Running Game Without Vereen For 10 Weeks

[supafly]

Let's all just be thankful that we have the opportunity to get him back in week #11. It can add to what should be a somewhat balanced and well rounded offense by then, and in time for the stretch run to boot.

It could have been a lot worse. He could have been placed on season ending IR instead of just the IR exempt option, although I'm not quite sure why Belichick would sacrifice losing him for extra games over a broken wrist when he'd likely have been back by week #6 or #7 at worst?

I suppose the answer is that Belichick is willing to sacrifice not having Vereen for another 4-5 games to save a roster spot, but it's certainly a debatable issue.

Bottom line is that it happened and now we'll need the other RB's to step up.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Maybe we haven't seen how dependent we've become on him, but I guarantee you the coaches were extremely dependent on him becoming a major factor. See how often he was on the field Sunday? Even if Ridley didn't get benched, you would've seen a TON of Vereen...because he can do it all. He is a major blow to lose. Any player who has the ability to give you 100 yds rushing and/or receiving in any given game, is a major, major blow to lose. Maybe if we had Gronk, Hernandez, a healthy Amendola, Ridley not fumbling...and Dobson showing us he's ready to be a threat on the outside, then yeah...we wouldn't be so dependent on him. But given the circumstances, you better believe we are dependent on Vereen.

Dependent on him? Not until he shows he can produce on a consistent basis and stay healthy. For whatever reasons he did not suit up in 14 games his first two years and now he'll miss another 8-9 games this year.

Were they hoping he might fill a void? Maybe. Dependent? No.

You don't know what the game plan was had Ridley not fumbled. Ridley got the start and would have likely stayed on the field without the fumbling.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

..

The injuries, though, will be a big issue going forward. I agree that Ridley will be fine, and he'll probably get 100+ yards tomorrow if I had to guess...

Excellent points in all your posts that clearly pointed out the importance/benefits of the players together as an unit, thank you.

Question I have for you: would Ridley really gain 100 yards on Thursday considering that the Jets know pretty well that in the absence of trusted WRs (other than Eldmen) and no receiving TEs, Brady might probably hand the ball to Ridley more often?

I am hoping our D steps up real big for the next few games.

 

[PatsDeb]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

Excellent points in all your posts that clearly pointed out the importance/benefits of the players together as an unit, thank you.

Question I have for you: would Ridley really gain 100 yards on Thursday considering that the Jets know pretty well that in the absence of trusted WRs (other than Eldmen) and no receiving TEs, Brady might probably hand the ball to Ridley more often?

I am hoping our D steps up real big for the next few games.

On Gresh and Zo they were just opining that with the personnel the Pats have going for the next few weeks they should return to a style that was more popular in the 90's - running the RB behind the FB, something the Pats don't do very much. They said (and I agree) that if Brady comes out and lines up in the shot gun, 5 wide, on the first five plays the Pats will not be playing to their strengths right now. It will be interesting to see how it goes tonight.

 

[Mack Herron]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

On Gresh and Zo they were just opining that with the personnel the Pats have going for the next few weeks they should return to a style that was more popular in the 90's - running the RB behind the FB, something the Pats don't do very much. They said (and I agree) that if Brady comes out and lines up in the shot gun, 5 wide, on the first five plays the Pats will not be playing to their strengths right now. It will be interesting to see how it goes tonight.

I would love to see lots of running (mostly to the left). With rookies being in the wrong place and not getting open, I fear TB will hold the ball longer and put himself at risk. Can NOT afford that.

 

[BradyFTW!]

"Running Game Without Vereen For 10 Weeks" is the thread title. For that period of time we have two RBs who have run more in the past on the Pats, one elsewhere. We have a vet who has been a receiver out of the backfield, though not a lot lately.

How about our passing game and run blocking without Gronk? If that was the thread title, it would probably be more of a hole to fill.

