New England Patriots thread (MOD WARNING - #4503)

kryogen

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

I was actually thinking it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if Solder's injury kept him out so we could move Vollmer over to LT and put Cannon in at RT. Solder has just regressed so much for me that I can't see us paying him what he'll be due next season.

No way he will be getting paid the money next season, not based on this season, maybe he can somehow pull it out of the bag in the play offs and get a generate some good will or whatever, but not a hope in hell as things stand imho.

He will be getting paid 7 or 7.5 million next season iirc, his performance this season does not justify that. He is still young relatively speaking and maybe this season has just been a bad one, but he had it at the wrong year contractually

kryogen

I love Tom Brady by the way, I have said it before, and will again I'm sure, but the man is just such a ****ing hero

Nate will either negotiate or be gone, I would be happy for him to stay and take the chance he will get back to his good form but for a seriously reduced salary next season anyway

kryogen

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Unfortunately that restructure has zero impact on the cap. It just gives us more immediate liquidity. His cap hit won't change.

True, but look at him in relation to the other qbs in the league next season

Romo has a ridiculous cap hit next season, then the likes of Stafford, Bradford, Kap, Cutler, Smith etc will be double or more what Bradys hit will be! Incredible when you think of it

His cap hit as things stand will rank him 18th in terms of QB's, pretty good value right there

Son Of A Vidic

kryogen wrote: »

True, but look at him in relation to the other qbs in the league next season

Brady is a very, very rare gem in professional sport. He's a man who has consistently put the team and the franchise ahead of his own personal gain. Even more amazing that this is an elite player, the GOAT for many. Yet he's earning less money, than quite a few QBs who earn significantly more than him. The guy is like a saint.........my apologies, I forgot. I suppose it should come as no surprise, since he is God after all.

Son Of A Vidic

Dates yet to be finalised and the games are in no particular order, but our opponents for the 2015 season are as follows...

2015 Home Opponents
Bills
Dolphins
Jets

Jaguars

Titans

Eagles

Redskins

Steelers

2015 Road Opponents
Bills
Dolphins
Jets

Colts

Texans

Cowboys

Giants

Broncos

http://www.patriots.com/news/blog/article-1/Patriots-2015-opponents-finalized/692e5822-fab3-432c-a87c-734c5ccff52e

I know it's a folly to judge a schedule on paper, but 2015 certainly looks better than 2014. The Bears-Broncos-Colts-Lions-Packers-Chargers run of games was brutal this year.

TO.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Brady is a very, very rare gem in professional sport.

That and his wife has more money than all of the NFL QBs put together. Brady doesn't need the cash he loves the game so much and wants to win he is comfortable with his finances.

paulie21

Falcons and 49ers have requested to speak to Josh McDaniels for their vacant head coaching jobs

Son Of A Vidic

paulie21 wrote: »

Falcons and 49ers have requested to speak to Josh McDaniels for their vacant head coaching jobs

I couldn't careless if he goes, I'm just tired of his bizarre play calling and his lets be too smart and not do the obvious that works approach. The Packers game been a classic example. Let's not bother running against the worst run defense in the league and throw a win away. Right now I feel we have a better chance of winning a SB with him gone, than if he stayed.

eagle eye

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I couldn't careless if he goes, I'm just tired of his bizarre play calling and his lets be too smart and not do the obvious that works approach. The Packers game been a classic example. Let's not bother running against the worst run defense in the league and throw a win away. Right now I feel we have a better chance of winning a SB with him gone, than if he stayed.

I completely disagree with that. You seem to have this notion that you have a clue how he plans out games. I don't think you have the slightest just like me. I watch every game every week and watch them over again. I don't see what you see ever as regards game planning.

Also we have no clue what is going on as regards player injuries and how it might affect a game plan. The Patriots never let you know how minor or serous injuries are.

JaMarcusHustle

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I couldn't careless if he goes, I'm just tired of his bizarre play calling and his lets be too smart and not do the obvious that works approach. The Packers game been a classic example. Let's not bother running against the worst run defense in the league and throw a win away. Right now I feel we have a better chance of winning a SB with him gone, than if he stayed.

