The loss of Blount, Bennett, and Long is going to hurt us

[rochrist]

I disagree with the OP to some extent but I also disagree with the people who imagine Kony Ealy will easily replicate Chris Long's production. One is a guy who's been a steady high-level player his entire career, the other hasn't done anything at all. Long was much better in the worst season of his career than Ealy was in his best season. That said, the issue is losing both Long and Sheard and replacing them with question marks (Ealy and rookies).

Other than be a one man wrecking crew in Super Bowl 50 against Denver. I'm always interested in guys who step up in the biggest games.

 

[rochrist]

I would be. If it takes a big boy to break through, we really don't have one. This may turn out to be an issue against teams with good pass coverage. Either way it's an option that was in the playbook last year and isn't this year.

It's a source of very minor concern until we know that the team has an answer. I don't foresee any real difficulty but I want to see the team work through or around the problem a couple times before I completely relax.

I would have worried less if Blount wasn't such a big part of how we survived the Brady suspension.

Well, Gillislee is supposedly 219. And of course, there's always Devlin at 255.

 

[rochrist]

Bingo. Perfect.

Blount was Big, but not Strong.

He was remarkably agile for a PowerBack...but somehow lacked Power.

O Rly?

 

[Triumph]

This season is over.

 

[luuked]

I'd have liked to see him return on another cheap deal where he could be used as a 2nd half runner who wore opposing defenses down and chewed up clock. I didn't want to see him return as the lead back though, for the reasons you've mentioned.

Not taking anything away from him or his strengths, but I thought that the team could improve on the lead rushing role. We'll have to see if Gilleslee can do that, or if we're having late night conversations about wanting LG back. Hope it's the former.

I think what gets missed by a lot of people here is that despite many efforts to teach him Blount never consistently performed up in pass blocking. There was a The Ringer - GM Street episode where Lombardi talked about exactly that. He was rarely part of passing downs because he simply struggled identifying/blocking his assignment - even in practice. This made him very one dimensional despite being a good closer.

 

[Off The Grid]

Bingo. Perfect.

Blount was Big, but not Strong.

He was remarkably agile for a PowerBack...but somehow lacked Power.

O Rly?

You're mistaking Momentum and Leverage for Power.

It was an awesome Play, an outstanding Effort, and certainly exhibited some Power ~ as he occasionally but nowhere near often enough did ~ but Blount had a full Head of Steam and compounded that by blasting into the first guy's belly.

Real Power is when you get hit square at the Line of Scrimmage ~ before you've gotten a full Head of Steam ~ and the guy bounces off you, anyway.

That was most definitely not Blount's thing.

Why? Because he lacks Power.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

The Patriots are the proverbial square peg in a league of round holes. How many times have Patriots missed on a draft choice, bad signing, lost player(s), glaring positional weakness, etc -- how many times should they have tangibly fallen backward? Yet they continue to find a way to be in the thick of it at the end.

In today's NFL a 1985 Bears type utter domination team is unlikely to exist. Sure, there will be teams, like the Patriots, that are top of the heap -- one that stands out more than others -- but all will have weaknesses and generally lack depth. Then the injury factor with that overall lack of depth makes calculating the effect of roster changes difficult. Sure, losing these 3 guys should be concerning. But with the Patriots this conventional wisdom doesn't apply quite like it should.

Ultimately, after seeing what we have seen, by having TB manning the most important position on the field and BB manning the most important positions off the field(and the team buying into BB's way - in part ny seeing their field general live by and push the BB way), it's a 'throw out the way it should work' ****tail of success. Bottom line, the Patriots will find a way to be in the mix at the end. With a decent play at the right time and a decent bounce of the ball, the Patriots will win it all. Losing players like these 3 doesn't seem to effect that reality as much as it seemingly should or would with other teams.

 

[AtomicDawg]

"I DON'T CARE, I CAN'T STAND IT!" 2017 edition. The season is here.

 

[PScottman]

The Pats have never fully recovered from...

That's the Comedic Thread Title of the Decade Award winner right there.

 

[Minitron]

"I DON'T CARE, I CAN'T STAND IT!" 2017 edition. The season is here.

I think there will be numerous more this season...just wait for the first loss and this place will explode.

 

[ivanvamp]

@Ive_Killed_People

Instead of clicking on the "disagree" button, try thinking first. Gillislee is a 208 pound back. Even if he runs with the power of Thor himself, Gillislee is not going to be a big back. He's still going to be 208 pounds.

That's true that Gillislee will
Never be Blount's size. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't run with similar power. Power in running backs is about leg strength and leverage, not merely about weight.

James White, of all people, powered his way into the end zone three times in the late part of the super bowl. Once on a two point conversion and twice on TD runs. All three times power was needed. And he had enough.

 

[K. Dog]

When Lawyer Milloy was let go... we were doomed.
When Richard Seymour was traded... the end of the earth was near.
When Logan Mankins was traded... the O line would crumble.
When Mike Vrabel and Cassell were traded... we lost the heart and soul of this team.
When Chandler Jones was traded.. we were losing the best pass rusher of all time.
When Jamie Collins was traded.. the Pats would not recover..
...Do not fall in love with the veterans..

