NFL Week 2 Thread

poldebruin

eagle eye wrote: »

Game over and the Broncos are 2-0 and the Chiefs 1-1.

Crazy game, lot's of big plays, turnovers and drama, but I'm not sure either team will give the Patriots or Packers many sleepless nights.

Hopefully the Broncos can look at what worked and what didn't and come up with something a bit better going forward on offense.

Knex*

Gamepass not working on my iPhone this morning. Telling me its unavailable in my location.

I have no idea why.

Jolly Red Giant

Wow - oh -wow

Haven't watched the game but looking forward to it (kind of)

Well we know certain things after the game -

1. Manning is waning - and waning badly. He cannot consistently throw any kind of a decent pass. By all accounts he should have had 4-5 INTs. Manning needs time to plant his feet to throw any kind of a decent ball.

2. Last week the Broncos won because they switched to the WCO - this week it worked because they allowed Manning play our of the shotgun.

3. The Broncos OL is still terrible - and probably will be for several more games

4. The Broncos defence is the real deal - fast, aggressive, nasty - and a nightmare for opposing teams

other comments -

1. The biggest criticism levelled at Fox, Gase and Del Rio when they ran the Broncos was that the Broncos were soft and couldn't win a game - Fox set them up to try and not lose. If the old coaching crew were still in Denver the Broncos would be 0-2 rather than 2-0

2. Wade Phillips has exposed just how poor a defensive coordinator JDR has been for the past two years - Phillips is running the Broncos D with pretty much the same personel that JDR had last year and the difference is night and day. Now I am sure teams will eventually scheme better against the Broncos - but JDR is being shown to be a pup.

3. This Broncos team has won two games it should have lost and that bodes well for the rest of the season

4. The OL should improve - only one starter from last year - two rookies and a journeyman at Ts and C - and only the second game playing together - it could take half a season for it to appear (hopefully)

5. The big question is - (assuming) when the Broncos OL improve, will Manning be able to improve and be more consistent?

Knex*

This time last year, after Brady and the Pats played the Chiefs, everyone was writing Tom off as well, and he played far worse than Peyton did last night.

I'd be wary of writing him off just yet. With that Broncos D, he's more than capable of a Super Bowl, I'd think.

ScummyMan

That game gave us a good look at what NFL would be like with no o-lines anyway!

Jolly Red Giant

Knex. wrote: »

This time last year, after Brady and the Pats played the Chiefs, everyone was writing Tom off as well, and he played far worse than Peyton did last night.

I'd be wary of writing him off just yet. With that Broncos D, he's more than capable of a Super Bowl, I'd think.

The key to Manning improving is an improvment in the OL

If the OL can block and get a running game going it will force defences to take account of the run and reduce pressure on Manning

If the OL get better in pass protection it will give Manning more time.

Manning needs to set his feet and drive through his hips to get any kind of velocity on the ball - he has zero arm strength at the moment - if he is given the time he can be a lot more effective - and that is down to improved play with the OL. I would have liked to see the Broncos pick up Jake Long, like they did with Mathis, but that is no longer an option now.

The Broncos prospects are directly related to the ability of the defence to maintain their dominance. Manning needs to become a game manager, run a balanced offence, not make mistakes (and he made a lot last night) and stop having three and outs (which will eventually wear down the defence).

Paully D

That Broncos O-line at the minute reminds of the Ravens line in 2013. Horrific (Yanda aside).

Knex*

There's a few rookies in there, right?

Hopefully they can find their feet quickly and push on. Fortunate to be 2-0, but if they do become even an adequate line, with those wins behind them already, they could do quite well.

Jolly Red Giant

Knex. wrote: »

There's a few rookies in there, right?

Sambrailo is a rookie playing left tackle because Clady is out on IR.

Paradis is a effectively a rookie centre - he spent all last season on the practice squad

Harris playing RT is old and slow FA who was brought in because the ZBS

Mathis at LG joined two weeks ago and is playing without the benefit of training camp

Vasquez at RT is a Pro-Bowl RT - but has never played in the ZBS

Knex. wrote: »

Hopefully they can find their feet quickly and push on. Fortunate to be 2-0, but if they do become even an adequate line, with those wins behind them already, they could do quite well.