We had the highest scoring offense in the NFL going into the last week of the season, and finished 4th overall largely due to resting most of our key players in the final game.

Sure, his play calling can be frustrating and I'm also vocal about just how frustrating it can be, but to suggest we'd be be better off in the playoffs without him and that you couldn't care less if he goes is off the wall.

How about this - we've looked very good this year, as good as we have on both sides of the ball in a long, long time. How about we just keep all the pieces in place for the playoffs and see where it takes us. Taking away such a key member of this team like the offensive coordinator who comes with huge ringing endorsements from Brady and Belichick and suggesting we'd be better off for it is mad.

He has his frustrating moments, but I hope McDaniels stays for the rest of the Brady-Belichick era, and hopefully beyond that.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I know it's a folly to judge a schedule on paper, but 2015 certainly looks better than 2014.

That home schedule should deliver 8 wins. Steelers (based on 2014) are the only team that I'd be seriously worried about.

Tough to assess the away schedule. On paper it definitely seems easier this year.
If the Texans pick up a good QB, they are a playoff team.
Colts. We've handled them well recently; can they improve they run defence?
Will the Cowboys pick up Peterson?
Will Manning still be in Denver next year?
Viewing the Giants thread, they didn't play a quality QB all season, so tough to judge them. Plus, should they have changed HC? They've missed out on the playoffs in 5 of the last 6 years (but obviously a SB in 2011).

Looking at our division:
If the Fins got a new head coach, then they may have challenged. I don't really know why they've stuck with Philbin.
Jets are probably going to stick with Smith. But he's so up and down that unless their new coach is a QB genius, then I don't expect them to challenge.
Bills are without a QB again after Orton retired (they don't seem to have faith in Manuel).

j8wk2feszrnpao

paulie21 wrote: »

Falcons and 49ers have requested to speak to Josh McDaniels for their vacant head coaching jobs

I find some of the play calling frustrating; Corvus already touched on the Packers game, when I couldn't understand why we weren't running it more.

Tom and Bill glow about the guy, so that's a good sign.
But, as long as we've got Tom/Bill, then I'm not too bothered if he decides to leaves. They'll be plenty of OC's drooling to get to work with our offence.

BaronVon

paulie21 wrote: »

Falcons and 49ers have requested to speak to Josh McDaniels for their vacant head coaching jobs

Who'd be in line to take over? Have we another Bill O'Brien waiting in the wings?

eagle eye

infacteh wrote: »

Who'd be in line to take over? Have we another Bill O'Brien waiting in the wings?

I'd guess Chad O'Shea would be the man if Josh goes.

Son Of A Vidic

eagle eye wrote: »

You seem to have this notion that you have a clue how he plans out games. I don't think you have the slightest just like me.

Of course none of us know a game plan since we aren't on the coaching staff. But you're watching Football as long as I am and you know it's not rocket science to see when play calling isn't working. And if play calling isn't working during a game, it tends to suggest a game plan isn't working. Our best games are when we go for what works and stick to it. Yes sometimes it can take time to find it, but afaik, Josh throwing in some exotic play calling never helps.

eagle eye wrote: »

I watch every game every week and watch them over again. I don't see what you see ever as regards game planning.

Watch the Packers game again, it's the best example. During the season, there hasn't been a game where I haven't been bemused at some point by his play calling. The Packers actually used the strategy we should have used against us. They ran the ball a lot with Lacy, prolonged drives and kept Brady off the field. Now we could have played smash mouth football against a shocking run defense and totally dominated the game. But Josh clearly decided the logical & obvious approach wasn't the way to go.

How many times have we seen him using Vereen running the ball on Third & long and then get nowhere. Or using him trying to punch through into the end zone. We all know Vereen isn't our best man to have running the ball in the red zone. Now in fairness he hasn't done it much recently, but the fact that he's tried it, failed and gone back to it in other games worried me. I see it as a wasted Down. Now I'll always put some blame on the O line, because they've had their moments this year and of course when they fail to execute Josh gets the blame.

