Why all the worry about the offense?

[signbabybrady]

Solve the red zone and I think you solve the offensive situation. It could be with a 3rd receiver, it could be with a tight end who can reliably run routes and catch in traffic. I genuinely don't mind which, I just think we have more chance of finding that player in the receiver position rather than at tight end.

So seems to me you should want a RB who is good in the red zone more than a WR.

As I do. I think the offense could use a TE and WR but if there is one position where it is in need of a young stud it is RB more than WR. My plan in the Draft would be to get Matthews in the first and all de in the 2nd and get a TE and WR later in the day, I would be OK going De in rd 1 and getting the back in the 2nd as that seems to be where the talent is at RB but I really like Matthews.

 

[The Dynasty]

So seems to me you should want a RB who is good in the red zone more than a WR.

As I do. I think the offense could use a TE and WR but if there is one position where it is in need of a young stud it is RB more than WR. My plan in the Draft would be to get Matthews in the first and all de in the 2nd and get a TE and WR later in the day, I would be OK going De in rd 1 and getting the back in the 2nd as that seems to be where the talent is at RB but I really like Matthews.

The RB position should not be addressed this off season, next season is the off season to do so. We have 5 backs that are signed for this season, all of which will be FA after this season. With 5 RB being FA next off season that would be the off season to address the situation, whether the Pats want to retain a few of their 5 backs from this season or completely change the look of things at the RB position and draft a big name. With 5 RBs on the roster this season it is not the draft to draft a high profile RB.

 

[Ring 6]

I didn't realise you meant Edelman. He only played when Welker was out, didn't see a great deal of action the rest of the time.


All this talk of #1, #2 and #3 WRs is a mirage. It doesn't make sense. There are three WR positions: flanker, split end and slot. Obviously you already know this, but for clarity:

Randy Moss is our flanker. He runs the deep routes - the fly, post and corner routes.
Wes Welker is best utilised in the slot. He catches lots of slants, short ins and short outs. Edelman is a slot guy, we haven't seen him
The split end needs to be able to beat press coverage, run intermediate routes and catch the ball going over the middle.

Who is our split end? I do not see one on this team right now. It could be Brandon Tate, but we haven't seen him properly yet. Training camp will tell us a lot, but unfortunately we don't have that luxury.


Because of Welker's productivity, we don't need an elite WR at split end. However, we need someone legitimate. Randy Moss is still a Top 5 receiver in the NFL. Welker is the best slot receiver in the NFL. But the different in the passing game from 2007 to 2009 was the lack of a Donte Stallworth, a legitimate threat on the opposite side of the field who can punish the other team.

We genuinely have the ability to have an offense as good as 2007's. I really do believe that. But that's not going to happen unless we reproduce every element, and we're missing a Stallworth.

I dont know what you mean that Edelman only played when Welker was out, he played every game except the 5 he missed with injuires, and caught 37 passes. Catching 37 passes is catching 37 passes no matter how much you wish to diminish it.
I think its foolish to be 'chasing 2007'. To pine away trying to match the best offense ever, without considering that we could put the same exact roster together and the same thing won't happen, is a waste of time to me.
Would I like the WR position to be better than it is, sure, I'd take Peyton Manning as the backup QB too, but its a matter of priorities. WR will not be why we lose this year if we do. We have won with a lot less. The focus needs to be on the defense. If we try to rebuild this team in the image of 2007, we will not see another championship for a long time. If we try to rebuild this team in the image of 01-04 we will.
People seem to think that 2007 was by design and that the best approach is to build the greatest offense ever and worry about defense later. 2007 happened out of necessity, and seriously hope BB isnt chasing 2007 like this board is.

 

[Ring 6]

I certainly understand what you're getting at, and there is some sense to it. I think people who are disagreeing are stating that any comparison to our 3 SB winners is a bit of a reach. Our defense was the attacking point of the team, having given up 21 and 17 pts in 2 of the 3 SB's. Our defense isn't even remotely close to what it was back then, not only are we lacking a veteran presence, we are lacking leadership and to some degree--actual playmakers.