Yes they could

Son Of A Vidic

Knex. wrote: »

This time last year, after Brady and the Pats played the Chiefs, everyone was writing Tom off as well, and he played far worse than Peyton did last night.

I'd be wary of writing him off just yet. With that Broncos D, he's more than capable of a Super Bowl, I'd think.

What we are seeing now is Peyton is only discovering what's it's like to have no O line. But Tom has been dealing with that for several years now. Even this season, the entire interior line are a bunch of rookies. And I expect the Bill front seven to murder them on Sunday. Brady tweaked some things last season to deal with the protection issueS and even worked on and really improved his mobility. With Peyton, I couldn't see him making the same physical adaptations to improve his game. And if the Broncos somehow make the Superbowl, I think it'll be more to do with their defense than anything Peyton does.

That_Guy

Some finish to last night's game. When it comes to drama late on, American Football is king.

Billy86

That_Guy wrote: »

Some finish to last night's game. When it comes to drama late on, American Football is king.

Certainly is, but rugby deserves it's credit there too - I don't think anyone watching will ever forget the end of the England/France game this year, or last year when we were clinging on on the goal line against France the year previous.

Or that NZ game that mysteriously ended in the 79th as we were holding on to a narrow lead.

phatkev

Billy86 wrote: »

England/France game this year

one of the most stressful games I've ever watched. KICK THE ****ING BALL OUT!!!

Billy86

phatkev wrote: »

one of the most stressful games I've ever watched. KICK THE ****ING BALL OUT!!!

AGAIN!? YOU RAN THE F***ING THING OUT... AGAIN!?!?

Can't wait to watch the match tomorrow with the locals here in Toronto.

Jolly Red Giant

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

What we are seeing now is Peyton is only discovering what's it's like to have no O line. But Tom has been dealing with that for several years now. Even this season, the entire interior line are a bunch of rookies.

I have spent a lot more time looking at Manning the QB since he joined the Broncos that I ever did while he was with the Colts.

Manning was good at what he did in Indy - using the Manning offence. Manning's quick release and ability to read the defence and adjust at the LOS helped him in running the offence. When he arrived in Denver, McCoy and then Gase installed the Manning offence.

The problem now is that Manning has slowed, his arm is incredibly weak and he needs a lot of time to set and drive through his throws. These days he is nothing more than a timing QB and when he is forced to throw quickly his timing is thrown and it looks like he is overthrowing the receiver when it is really a case of the pass arriving too early.

The other thing is that the Manning offence actually appears quite limited. It can crank up big numbers during the regular season but the limited nature of the Manning offence repeatedly came a cropper against the better teams in the play-offs.

Manning cannot adapt - he has to be using his offence - if he's not he cannot do it. He cannot adjust and compensate for Kubiak's WCO and the fact that he has to operate out of the shotgun is inhibiting the running game. Manning will have good days - or more likely, will have good periods in games - but the rest of the time it looks like he will suck. To be blunt about it - he is looking like a one trick pony who can only work in one form of offence - he was very good at what he did, really up to the second half of last season - but he is not good at it anymore.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

And I expect the Bill front seven to murder them on Sunday. Brady tweaked some things last season to deal with the protection issueS and even worked on and really improved his mobility. With Peyton, I couldn't see him making the same physical adaptations to improve his game.

Like Manning before he came to Denver, I have never looked in detail at Brady. However, I would have to acknowledge - despite all the nonsense like deflategate - that Brady appears a much more adaptable QB, much better are adjusting to the limitations of the rest of the Pats offence, demonstrates better ability to drive a limited offence in the post season - and win SBs. The fact that BB is the head coach is clearly a major factor and I suspect that neither of them would be as successful with others as they have been together. Viewing the situation, particularly over the past 18 months, I would certainly acknowledge that Brady is the better QB. Manning should have retired after last season - particularly when Kubiak was appointed. He is in danger of damaging his not inconsiderable legacy if he continues in the same vein as he has this pre-season and in the first two games.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

And if the Broncos somehow make the Superbowl, I think it'll be more to do with their defense than anything Peyton does.