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

He has his frustrating moments, but I hope McDaniels stays for the rest of the Brady-Belichick era, and hopefully beyond that.

I used to think that way. But right now I don't trust him 100% and by that I mean - will he use what works or will he get overly complicated and feck it up? Right now, I feel he'll nearly always use the latter option. Now there's no question to me that Josh is a really talented OC, it's just that I prefer when he avoids complicating things.

eagle eye

Corvus, you often see Brady change the play on third and long and give Vereen the ball. He sees that the play called is not going to work and takes the safe option.

Also, in advance of the Packers game I suggested we would not show them our full hand. There was no pass rush to speak for most of that game and we got to see Rodgers do his thing but using different receivers. The Packers looked Superbowl bound at that stage and if Rodgers gets over his injuries I still fancy them to make it there. We seen that day which way Rodgers progresses after this first two options are unavailable and it's not often you get to see that. I still believe that a bit of homework was being done there and not letting the Packers see what we've got. I'm quite sure we didn't show them our 'A' game on either side of the ball that day, well except for shutting down their two best receivers for most of the game.

bruschi

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Sure, his play calling can be frustrating and I'm also vocal about just how frustrating it can be, but to suggest we'd be be better off in the playoffs without him and that you couldn't care less if he goes is off the wall.

He has his frustrating moments, but I hope McDaniels stays for the rest of the Brady-Belichick era, and hopefully beyond that.

+1. I too find some aspects frustrating, but I'll take the few odd calls with the majority of other successful ones. I'd prefer see him stay, keep the chemistry of the franchise together

Son Of A Vidic

eagle eye wrote: »

Also, in advance of the Packers game I suggested we would not show them our full hand. There was no pass rush to speak for most of that game and we got to see Rodgers do his thing but using different receivers. The Packers looked Superbowl bound at that stage and if Rodgers gets over his injuries I still fancy them to make it there. We seen that day which way Rodgers progresses after this first two options are unavailable and it's not often you get to see that. I still believe that a bit of homework was being done there and not letting the Packers see what we've got. I'm quite sure we didn't show them our 'A' game on either side of the ball that day, well except for shutting down their two best receivers for most of the game.

I have no doubt we didn't show them our A game. But we're not a running team, yet we could have run the ball all day against them, controlled the game and won it. All the while not showing our A game. But I'm not worried about the Packers, I'm worried about the Seahawks. And if we get to Arizona, it's more than likely the Seahawks we'll be facing.

Utopia Parkway

A question for fellow Pats fans. Would you trade for Josh Gordon seeing as it's looking likely the Browns want rid of him? Too big a risk of more trouble or could he be rehabilitated in the Pats system?

JaMarcusHustle

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Now we could have played smash mouth football against a shocking run defense and totally dominated the game. But Josh clearly decided the logical & obvious approach wasn't the way to go.

I was guilty of thinking this too and was expecting us to dominate on the ground, but I've actually looked into the Packers a bit since then as part of a piece I'm writing for elsewhere on the teams that best used their bye weeks, and their run D showed a huge improvement by the time we faced them. They were 30th in the league against the run at the time, but that was mostly down to how bad they were to start the year.

They let Johnny Jolly and Ryan Pickett walk and lost BJ Raji to injury, and they went with a lot of younger, quicker linemen this season so it was always going to take them time to settle down which somewhat explains their poor start. They've looked really good since the bye week, and shifting Matthews to ILB has also has also had a big impact. This chart here shows just how much they improved:



Im convinced that this is a big factor as to how we approached that game and it was never going to be as simple as run it down their throats (though I was guilty of thinking that in the build up to the game). I also agree with eagle eye in that we didn't want to show them our full hand, as both years we played the Giants in the Super Bowl, we played them as normal in the regular season and they gameplanned us to perfection the Super Bowls.

TO.

I am not Josh's biggest fan and at times his play calling is questionable but honestly who is a btter option than him right now that will know Bill's offense. The key here is that the Patriots don't give their Coordinators the freedom of choice. Bill likes Coordinators that fit his system. Josh is clearly the best option.

To lose him right now in the playoffs would be horrible for us. As time grows and Josh matures he will get better I honestly think we need to keep him.

