Are There Really THAT Many Holes on the Roster?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Are There Really THAT Many Holes on the Roster?

    In Response to Re: Are There Really THAT Many Holes on the Roster?:
    I've got to admit that the idea of having a serious need at receiver even if welker was healthy is curious to me.  It doesn't make any sense to me that when you have 2 of the best receivers in the game that their presence on the field cannot or does not create openings for the 3rd WR or TE.  Just doesn't make sense to me.
    Posted by underdoggg

    Part of the problem is the O-line.  Teams were able to get great pressure on Brady with 4 or even just 3 rushers.  When you can hurry the play without blitzing, you are in great shape because you can drop a full 7 or 8 players into pass coverage and still force a hurried throw.  Moss, while still good, isn't as explosive as he used to be and can be shut down with double coverage (or even good single coverage).  The other wideout (Aiken, Stanback, etc.) could be shut down with even relatively loose single coverage--these guys are just no good. Our other three receivers--usually Welker, Watson, and Faulk--are all underneath guys and only Welker is a threat.  Most teams weren't able to stop Welker but they were able to keep him from big gains most of the time.  The Saints put a rover on him which really shut him down.  Essentially they played man-to-man on our 5 receivers, leaving a safety free to double Moss and protect against the deep threat and leaving a roving LB or nickel back free to double Welker or stop him after the catch.  Meanwhile they had Brady on his heels with only a three-man rush.  To fix the problem, we need a better OT to replace Kaczur and we need another wideout to complement Moss and prevent teams from keying on him so much.   
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Are There Really THAT Many Holes on the Roster?

    Also, some of that pressure may be due to Brady himself.  He was sacked 2nd or 3rd fewest times in the league.  I don't know what his pressures were, but its not always the lines fault. 

    Per your comments, sounds like moss may be getting old.  Happened to Harrison.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Are There Really THAT Many Holes on the Roster?

    In Response to Re: Are There Really THAT Many Holes on the Roster?:
    Also, some of that pressure may be due to Brady himself.  
    Posted by underdoggg



    That may be part of the problem too.  Brady didn't look as confident to me this year as he did in the past and he definitely forced a lot of throws into coverage.  I just can't tell if that's because Brady was rusty or if it was because there just wasn't much else he could do given the pressure and the lack of open receivers (other than Welker).

    (And Moss is getting old--he's still good, but you can't expect miracles from him anymore.)
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Are There Really THAT Many Holes on the Roster?

         Are there that many holes on the Patriots' roster??

    RESPONSE: Oh hell yeah! Their weaknesses all manifested themselves in that playoff debacle against Baltimore.

    1.) Pool DL play...as the Pats couldn't stop the run;

    2.) Poor OL play...as Tom Brady got beaten up;

    3.) Old and tired RBs;

    4.) Lack of a quality WR to go with Randy Moss...and lack of depth

    5.) Poor kick returning and punting

    6.) Weak at TE

    7.) No pass rush...although that didn't manifest itself in the loss to the Ravens. Baltimore's running game was so effective that Ravens' QB Joe Flacco threw less than 10 passes in the blow-out.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Are There Really THAT Many Holes on the Roster?


    I think the Pats have holes up and down the roster, but I think a lot of this depends on what scheme they run. As someone suggested, we don't need to plug all the holes with 1st round picks, but we do need better than mediocre talent at certain positions to make an impact and SB run. 

    Take Defense for example...Are they a 3-4, 4-3 team? Sure they will play a lot of nickel, but what is their base D?....Case in point....2 of the most important positions on the Pats 3-4 defense are DL (RDE) and LB....Right now, we do not have a legitimate RDE. DLewis lacks the height and size. He is a 4-3 DT. The LB situation is similar. We have unknowns (Crable & McKenzie), and a guy in Guyton that is not a 3-4 ILB, but probably better suited to play 4-3 OLB. So if you simply look at the Pats and how they line up in a base 3-4, you could say they have legitimate holes. 

    Flip it around for a second...look at the Pat running a 4-3 defense...DL is pretty taken care of...We could play Wright, DLewis/Pryor, Wilfork, Warren/TBC at line and have some depth, LB we could have Mayo manning the middle with McKenzie, Crable, Guyton adding depth and/or playing outside. (I don't shake in my shoes to think about Crable outside, but you get the point)...Safety situation is set. CB situation set for starters...

    So, in a 4-3, the Pats I think with current personnel could run that D right away and be fairly successful. I would look to upgrade OLB spot (here your options are vast...Weatherspoon, Norwood, Misi, AJ Edds, etc...more 4-3 OLB's at college level than 3-4 OLBs) and CB spot, and possibly DE. 

    With some slight tweaking, and 2-3 players, that 4-3 defense could be very strong. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Are There Really THAT Many Holes on the Roster?

    In Response to Re: Are There Really THAT Many Holes on the Roster?:
    I  Flip it around for a second...look at the Pat running a 4-3 defense...DL is pretty taken care of...We could play Wright, DLewis/Pryor, Wilfork, Warren/TBC at line and have some depth, LB we could have Mayo manning the middle with McKenzie, Crable, Guyton adding depth and/or playing outside. (I don't shake in my shoes to think about Crable outside, but you get the point)...With some slight tweaking, and 2-3 players, that 4-3 defense could be very strong. 
    Posted by PatsLifer


    Lifer, you make a good case, but I'm not sure I'm convinced on this one.  They tried some 4-3 early in the season last year and weren't very good at it.  I think to run a 4-3, you need DEs who can rush the passer.  I don't think we have any guys who can do that.  We've got lots of guys who can maybe play tackle in a 4-3, but not any legitimate 4-3 ends if you ask me.  This line has been built around a 3-4 all along and I don't see BB switching to 4-3 any time soon. 

    I think we might have more luck moving our LBs to a 4-3, but without the right DEs, I'm afraid a 4-3 would make our pass rush even weaker and that would put a lot of pressure on those 3 LBs to cover well.  The 4-3 might help us defend the run, but I think with our current talent it would be a disaster against the pass.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Are There Really THAT Many Holes on the Roster?

    Swiss cheese roster AP..Swiss Cheese. I hope they address Offensive and Defensive lines/OLB first with a running back thrown in.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from HartLeeDykesEuguneChung. Show HartLeeDykesEuguneChung's posts

    Re: Are There Really THAT Many Holes on the Roster?

    The salary cap rules in the NFL make it impossible not to have "holes" in your roster. We won Super Bowls with JR Redmond, Jermaine Wiggins, Dave Patton, Otis, etc playing significant roles.  I can't believe people are making laundry lists of positions claiming these are all critical and need to be filled for 2010 to be succesful.  From here to the start of the season, the Pats will add 7-9 players through draft, trade or free agency, and half of them won't seriously contribute in the 2010 season.   Yet the Pats will still be a top 8 team in the NFL and have a good shot of winning the SuperBowl.  You complainers are SPOILED and horribly unrealistic if you think any NFL team can field a team with no holes.
     

Share