The state of the passing game plays a huge role in determining how effective the running game can be. Football isn't played in a vacuum- if you're going to bring up the fact that Vereen wasn't a huge contributor last year and ignore what he was being relied upon to do this year, then of course I'm going to put last year in context. You made "we were fine last year" the foundation of your entire argument, so of course that's going to require context by clarifying why we were fine last year.

Now that that's been clarified, here's the point as it relates to this topic: if the running game isn't 'better' than it was last year, then it'll be much less effective than it was last year, because a defense that doesn't have to worry about Welker, Gronk and Hernandez will be able to devote far more attention to the run.

I really can't understand why people insist on oversimplifying things like this. That's what baseball is for. Part of the reason why we all like football so much is that it isn't like that.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Running Game Without Vereen for weeks

Excellent points in all your posts that clearly pointed out the importance/benefits of the players together as an unit, thank you.

Question I have for you: would Ridley really gain 100 yards on Thursday considering that the Jets know pretty well that in the absence of trusted WRs (other than Eldmen) and no receiving TEs, Brady might probably hand the ball to Ridley more often?

I am hoping our D steps up real big for the next few games.

Thanks! Re: why I think Ridley will perform well tonight, the only real answer that I have is because he has to. My guess will be that wherever possible, they'll avoid running at Wilkerson and/or David Harris, and will try to focus on attacking pretty much everyone else in the front seven. I think we'll see more of Solder lining up as a TE to give us three tackles on the field, which should create some holes for Ridley to run through. The Jets are especially weak at OLB, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Solder line up at TE, and for the Pats to run off tackle behind him try to attack the Jets' outside linebackers as they get to and past the second level. I guess this all hinges on the fact that I'm not sold on Kenrick Ellis at all even when he's healthy, and he's currently dealing with back problems.

In the passing game, I think the the Pats will be in much better shape if they can establish the run game and force the Jets to play the run. I know Jets fans are all psyched about their pass rush after last week, but it was against a QB who's in the process of playing himself out of his job. Coples is still out, so I'm not too worried about them getting to Brady, and as good as Cromartie is (has anyone seen how Milliner is doing, btw?) The Pats will get some favorable matchups, especially if Wilson ends up covering Boyce in the slot.

In other words, I still think the Pats can do enough to win. If they had Amendola and Vereen out there, let alone Gronk, I'd probably be laying the points and picking the Pats to cover the 13.5 point spread. As it is, those are all huge losses, but I still think they have enough to control the clock, drive down the field, win the turnover battle, and pull out a close win. We'll see, though, because OTOH it wouldn't surprise me if Kellen Winslow had the game of his life tonight.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Dependent on him? Not until he shows he can produce on a consistent basis and stay healthy. For whatever reasons he did not suit up in 14 games his first two years and now he'll miss another 8-9 games this year.

Were they hoping he might fill a void? Maybe. Dependent? No.

You don't know what the game plan was had Ridley not fumbled. Ridley got the start and would have likely stayed on the field without the fumbling.

The second they let Woodhead walk, it was clear that they were depending on Vereen. Like it or not, the Pats are willing to rely on guys with injury histories. Three of our top weapons on offense are Gronk, Amendola, and Vereen, so I think that that's pretty much self-evident at this point.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Dependent on him? Not until he shows he can produce on a consistent basis and stay healthy. For whatever reasons he did not suit up in 14 games his first two years and now he'll miss another 8-9 games this year.

Were they hoping he might fill a void? Maybe. Dependent? No.

You don't know what the game plan was had Ridley not fumbled. Ridley got the start and would have likely stayed on the field without the fumbling.

The second they let Woodhead walk, it was clear that they were depending on Vereen. Like it or not, the Pats are willing to rely on guys with injury histories. Three of our top weapons on offense are Gronk, Amendola, and Vereen, so I think that that's pretty much self-evident at this point.

Dependent on and depending on are two different things. Dependent on implies they are unable to function without him. The Patriots are dependent on Tom Brady (maybe too much) and no one else. They depended on Vereen to fill Woodhead's spot.