If the Broncos make the SB (a big if) it will absolutely be because of what is potentially the most dominant defence in the NFL this season and possibly the best since the Ravens elite defence. But for the defence to keep pace, Manning and the offence will have to stop going three and out. If they cannot sustain drives the defence will tire and injuries will mount.

helimachoptor

Johnny Football will be playing against the Titans this week, McCown is still concussed

Jolly Red Giant

Billy86 wrote: »

Certainly is, but rugby deserves it's credit there too - I don't think anyone watching will ever forget the end of the England/France game this year, or last year when we were clinging on on the goal line against France the year previous.

The only thing rugby gave American football was the oval ball.

Rugby is a game of brute, force and ignornace - a game invented by the professional classes to beat the crap out of one another without having to face the consequences of the law.

American football is a game of strategy, of power, skill, tempo and of speed. It is the ultimate team game where all 11 players have to function as a unit - there is no space to carry anyone. By comparison, rugby has little strategy, outside of a couple of positions not a lot of skill, is generally one paced and is slow. Rugby creates a situation where a poor team with half the players playing badly can use the rules to derail a good team. Rules changes have improved the game but it is still a mickey mouse sport compared to American football.

Rant over.

Realt Dearg Sec

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The only thing rugby gave American football was the oval ball.

Rugby is a game of brute, force and ignornace - a game invented by the professional classes to beat the crap out of one another without having to face the consequences of the law.

American football is a game of strategy, of power, skill, tempo and of speed. It is the ultimate team game where all 11 players have to function as a unit - there is no space to carry anyone. By comparison, rugby has little strategy, outside of a couple of positions not a lot of skill, is generally one paced and is slow. Rugby creates a situation where a poor team with half the players playing badly can use the rules to derail a good team. Rules changes have improved the game but it is still a mickey mouse sport compared to American football.

Rant over.

Rant unnecessary. He wasn't claiming the football got it's excitement from rugby.

As for your views on rugby, I won't comment. It's interesting you accuse the sport of relying on ignorance though.

Jolly Red Giant

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

He wasn't claiming the football got it's excitement from rugby.

And I wasn't claiming he did.

I was arguing that rugby is not an exciting sport - which it isn't.

As for your views on rugby, I won't comment. It's interesting you accuse the sport of relying on ignorance though.

actually I accused it of relying on 'brute, force and ignorance' - it is one of the few sports that is based on the outlook of a social class - and interestingly a 'team' 'sport' of a social class that operates on the basis of promoting the individual. Rugby is a rubbish sport.

helimachoptor

JRG, if you want to bash another sport, don't do it on the AF forum please.

poldebruin

helimachoptor wrote: »

JRG, if you want to bash another sport, don't do it on the AF forum please.

This must be a new one - no insulting other sports on the AF forum? Just a bit off topic is all that is wrong here.

Billy86

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The only thing rugby gave American football was the oval ball.

Rugby is a game of brute, force and ignornace - a game invented by the professional classes to beat the crap out of one another without having to face the consequences of the law.

American football is a game of strategy, of power, skill, tempo and of speed. It is the ultimate team game where all 11 players have to function as a unit - there is no space to carry anyone. By comparison, rugby has little strategy, outside of a couple of positions not a lot of skill, is generally one paced and is slow. Rugby creates a situation where a poor team with half the players playing badly can use the rules to derail a good team. Rules changes have improved the game but it is still a mickey mouse sport compared to American football.

Rant over.

Have you ever played or watched much rugby? This is just a strange post that actually addresses about zero of what I said, and the claim that a sport is "a game of lack of knowledge or information" is just, well, strange.

For all the rest, there is here. Or here.

Jolly Red Giant

Billy86 wrote: »

For all the rest, there is here. Or here.

Someone who clearly views that all sports operate in isolation from one another and from what happens in wider society.

Each and every sport is a reflection of society at large. Each and every sport is based on a social class within society and the rules and operation of the sport reflect the nature of that social class - e.g. In Britain - cricket with the ruling elites, rugby with the middle classes, soccer with the working class.

Similar developments exist in U.S. Sport - ice hockey with middle class whites, baseball among rural whites initially and then across races, basketball among working class blacks.

For every sport the rules, structures and organisation reflect the social basis it has within society e.g.cricket can last for days played and watched by people who do not have a necessity to work on a 9-5 basis - a sport of leisure for people who have the wealth to have all the leisure they need. It is also a sport that traditionally both teams wore white - reflecting the fact that both teams represented the same social class. The scoring mechanism reflects the nature of business contracts and business competition etc.