While I agree that the defense showed promise for a younger group, there are still areas of need that we can only hope will be improved. In the SB years our defense carried us, while the offense took what the other team gave us. Now it seems to be vice-versa. Until these areas are properly resolved, it is our offense that is our strongest point. I am not one who believes our WR core is in absolute peril, but a good downfield threat who can produce is vital IMO--even more now without Welker.

Again, I think you made some good points, and am respectfully disagreeing about the SB yrs comparisons, because too many things have changed namely the power of the defense, but including a more pass-happy league in itself too. I simply believe that the strong point of the team in the past was leaning towards the defensive side, whereas now it's leaning towards the offensive side. Our 'o' is our attacking point no doubt, at least right now, and that's not a pot-shot against the defense, just a fact.

We all saw what a good plethora of options at WR can do in 2007, and that was with a better defense, not to mention Wes Welker. Until our defense finishes it's overhaul (minor or major), we need to continue to score high and mask some weaknesses.

I'm confused. I say the priority should be defense, not WR, illustrated by the fact that the 3rd WR was never critical to our success, and you say focus on WR instead of defense because the defense isnt as good?
I dont understand. Are you saying don't fix the D?

 

[Ring 6]

No, we weren't.

NFL Stats: by Team Category

Personally, I don't even believe that we deserved the 11th ranked defense touting in 2009.

Umm, those are defensive stats you linked.

How does a team not deserve their ranking?
Also, I could argue the ranking should be higher because points allowed is much more important than yards, but in any event, you are on the wrong side of the ball, I said we have a top 5 offense.

 

[Ring 6]

It's 2010, not 2004! That was 6 years ago. It's a different NFL with different rules and teams passing all the time is status quo.

As most Pats fans these days, you are living in the past.

So we should ignore the formula that won because it was 6 years ago and 5 years of not repeating the formula for success isnt enough for you?

Where do you want to live? 10-6?

 

[signbabybrady]

The RB position should not be addressed this off season, next season is the off season to do so. We have 5 backs that are signed for this season, all of which will be FA after this season. With 5 RB being FA next off season that would be the off season to address the situation, whether the Pats want to retain a few of their 5 backs from this season or completely change the look of things at the RB position and draft a big name. With 5 RBs on the roster this season it is not the draft to draft a high profile RB.

And of the 5 how many can you count on?

Faulk - Yes

Maroney - no - probably the most talented/athletic but too inconsistant

Morris - no - he has shown he is a good back for this system but has not shown to be able to make it thru a season

Taylor - no - if we could get the Taylor of a few year ago than I would have no need but I can't count on it

BJGE - no - while he is young and has no real injury history he just does not have enough talent.

And as you said 5 backs are FA next year so why not take care of this area of need now so you aren't left with no one next year.

 

[Ring 6]

And of the 5 how many can you count on?

Faulk - Yes

Maroney - no - probably the most talented/athletic but too inconsistant

Morris - no - he has shown he is a good back for this system but has not shown to be able to make it thru a season

Taylor - no - if we could get the Taylor of a few year ago than I would have no need but I can't count on it

BJGE - no - while he is young and has no real injury history he just does not have enough talent.

And as you said 5 backs are FA next year so why not take care of this area of need now so you aren't left with no one next year.

I dont understand these kind of posts.
What does 'count on' mean? I am EXTREMELY confident that with Maroney, Taylor, Morris and Faulk we will have a quality RB to hand the ball off to each week.
I don't know what constitutes Maroney being inconsistent, I actually think he has been very consistent in his performance while his opportuinites have been inconsistent. Dont know how that is a him problem.
Morris and Taylor. Show me any team that has 2 backups of that caliber. Sure they are older but we have 2 of them. See, where there is a question mark about durabiity and it is answered by having 2 players for the backup role, you no longer have an unanswered question, you have one that is answered.
It seems like if we have 5 players on the 80 man roster at a position its a 'question mark' unless all 5 are all-pros. What teams don't have question marks? There are teams with 3rd string starters out there you know.

 

[The Dynasty]

And of the 5 how many can you count on?

Faulk - Yes

Maroney - no - probably the most talented/athletic but too inconsistant

Morris - no - he has shown he is a good back for this system but has not shown to be able to make it thru a season

Taylor - no - if we could get the Taylor of a few year ago than I would have no need but I can't count on it

BJGE - no - while he is young and has no real injury history he just does not have enough talent.