The argument you're presenting (more eloquently than most here) boils down to this: the Patriots way has worked for 17 years, so it will continue to work.

But this off-season, Belichick has not adhered to the Patriot way, or at least not to Patriot custom. He gave a non-Patriot free agent a long term, $65M contract. I don't think he's ever given a non-Patriot a contract anywhere near that large. Neither Moss nor Revis got anywhere close to that number. So the Gilmore contract represents a sharp change in philosophy by Bill. And if Bill can change his philosophy, then you can't use the success of the old philosophy to predict the success of the new.

If it works out - if Gilmore really is worth that - maybe it makes sense (even then, jealousy and agent demands by other players on the team could ruin things). But as I said above, if that contract doesn't work out, then how does Belichick expect to maintain the chemistry and cohesiveness exhibited by the 2016 group? How do you persuade players to sacrifice salary when the savings are squandered? Or play for the team when playing for stats is rewarded? It's too early to say if the Gilmore acquisition will pan out. But it's not too early to say that (1) it's a sharp change in Patriots custom; and (2) if it fails, then the ripple effect on chemistry and salary demands could bring down the entire dynasty. Many teams in many sports have been shackled for years by such contracts.

As for your other examples, these typically had to do with failing to meet salary demands or behavior issues. The loss of Blount, Long, and Bennett doesn't seem to have had to do with that so much.

So the argument: "oh we've seen Bill jettison vets before" doesn't apply. Because he's never done anything like the Gilmore deal, and particularly not in conjunction with letting so many smart, valued vets leave.

 

[jimnance]

@Ive_Killed_People

Instead of clicking on the "disagree" button, try thinking first. Gillislee is a 208 pound back. Even if he runs with the power of Thor himself, Gillislee is not going to be a big back. He's still going to be 208 pounds.

He's listed at 219. In today's NFL,that qualifies as a big back.

 

[Simpelton]

The argument you're presenting (more eloquently than most here) boils down to this: the Patriots way has worked for 17 years, so it will continue to work.

But this off-season, Belichick has not adhered to the Patriot way, or at least not to Patriot custom. He gave a non-Patriot free agent a long term, $65M contract. I don't think he's ever given a non-Patriot a contract anywhere near that large. Neither Moss nor Revis got anywhere close to that number. So the Gilmore contract represents a sharp change in philosophy by Bill. And if Bill can change his philosophy, then you can't use the success of the old philosophy to predict the success of the new.

If it works out - if Gilmore really is worth that - maybe it makes sense (even then, jealousy and agent demands by other players on the team could ruin things). But as I said above, if that contract doesn't work out, then how does Belichick expect to maintain the chemistry and cohesiveness exhibited by the 2016 group? How do you persuade players to sacrifice salary when the savings are squandered? Or play for the team when playing for stats is rewarded? It's too early to say if the Gilmore acquisition will pan out. But it's not too early to say that (1) it's a sharp change in Patriots custom; and (2) if it fails, then the ripple effect on chemistry and salary demands could bring down the entire dynasty. Many teams in many sports have been shackled for years by such contracts.

As for your other examples, these typically had to do with failing to meet salary demands or behavior issues. The loss of Blount, Long, and Bennett doesn't seem to have had to do with that so much.

So the argument: "oh we've seen Bill jettison vets before" doesn't apply. Because he's never done anything like the Gilmore deal, and particularly not in conjunction with letting so many smart, valued vets leave.

You misunderstand that Patriot paradigm. Bill isn't out there trying to look smart. He doesn't pay for great talent because too many other teams overpay for it. He got Gilmore on a fair market deal. He'll go for players on a fair or undermarket deal if they're the right fit for the franchise. He was comfortable about this when it came to Gimore, fair dues.

Because at the end of the day Bill's paradigm isn't about not paying for veterans or trying to make Bill look smart. It's building the deepest and most talented team you can on the budget set by the cap and the opportunities available on the market, and then trying to win Superbowls. Big free agents will generally be priced out of the market from an efficiency standpoint, but when they're not, I'd fully expect BB to be in on them.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Bennett might be the only guy missed. The other two will not be missed.

 

[Bruins29]

But this off-season, Belichick has not adhered to the Patriot way, or at least not to Patriot custom. He gave a non-Patriot free agent a long term, $65M contract. I don't think he's ever given a non-Patriot a contract anywhere near that large. Neither Moss nor Revis got anywhere close to that number. So the Gilmore contract represents a sharp change in philosophy by Bill. .

 

[FourierSeries]

I think there will be numerous more this season...just wait for the first loss and this place will explode.

There's no need to wait for a loss. Wait for the first 1st down allowed, and you'll have people who will claim this is the worst defense of all time and that the Pats will be a one and done team.

 

[Joker]

somebody needs to drug test the Alpo in this thread...the dog is seeing things again

 

[zoostation]

Long was an absolute stud in the last game. The holding call that wiped out a first down in Atlanta's last drive was due to a blunt bullrush. He was on a mission. No holding, no championship.