TO.

I do agree also with not showing our full hand every year up until now we have shown our full hand to potential playoff teams and the Ravens, Jets and especially Giants took full advantage. But I don't its just down to that. For year I have been saying that physical teams we struggle against and those physical teams beat us up on the line of scrimmage. Not showing our full hand is some of the battle but we really need to protect Brady more and keep him on his feet as the teams in the playoffs most of them are all physical defenses.

Key:

- Protect Brady
- Play Smart
- And get to the opposing QB more.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

A question for fellow Pats fans. Would you trade for Josh Gordon seeing as it's looking likely the Browns want rid of him? Too big a risk of more trouble or could he be rehabilitated in the Pats system?

The Browns def want rid of him.
He's not the most troubled guy we've taken in.
Cut (or include as part of the trade) Amendola and get Gordan.

Son Of A Vidic

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

I was guilty of thinking this too and was expecting us to dominate on the ground, but I've actually looked into the Packers a bit since then as part of a piece I'm writing for elsewhere on the teams that best used their bye weeks, and their run D showed a huge improvement by the time we faced them. They were 30th in the league against the run at the time, but that was mostly down to how bad they were to start the year.

When you look at what would seem to be an improvement in their run defense in the second half of the season. You have to look at the quality of their opponents. In the first eight games of the season the Packers faced 3 teams with a top 10 ranked run offense. In the second half of the season they faced 1 top 10 ranked run offense. In fact their last 4 games was against a 24th, 25th, 29th and 28th ranked run offense. You can see the disparity in the quality of rushing pponents in both half's of the season. Which begs the question, did their run defense really improve? Or was it just because they were facing significantly weaker rushing attacks in the latter part of the season? For me, I chose the latter.

Looking back to when we played them, we didn't rush the ball enough and thus didn't control the game or prolong drives. Therefore we minimised Brady's time on the field during drives and therefore put unnecessary pressure on our own defense, by not keeping Brady on the field as long as we could have. We all know we are not a run dominant team, but we could have controlled the game much better by leaning more towards the run. And by doing so, I think we could have hidden elements of our A game even better.

We averaged 4.7 Yards a carry against them on 18 attempts. Which is pretty good going. Then of course we benched Gray for that game, our most powerful back for hitting the hole. Now it worked out well in the end and we are the top AFC seed. But I saw the Packers loss as a game that was there to be won. Thankfully we are not having to hit the road during the playoffs. But what worried me about the Packers game was, I thought Josh didn't use the run game as well as he could have, we didn't control time in possession or the clock as well as we could have. So he didn't do the defense any favours and that for me was totally unnecessary. Come big boy football time, I only hope he doesn't show an aversion to the run, especially if we are in a position to average 4.7 yards a carry.

Son Of A Vidic

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Cut (or include as part of the trade) Amendola and get Gordan.

Brave stuff munster, because I think Gordon would be the ultimate project. Bill has salvaged many a career in his day, but I'm not sure Gordon is savable. RE: Amendola, we can't continue to have the highest paid back up WR in the league on the roster. I'll be shocked if he's on the roster next year.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Brave stuff munster, because I think Gordon would be the ultimate project.

It's not a cert even Bill can contain him, but I'd like to hope that it's something we look at. The talent is there; maybe NE can be the place where he grows up?
I think it's worth it (depending on the draft pick we give up); his contract makes it appealing as well.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

RE: Amendola, we can't continue to have the highest paid back up WR in the league on the roster. I'll be shocked if he's on the roster next year.

I think there's no chance given the money he's due to earn.

TO.

I have a feeling we will re-structure Amendola and keep him around it will be in the best interest of both parties. Josh Gordon will be a no. I can't see us ponying up for him. Even with his troubles his contract is probably beyond our needs.

paulie21

Happy New Year Pats family

eagle eye

There is a whole host of FA WR's right now but that discussion is better left to the offseason which unfortunately isn't too far away.

eagle eye

Another td for the Yellow Jackets to make it 35-20 now. It looks like the poor old Miss State will not be very happy ringing in the New Year.