And as you said 5 backs are FA next year so why not take care of this area of need now so you aren't left with no one next year.

We have 5 running backs on the roster, you only really need 2 of them to be major contributors. Faulk will obviously continue to do his thing on 3rd downs and I think Taylor/Morris/Maroney can be the every down back. I really expect a big season from Maroney. If he knows that he will be the primary back he will do a lot better instead of trying to do too much, which I think was a main cause for his fumbling issue last year. I thought he ran very well the middle/end of last season. BB has a lot of faith in him because why else would he devote so much one on one time with him.

We shouldnt address the RB position this off season because we have much greater needs on the team. We only have 1 TE on the roster. We only have 1 WR (minus Welker) that has proven he can actually be a factor in the league. Thats just on the offensive side of the ball. Defensively the need of a pass rusher is definitely greater than the need of a RB. RB is not a priority this off season.

 

[signbabybrady]

I dont understand these kind of posts.
What does 'count on' mean? I am EXTREMELY confident that with Maroney, Taylor, Morris and Faulk we will have a quality RB to hand the ball off to each week.
I don't know what constitutes Maroney being inconsistent, I actually think he has been very consistent in his performance while his opportuinites have been inconsistent. Dont know how that is a him problem.
Morris and Taylor. Show me any team that has 2 backups of that caliber. Sure they are older but we have 2 of them. See, where there is a question mark about durabiity and it is answered by having 2 players for the backup role, you no longer have an unanswered question, you have one that is answered.
It seems like if we have 5 players on the 80 man roster at a position its a 'question mark' unless all 5 are all-pros. What teams don't have question marks? There are teams with 3rd string starters out there you know.

I don't need 5 all pros....just one would do.....And he doesn't have to be all pro but how about one RB who we think might be able to compete for a Pro Bowl ( I don't care if he actually makes it, I really don't care about the pro bowl at all just a point of comparison).

I absolutely agree that we could get by with the 5 we have but I want more than just get by. Sure I think there are other positions with more of a need but RB is a unique position in that only one guy carries the ball at a time so having 5 means less at RB than at other positions and having a stud at the top is more important.

If there was an OLB I felt as good about as Matthews he would definitely be at the top of my wish list.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't need 5 all pros....just one would do.....And he doesn't have to be all pro but how about one RB who we think might be able to compete for a Pro Bowl ( I don't care if he actually makes it, I really don't care about the pro bowl at all just a point of comparison).

I absolutely agree that we could get by with the 5 we have but I want more than just get by. Sure I think there are other positions with more of a need but RB is a unique position in that only one guy carries the ball at a time so having 5 means less at RB than at other positions and having a stud at the top is more important.

If there was an OLB I felt as good about as Matthews he would definitely be at the top of my wish list.

I think that all of the guys we have at the position (other than BJGE) have played the position well when they have been in there.
We wont have a pro-bowler, because we have depth, and use it to keep them healthy throughout the season.
You understand thats the plan right?
We don't WANT one stud at the position. Having that means he wears down and is more likely to be injured by the end of the season.
We don't rotate RBs because we can't figure out which one to use, we rotate them so we do not overwork them, and have some legs left at the position in Jan and Feb.
We don't not have Dillon backed up by Mike Cloud because we cant find Dillon, we don't have that because we don't want Mike Cloud starting in the playoffs.

 

[Nonentity]

So seems to me you should want a RB who is good in the red zone more than a WR.

As I do. I think the offense could use a TE and WR but if there is one position where it is in need of a young stud it is RB more than WR. My plan in the Draft would be to get Matthews in the first and all de in the 2nd and get a TE and WR later in the day, I would be OK going De in rd 1 and getting the back in the 2nd as that seems to be where the talent is at RB but I really like Matthews.

I want a RB who is good, full stop. I don't think the running game is really as affected by being in the red zone as the passing game is, the effect of the field being compressed just isn't the same.

I'm very happy to draft a RB in the first two rounds, although I've made it very clear that I don't think Ryan Mathews is that player. Looks like a jack-of-all-trades who outclasses the college level but won't be anything special in the pros. Give me Jahvid Best or Montario Hardesty please.