American football is unusual in that it is primarily a spectator sport played by elite athletes - rather than a participatory sport played on a widespread basis like baseball or basketball. It emerged from rugby but had to break out of the social straight jacket that surrounded rugby and did that by changing the rules to eliminate the social construct that it emerged from.

You could suggest that an American Football forum should only discuss American football - that all sports are isolated from one another - that the politics of sport should only be discussed on the politics forum. I would argue that by isolating one sport from other sports and from the ongoing social interactions and conflicts that exist in every society you remove yourself from the very essence that makes any sport special for particular sections of society.

Billy86

If you want to talk extensively about politics and cricket(?) in the American Football forum you are best off taking it up with the mods.

JaMarcusHustle

Jolly Red Giant

Billy86 wrote: »

If you want to talk extensively about politics and cricket(?) in the American Football forum you are best off taking it up with the mods.

I was talking about sport - including American football.

Daniel Howling Cane

Daniel Howling Cane wrote: »

Broncos tonight il fill the rest out later

Broncos @ Chiefs
Bills
Cardinals @ Bears
Falcons @ Giants
Lions @ Vikings
Texans @ Panthers
Chargers @ Bengals
49ers @ Steelers
Rams @ Redskins
Saints
Titans @ Browns
Dolphins @ Jaguars
Ravens @ Raiders
Cowboys @ Eagles
Seahawks @ Packers
Jets @ Colts

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The only thing rugby gave American football was the oval ball.

Rugby is a game of brute, force and ignornace - a game invented by the professional classes to beat the crap out of one another without having to face the consequences of the law.

American football is a game of strategy, of power, skill, tempo and of speed. It is the ultimate team game where all 11 players have to function as a unit - there is no space to carry anyone. By comparison, rugby has little strategy, outside of a couple of positions not a lot of skill, is generally one paced and is slow. Rugby creates a situation where a poor team with half the players playing badly can use the rules to derail a good team. Rules changes have improved the game but it is still a mickey mouse sport compared to American football.

Rant over.

both sports have strategy power skill tempo and speed and at the same time both games are brutish.

what positions exactly do you regard as skilful or non skilful positions in rugby i can't see any non skilful positions?

your ignorance on the matter leads me to believe you are one of the American football is better rugby sucks crown even though you've likely got little to no experience in rugby (the same happens both ways) as someone who has played both sports i will say they are both very different but the level of skill/strategy involved is identical in both codes.

Jolly Red Giant

Daniel Howling Cane wrote: »

both sports have strategy power skill tempo and speed and at the same time both games are brutish.

The primary difference between American football and rugby is that the first one is based on explosiveness and the second is based on endurance.

I absolutely disagree that rugby has strategy - despite any and all claims to the contrary - there is very limited strategy in rugby.

It is the same with your assertion of 'power' - rugby doesn't have power - it uses force.

There is rarely any speed in rugby and it usually comes for a mistake or breakdown in play and the game has one tempo - slow.

what positions exactly do you regard as skilful or non skilful positions in rugby i can't see any non skilful positions?

The only positions that require any real level of skill in rugby are scrum half and out half and both are limited in comparison to American football (and the vast majority of other sports - except for the likes of Gaelic football)

your ignorance on the matter leads me to believe you are one of the American football is better rugby sucks crown even though you've likely got little to no experience in rugby (the same happens both ways) as someone who has played both sports i will say they are both very different but the level of skill/strategy involved is identical in both codes.

Because you disagree with me I am demonstrating 'ignorance' - no - I am expressing a different point of view. And I am not an advocate of the view that American football good - rugby bad. Even if I never had any interest in American football I would regard rugby as a sport that can be summarised as brute, force and ignorance - because that, in my opinion, is what it is.

As regards the level of skill/strategy involved in both sports being 'identical' - that is an utterly nonsensical argument - they can't be for so many reasons primarily the fact that they are two different sports that function in entirely different ways. The level of skill (and smarts) required to play American football is substantially higher than in rugby and there is absolutely no comparison when it comes to the strategy of both games.

