have, which I think is making the LEAST of your talent.

However, the article only said King found it interesting to see Moss lined up in the slot running a 12 yard hook and Welker on the outside running a deep pattern. So, you completely went off blasting McDaniels based on your own misinterpretation of what King said.

So, we have established that King did NOT imply anything other than he found it interesting that Moss was lined up in the slot and ran a 12 yard hook and Welker was on the outside running his route.

Now, my statements to you to contradict your flawed thinking on why you would see Moss inside and Welker outside have nothing to do with King finding it interesting. It deals with your thinking that it would be stupid to see Welker "lined up outside in some base sets".

So, now that we've established that the two items are seperate, can you actually explain how they contradict one another?

 

[pats-blue]

It's not just different positions. Let's say you have two points guards in Steve Kerr and Tony Parker. One is good at driving, the other is good at 3-pointers. You don't reverse their roles just to 'switch it up'. Sure, Steve Kerr might completely surprise a guy ONE TIME by driving to the hoop, but more often than not he's going to not be as good in that role.

This is getting as*ine. I think I hit the Celtics forum link instead. Why all the basketball references? Because the FOOTBALL REFERENCES don't work? It's FOOTBALL. I played receiver at a pretty high level and I lined up outside most of the time. I ran all kinds of patterns from there and the slot guys did the same from their positions (I also lined up in the slot once in awhile). I could go into why this is an advantage but I would be wasting my time it seems. To put it simply BB wants to run a play like that in practice and you have blown it into that we will run it as a primary set or something!

What happens if we run it in a actual GAME??!!! Gasp! OMG! Wait it is OK IF we ONLY run it ONCE, that, thats ok ONCE but don't run it twice or line Welker up outside more than once, because , well because I said so.

WTF? Maybe instead of getting BIll Russell before a game BB should get you to come in and tell him how to run practice and what he is thinking so the rest of the Pats will finally know what goes on in his mind...you would make press confrences better for the press since when BB goes into "no information mode" you can tell the press what BB really intended.

Do realize how foolish your arguement is? They ran ONE SET for ONE PLAY that King wrote about...maybe he even ran it FOR King to see, did you ever think of that? Maybe he runs it ONCE all season, maybe runs it ONCE a game or different variations THREE or Four times with different patterns. Or maybe he runs the play with Welker doing a short pattern out of it all season and then when he wants he uses it in a playoff game? No accorrding to you or the WAY YOU ARE ACTING it is going to be a set we send Welker deep thats it end of discussion fire the OC.

Can we stop with the basketball bullsh*t and once and for all show us one of a couple of things...Show me a quote where a Patriot coach says this is going to be a primary set or that we will EVER run the play King saw in a game. Heck show me where King says it is going to be a primary set or where Welker was going to go deep gasp!...MORE THAN ONCE A GAME! I will save you the trouble YOU CAN'T. King nor the Pats staf EVER said anything even NEAR that it was ONLY YOU! SO get off your broken down horse that was imaginary in the first place and when the season starts if they run it 8 times a game and it fails then complain but stop making sh*t up just to start a OC rant that isn't there and then flail about on the board talking about basketball.

 

[jczxohn1]

So you think if Welker lines up outside, Bailey is going to be immobilized until after the snap? You don't think if this particular line up occurs, Denver won't have a clue? They'll see it for what it is immediately, and make the changes they deem necessary.

I think you're cute, too!

What changes would you predict? Would Bailey come in side to go man on Moss and let Lynch cover Welker? If Bailey stays with Welker, who doubles Moss down the middle and where's the pass rush coming from? Whose covering Stallworth on the other side? Who's covering Watson chipping and going into the flat?

While this line-up won't be an every-down option, it will create confusion. Speaking of which, I wasn't complementing you, numbnu*ts.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

What changes would you predict? Would Bailey come in side to go man on Moss and let Lynch cover Welker? If Bailey stays with Welker, who doubles Moss down the middle and where's the pass rush coming from? Whose covering Stallworth on the other side? Who's covering Watson chipping and going into the flat?

All other things being equal, Moss will find himself covered by Bailey. Yes, Lynch can come down to pick up Welker, assuming the defense reads something more from the Welker lineup than is warranted, otherwise a backer will do the chore. Stallworth? There's another guy on the other side named Bly. He'd probably volunteer for the job.

And where's the pass rush coming from? They've been asking that very question in Denver for years.

I never said covering this juggernaut would be easy. It won't be. There's lots of weapons out there to utilize. Opposing teams will respect that.

Personally, I don't think we'll see the line up you're espousing all that often. This won't instantly become "Bombs Away" from the get-go till whenever the season ends. The name of the game will still be ball control. The great advantage of the new members of the cast remains for exploitation purposes. There is now always a threat that is ever-present, always palpable. Last season opposing defenses thought little of our deep threat capabilities, often stacking the box, much to the detriment of Corey Dillon. They can't, and won't, get away with that this season.

While this line-up won't be an every-down option, it will create confusion. Speaking of which, I wasn't complementing you, numbnu*ts.

I know you weren't. You're not the complimentin' kind.

 

[shakadave]

The Pats will have to put up 30 points a game to win?? IMO the D gives up fewer points this year.

The blood stopped pumping when I reached item 6. in the article. I agree with King.

Compare our D to last season:

D-line: about the same
LB: most of the old guys slightly weaker than last year. AD an obvious improvement, but he's just one guy.
DB: weaker at CB with Samuel gone. (We'll see.) About the same at Safety. (I don't count on Wilson to improve the unit.)

So overall, AD counterbalances the decline elsewhere at LB, and maybe even helps make up for some of the loss at CB, but not all. Overall unit: equal to or slightly weaker than last year's, which the Colts ate up twice.

I agree with King.

 

[zippo59]

The blood stopped pumping when I reached item 6. in the article. I agree with King.

Compare our D to last season:

D-line: about the same
LB: most of the old guys slightly weaker than last year. AD an obvious improvement, but he's just one guy.
DB: weaker at CB with Samuel gone. (We'll see.) About the same at Safety. (I don't count on Wilson to improve the unit.)

So overall, AD counterbalances the decline elsewhere at LB, and maybe even helps make up for some of the loss at CB, but not all. Overall unit: equal to or slightly weaker than last year's, which the Colts ate up twice.

I agree with King.

At linebacker we didn't have Junior Seau in the second game.

At safety we didn't have Harrison, Meriweather, or Wilson.

So no, it is not the same.

And how can you just assume the same linebackers are weaker than they were last year? Maybe they are but that is not based on anything.