I dont know what you mean that Edelman only played when Welker was out, he played every game except the 5 he missed with injuires, and caught 37 passes. Catching 37 passes is catching 37 passes no matter how much you wish to diminish it.

No, it's not. 24 of his 37 receptions happened in just 3 games, coincidentally when he was playing the slot in place of Welker. He cannot play alongside Welker, it just won't work. It's like claiming that you can play with two All-Pro RBs at the same time, it's just plain wrong.

I think its foolish to be 'chasing 2007'. To pine away trying to match the best offense ever, without considering that we could put the same exact roster together and the same thing won't happen, is a waste of time to me.

That's crap. We still have Tom Brady. We still have Randy Moss. We still have Wes Welker. We have the All-Pro quarterback to do it and we have the All-Pro receivers to do it. "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss it you will land among the stars."

Frankly I consider it cowardice not to try.

Would I like the WR position to be better than it is, sure, I'd take Peyton Manning as the backup QB too, but its a matter of priorities. WR will not be why we lose this year if we do.

I disagree. It's a real issue. After the Saints shut us down in Week 12, every team copied them, played double coverage on both Moss and Welker and dared us to beat them another way. And we genuinely struggled to. Football is all about combinations, it's not about a single star player. The best receiving combos have more than one good receiver - just look at the Texans compared to the Cardinals. The best linebacking combos have more than one or two good linebackers - just look at the 49ers compared to the Steelers. Adding a single player to the WR corps could make it so much more effective, and I can't see a way to justify not doing so.

 

[Nonentity]

I dont understand these kind of posts.
What does 'count on' mean? I am EXTREMELY confident that with Maroney, Taylor, Morris and Faulk we will have a quality RB to hand the ball off to each week.

Four running backs who can't get more than 4 yards per carry does not equal 1 quality RB.

We run with a committee of running backs, which suits me fine. But we need to decide who our main RB is - the one playing on 1st down at our 20. If Maroney isn't productive without 20+ carries per game, and Morris can't produce, and Faulk is 'just' a 3rd down back, and Taylor gets worn down with a lot of carries....who is our main RB?

 

[Ring 6]

Four running backs who can't get more than 4 yards per carry does not equal 1 quality RB.

We run with a committee of running backs, which suits me fine. But we need to decide who our main RB is - the one playing on 1st down at our 20. If Maroney isn't productive without 20+ carries per game, and Morris can't produce, and Faulk is 'just' a 3rd down back, and Taylor gets worn down with a lot of carries....who is our main RB?

Last season when everyone was healthy, we split snaps between Maroney and Taylor, and gave Morris a handful of plays. Faulk plays his 3rd down role.
We don't have a 'main RB' because essentially, we use 2 and rotate them every couple of series. I don't know what is wrong with that.
Why is it less quality to have 2 guys each run 12 times for 52 yards than one guy run 24 for 104?

 

[Nonentity]

Last season when everyone was healthy, we split snaps between Maroney and Taylor, and gave Morris a handful of plays. Faulk plays his 3rd down role.
We don't have a 'main RB' because essentially, we use 2 and rotate them every couple of series. I don't know what is wrong with that.
Why is it less quality to have 2 guys each run 12 times for 52 yards than one guy run 24 for 104?

Because your running game loses its rhythm whenever you change RBs, you run different plays and individual players on the defense get a rest. To explain, let's say you run Taylor/Morris up the middle a lot and Maroney in the B/C gaps. There is always going to be a tendency to use players differently. End result - either the interior defenders (DT, ILB) get a rest, comparatively, or the exterior defenders (DE, OLB) get a rest.

Even when San Diego had both LT and Michael Turner, they rode Tomlinson hard and had Turner as a back-up, which was reflected in their carries - less than 100 a season for Turner. Now, I'm not expecting a HoF-caliber running back, but I think we need to truly believe in at least one of our RBs to consistently get a 1st down when we need them to.