Now rule changes have made it more entertaining but it cannot be cut off from its origins. Because of the section of society that plays it, rugby is promoted far beyond its actual reach within society and is largely confined to a small section of society except for the odd aberration like in Limerick or parts of South Wales and New Zealand where, for peculiar reasons, it gained a base as a sport played by a section of the working class. But none of that changes the fundemental basis of rugby which emerged from soccer by a middle class who didn't play soccer on the streets and couldn't grasp the social nature of soccer - instead changing it to reflect the nature of a upper middle class / professional outlook of the late nineteen century which was dog eat dog and screw who and what you needed to succeed using 'brute, force and ignorance'.

Many people enjoy rugby - and that is there prerogative - but to claim that it is a sport of strategy, skill, power, tempo and speed is, in my opinion, a load of soft brown smelly stuff.

poldebruin

Broncos @ Chiefs: Had Broncos earlier in thread.
Patriots @ Bills: I'm on the Bills bandwagon this week, they match up nicely with the Pats.
Cardinals @ Bears: Not sold on the Cardinals, and the Bears were decent against the Pack last week.
Falcons @ Giants: Falcons D looked great 1st half against Philly.
Lions @ Vikings: Both had horrible week 1 losses, but the Vikings were absolutely awful.
Texans @ Panthers: Pickem, I'll go with Carolina as they at home.
Chargers @ Bengals: Bengals with impressive win over Oakland - if there can be such a thing.
49ers @ Steelers: Everyone picking the Steelers, but their D was amateurish against the Pats, while the 49ers ran all over Minnesota.
Rams @ Redskins: Impossible to pick the Redskins. Apparently thousands of tickets for this game are available on Seatgeek for $10
Buccaneers @ Saints: If a rookie can do that to the Buccs, what will Drew Brees do? At home, no less.
Titans@ Browns: Nobody picking the Browns and who could blame them, but this is a pickem for me. Browns at home.
Dolphins @ Jaguars: Dolphins barely beat the Redskins, and should barely beat the Jags. Easiest start to an NFL season ever?
Ravens @ Raiders: Carr or McGloin to start? It won't matter.
Cowboys @ Eagles: I'm not sold on all this love for Chip Kelly and the Eagles. Close, but the Cowboys to take it.
Seahawks @ Packers: Neither team hit their stride week 1, like the Packers chances of getting things going at home without Chancellor.
Jets @ Colts : I wanted to pick the Jets. They will have watched the Bills game and can give a repeat dose. But I'll reluctantly go with Luck.

That_Guy

Colts could do with stepping up against physical teams. We seem to absolutely crumble against physical opposition on both sides of the ball.

I'd not be surprised if we were to go 0-2 if I'm honest. Johnson and Gore need to have huge games methinks.

phatkev

That_Guy wrote: »

Johnson and Gore need to have huge games methinks.

I cant see this happening against the Jets D, especially if Hilton ends up missing the game

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The primary difference between American football and rugby is that the first one is based on explosiveness and the second is based on endurance.
thats largely irrelevant unless you think explosiveness is more conducive to strategy power skill tempo or speed not to mention jarryd hayne is showing there is plenty of explosivness in rugby and the eagles offence is showing that there is plenty of endurance involved in football

I absolutely disagree that rugby has strategy - despite any and all claims to the contrary - there is very limited strategy in rugby.
theres really not. have you ever played/been involved with rugby? because there is just as much strategy as there is in football it just often times has to be done on the fly

It is the same with your assertion of 'power' - rugby doesn't have power - it uses force.
not sure what you mean by force but the likes of maa nonu,sean o brien, the vinupolas, the tuilangis etc. have plenty of power just as much as an nfl player would

There is rarely any speed in rugby and it usually comes for a mistake or breakdown in play and the game has one tempo - slow.
i love football but its one of the slowest sports in the world this comment is baffling

The only positions that require any real level of skill in rugby are scrum half and out half and both are limited in comparison to American football (and the vast majority of other sports - except for the likes of Gaelic football)
prop (particularly tight head) is probably the most skilful position in rugby the scrum is a massively difficult area to be an expert, second row and hooker requires massive skill in the line out, back rows tend to be either massively powerful or massively skilled at the breakdown, centers have to be able to pass,kick,tackle,attack and read the game as well as any other position, and the back 3 need to be able to take a high ball,beat a man and have the vision to spot gaps in a line.

a non football fan would claim the o-line to lack skill and to be generally "brutes" when o-line are routinely some of the most intelligent and skilful players in the nfl i feel you are doing the same with rugby

the rest of your quote seems like waffle to me.

il ask you again so you can't ignore it have you ever played/been involved in rugby to any decent level? because your coming across to me as someone who once watched a game and decided it was stupid

helimachoptor

right lads enough, anymore rants etc will be deleted, multiple rants will see you banned from the forum until Monday

KaiserGunner

Well after a miserable start to the weekend for me with Arsenal losing to Chelsea, I'm really hoping the Eagles can step up and beat bitter rivals the Cowboys, to save the weekend for me!