 

[Ring 6]

Because your running game loses its rhythm whenever you change RBs, you run different plays and individual players on the defense get a rest. To explain, let's say you run Taylor/Morris up the middle a lot and Maroney in the B/C gaps. There is always going to be a tendency to use players differently. End result - either the interior defenders (DT, ILB) get a rest, comparatively, or the exterior defenders (DE, OLB) get a rest.

Even when San Diego had both LT and Michael Turner, they rode Tomlinson hard and had Turner as a back-up, which was reflected in their carries - less than 100 a season for Turner. Now, I'm not expecting a HoF-caliber running back, but I think we need to truly believe in at least one of our RBs to consistently get a 1st down when we need them to.

I totally disagree. Every player blocks on a running play. If you off the G the OLB doesnt stand there and watch, he still particpates in the play.
The difference is if you split the carries between 2 RBs, the RB gets rested.
I'm sure you can give examples of teams who gave all of the carries to one guy. I'm saying that BBs philiosophy is to not do that, and I don't see any negative in it.

 

[Nonentity]

It works when all of your RBs are productive, but you have problems as soon as one or more of them aren't. Running back by committee is fine if you only want/need an average running game, but I'd like the Patriots to be better than average.

And yes, every player blocks, but if you haven't got a pulling guard running at you then, as a linebacker, I think you'll be pretty pleased that you don't have to stone him and then make the play. Hence: comparatively, a rest.

 

[supafly]

I'm confused. I say the priority should be defense, not WR, illustrated by the fact that the 3rd WR was never critical to our success, and you say focus on WR instead of defense because the defense isnt as good?
I dont understand. Are you saying don't fix the D?

The WR3 may not have been overly critical to our success in the past but that is irrelevant today. I agree with your wanting to build the defense, I can't imagine anyone would disagree with it, but it's not going to happen overnight either. While we continue to rebuild the defense for another year or two, we still need to have a strong attacking point of the team--unless you want to be in rebuilding mode on "D," and have a mediocre offense too. I don't know about you, but it sure seemed as though Brady could've used another viable weapon last year, and that was when he still had his most reliable target in Welker--not to mention his good rapport with Watson too. Seeing as how we won't even have those players this year, how do you expect it to get better? Comparing things to when we had the best 3-4 DE in the game, arguably the best LB at the time, and a better secondary (at times) is totally irrelevant right now. This defense may have great potential for the future etc, but it's not scaring too many coordinators right now. Hopefully they'll take another step or two ahead this year, and get back to dominating in the next couple years.

What I'm saying is that our offense is a lot closer right now to being the stronger point of the team. I'm all for going back to the older days and having the defense be that strong point, back when we could dominate on that side of the ball. Until that happens, I want to give our future HOF QB as many weapons as he can possibly have to score, masking the transitional period on the defense.

The bottom line is that it was a different team 6-7 yrs ago, with different pieces, different strong points/weaknesses, in an absolute different NFL. How can you argue with the success of teams like NO, IND, MIN, GB, PHI, even to a lesser degree DAL, HOU, SD, PIT who have plenty of viable options at the WR position?

 

[Ring 6]

The WR3 may not have been overly critical to our success in the past but that is irrelevant today. I agree with your wanting to build the defense, I can't imagine anyone would disagree with it, but it's not going to happen overnight either. While we continue to rebuild the defense for another year or two, we still need to have a strong attacking point of the team--unless you want to be in rebuilding mode on "D," and have a mediocre offense too. I don't know about you, but it sure seemed as though Brady could've used another viable weapon last year, and that was when he still had his most reliable target in Welker--not to mention his good rapport with Watson too. Seeing as how we won't even have those players this year, how do you expect it to get better? Comparing things to when we had the best 3-4 DE in the game, arguably the best LB at the time, and a better secondary (at times) is totally irrelevant right now. This defense may have great potential for the future etc, but it's not scaring too many coordinators right now. Hopefully they'll take another step or two ahead this year, and get back to dominating in the next couple years.

What I'm saying is that our offense is a lot closer right now to being the stronger point of the team. I'm all for going back to the older days and having the defense be that strong point, back when we could dominate on that side of the ball. Until that happens, I want to give our future HOF QB as many weapons as he can possibly have to score, masking the transitional period on the defense.

The bottom line is that it was a different team 6-7 yrs ago, with different pieces, different strong points/weaknesses, in an absolute different NFL. How can you argue with the success of teams like NO, IND, MIN, GB, PHI, even to a lesser degree DAL, HOU, SD, PIT who have plenty of viable options at the WR position?

We were 3d in the NFL in passing last year yet you say we lacked receivers and want to emulate teams that didnt do as well?

I do not want us to be a team that is built around the WR position. I don't think that leads to success. I want to run the ball more, I want to throw to the backs and TEs....in short, I do not want to mimic 2007, because I want the offense to support the growth of the defense. I would rather be winning 17-13 games than 28-27 games.
If your point is would I want better receivers at no other cost, sure, but I seriously hope that the brain power in Foxboro isnt sitting there saying that only having 243 receptions out of our top 3 WRs last year is the biggest problem we had.

 

[supafly]

We were 3d in the NFL in passing last year yet you say we lacked receivers and want to emulate teams that didnt do as well?

I do not want us to be a team that is built around the WR position. I don't think that leads to success. I want to run the ball more, I want to throw to the backs and TEs....in short, I do not want to mimic 2007, because I want the offense to support the growth of the defense. I would rather be winning 17-13 games than 28-27 games.
If your point is would I want better receivers at no other cost, sure, but I seriously hope that the brain power in Foxboro isnt sitting there saying that only having 243 receptions out of our top 3 WRs last year is the biggest problem we had.

Sure, I'd rather win 17-13 than 28-27 too, but it's my simple opinion that the defense is still in a rebuilding phase--hopefully, I am wrong and they are a shutdown unit that gives up 10 pts a game this year. Until the defense gets back to domination, we have to have a dominant part of the team. You say you want to run more, throw to the TE etc--that's fine, I agree I'd like more of a balanced offense too. Except our RB (today) are not going to carry this offense, they have only been complimenting it. Otherwise, we'd be running more. The same goes for the TE position. It has been mainly a blocking position as a 6th O-lineman, and we rarely throw the ball there lately. Maybe that changes a bit this year, but if we didn't with a speedy Watson who Brady had developed much trust with, I don't know why you'd assume that we will without him. You are making some assumptions that we haven't shown any trend towards. What we have shown trends towards is using our HOF qb in Brady, as he threw for the 2nd most yardage ever. I don't know why anyone would assume that would change dramatically--although I'd agree with you that I'd like some better balance too.

As far as your point goes about being 3rd in passing yards, that point is valid, no doubt. But this year we lack our #1 weapon in Welker, and Moss needs a complimentary downfield threat to take some coverage from him too. Without Welker and even Watson who Brady trusted and looked to at times, I can't really see why this is such a debate?

I think discussing it too much further is futile, as we differ in opinions in some areas--but if you're actually trying to tell me that you didn't see a problem at times last year with Brady and his viable targets, I'd have a hard time believing you. That problem is not as severe as a front 7 on defense, for example, but it is a problem regardless.

When you have Tom Brady and Randy Moss, my guess is that just about every team in the NFL would build around those attributes. That is our strong point, and needs to remain that way until the defense (hopefully) finds their legs and becomes a dominant force once again. We either need another downfield threat split end/flanker to compliment Moss, or use Tate in that position and get a better #4, I don't care which one. One way or another, we are still at least 1 WR away from remaining a force.

You may feel differently, and I respect that, but just about everyone is going to agree that we need at least 1 more WR as a viable option. If you're that confident, I suggest you start a poll and see how many are in agreement.

The examples of other teams were to state the change of passing attack in today's NFL. How you can claim that "I want to emulate teams who didn't do as well" is beyond me, as I included New Orleans and Indy right off the bat. 3 of the first 4 teams were in conference championships or better, while PIT and ARZ were in the Super Bowl last year. DAL, SD, and PHI (as I stated to a lesser degree) were all in the playoffs too. Just about all of the examples I gave were teams that way more success than us recently, if not at least the same in a worse case scenario.

Once again, I respect your opinion, but count me in the group who feels we certainly need at least 1 more viable WR as WR2 or WR3 (depending on how you look at it). Bottom line we need a split end/flanker. (unless we plan to use Tate there, whereas we still need a #4 such as Reed, Branch, etc)