Jolly Red Giant

Daniel Howling Cane wrote: »

the rest of your quote seems like waffle to me.

il ask you again so you can't ignore it have you ever played/been involved in rugby to any decent level? because your coming across to me as someone who once watched a game and decided it was stupid

I have said my piece on this and take the mods instruction on board.

However, whether I have played a sport at any decent level or not is irrelevant. I have never played any sport at any 'decent' level - or at any real level - directly as a result of developing medical issues in my early teens (and not being any good at sport anyway).

I have however coached in several sports and have coaching qualifications .

Last point in relation to rugby -
The scrum should be banned - it is an unnecessary and dangerous process that causes many preventable injuries (some of which are very serious).

The prop position does not require 'skill' - it requires technique.

Unlike rugby league (a working class version of the sport from industrial and mining locations) where the players are individually important and has scrapped the scrum - rugby union reflects its class background that regards the individual player (and the health of that player) as a commodity than is dispensable. That is why rugby persists with the scrum.

Jolly Red Giant

The two games of interest to me tonight are the Pats V Bills and the Bengals V Chargers.

We will get an indication to night if the Bills are a good team or not - can they put it up to the Pats.

Similarly with both the Chargers and Bengals - are they showing signs of being competitive this season. I want to see the Chargers make progress - a more competitive AFC West improves the Broncos chances in the play-offs.

MrKingsley

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The two games of interest to me tonight are the Pats V Bills and the Bengals V Chargers.

We will get an indication to night if the Bills are a good team or not - can they put it up to the Pats.

Similarly with both the Chargers and Bengals - are they showing signs of being competitive this season. I want to see the Chargers make progress - a more competitive AFC West improves the Broncos chances in the play-offs.

Because thats the only barometer with which to measure 'good' teams.

'Good' teams certainly dont go 24-0 up against AFC finalists in the second quarter

JaMarcusHustle

helimachoptor wrote: »

right lads enough, anymore rants etc will be deleted, multiple rants will see you banned from the forum until Monday

He didn't bold his font correctly, it doesn't count! Quick, everybody - rant! Argue! Squabble to your heart's content!

Billy86

Broncos @ Chiefs (-3)
Patriots (-1) @ Bills
Cardinals (-2) @ Bears
Falcons @ Giants (-2)
Lions @ Vikings (-3)
Texans @ Panthers (-3)
Chargers @ Bengals (-3.5)
49ers @ Steelers (-5.5)
Rams (-3.5) @ Redskins
Buccaneers @ Saints (-10)
Titans (-1) @ Browns
Dolphins (-6) @ Jaguars
Ravens @ Raiders
Cowboys @ Eagles (-5.5)
Seahawks @ Packers (-3.5), and easily come on, megajinx...
Jets @ Colts (-7)

Just for wins, not spreads.

Son Of A Vidic

Well done lads, Pats defense picking up where they left off last week. Shocking run defense.

Alfred Borden

Bills look legit

Hulk Hands

Adrian Peterson is finished!! Clearly. Some amount of nonsense ive seen in the last week

helimachoptor

Damn

Son Of A Vidic

There ya go, you could have pushed a bus sideways through that gap for the Bills TD. Dire defense.

Lionbacker

Lions beginning the game the same way they finished last week. Awful, awful defence.

That_Guy

Johnny Football with a 60 yard TD pass. Beautiful.

poldebruin

Very impressive opening drive there, and now to see how their defense goes agai st brady. Expecting lots of quick short stuff.

poldebruin

.... and aren't the bills unis beautiful.

Son Of A Vidic

Pats rookie O line will have a big test now against one of the toughest front sevens in the league.