Benny Watch

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Is that what this thread is about...? Like all the other Benny threads...?  So..... Babe thinks Benny sux.  Jintsy just dinks around trying to take sides against Scully... Babe would rather take sides with juvenile dink weed of a troll than acquiesce to an obvious fact of bjge talent.... . Fascinating.

    Of course correct me if wrong.

    [/QUOTE]


    Funny stuff. I never said Benny sux. But then facts are oooooh so hard to retain for too many people around here. I said he's a good backup and a so so starter.

    And since he has yet to even reach the NFL average in ypc, my assessment is spot on.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's picking around stats and sh!t.  The guy is good.  Do you need stats to see it ?  he was trained by  BBs system... Ball security,  get upfield.   C'mon babe, and don't ever take sides with jintsy the dink please.

    [/QUOTE]


    I take sides with anybody that's right.

     

    What should I go by other than stats to measure performance? Your opinion?

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong answer... I don't care what Scully said or what name he called you, jintsy the dink and his kind are the worst troll scum ever to walk the earth never deserving of ANY respect whatsoever . turds of his ilk should be verbally and figuratively beaten down repeatedly, relentlessly, and ruthlessly. BTW... Its fun.

    [/QUOTE]


    Agree 100%, not a coincidence that Jints is trolling and agreeing with Babe and Mthurtl. 1 of these guys might be a Pats fans....but I doubt it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah , this trolling should not be accepted.  Maybe we can vote jints off the island for subversive behavior.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to csylvia79's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ridley is clearly a superior running back to BJGE......i wish they would have used ridley in the super bowl.....but it is what it is. however, BJGE is a pretty good back, and a very good short yardage back.

    [/QUOTE]

    Totally agree with you lawfirm was serviceable and great on short yardage but did he ever have a homerun run for the Pats?

    [/QUOTE]

    i dont think so, which is why i think ridley is the better back.....he is definitely more capable of breaking off a long run and breaks off 20+ yard runs consistently....im not surprised benny is having success in cincy because he is a good back, he just isnt the home run hitter that some wanted him to be.....one thing i would like to say though, is that andy dalton isnt just "some guy"...he is a good qb and he has one of the best receivers in the game which also helps with the predictability of the running game. obviously ridley has the better job being the running back of the pats because brady can chuck it all over the yard, but i just dont think its fair to say dalton is just "some guy". just my opinion.

    [/QUOTE]


    Of course Ridley is better. He was drafted in the 3rd rd.   However, that's not the premise.

    Babe, Mt Hurl and Pezzy's anti-BB/pro Brady-tinged premise is BJGE wasn't worthy of helping this team win a SB.

    That's false.

    I'd bet money, in fact, I already know this, BJGE had MUCH stronger numbers when used as our lead back v.s. being subbed in and out and not getting to 15 carries.

    I've done the research. In fact, and this sting BADLY for the trolls/irrationals: We never lost  a game in 2010 or 2011 when BJGE was the lead back.

    OUCH. OUCH.

    Just think, if Brady had that data in front of him pre-Super Bowl, does he insist BJGE is used as the lead back with Brady more under center to utlizie their best power back and confuse the Giants from an all out pass rush gameplan, or does he ignore that data?

    OUCH.

    Hurts, doesn't it?  This team NEVER lost when BJGE was the feature back in this offense.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Dense!  It is not false or the coaches would have used him more.  How many 49'rs did Benny rip off here, again?  Where was that big run in the SB when the gints didn't give a flip when he carried the ball and keyed in on the pass?

    There is no "imagining" what could have been as the coaches, based on what was working, obviously couldn't fathom it.Perhaps if there had been a long run or 2 it woiuld have been different.  But there wasn't.

    [/QUOTE]

    NE never lost a game when BJGE was the lead back in a gameplan in 2010 or 2011.

    OUCH.

    Can't run from that fact, Pezzy.  Brady and McDaniels panicked after the opening drive in the 3rd qtr vs the Giants. That simple. They thought  by running more shotgun and more Woodhead, that puts the pedal to metal and the risky elements to it, contributed to the loss.

    Can't get around it, Pezzy. You've tried and tried, but you lost.

    [/QUOTE]

    Uh, Benny was the lead back in the SB wasn't he?  DOH  Just because he didn't carry 25 x's doesn't mean he wasn't the lead.  It means he wasn't good enough to carry it 25x's.

    [/QUOTE]


    No, he wasnt. Woodhead had almost as many plays and carries.  Duh. For all intents and purposes, they split the load. We'll take that desperate point of yours as the last bullet in the chamber.

    Good day.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Almost?  LOL Almost only counts in hangrenades.  He was the lead and they lost, just admit it.

    [/QUOTE]


    No, he was not. A true lead back isn't splitting carries with another.  Ray Rice is a lead back, for example.

    What do you think your IQ is?  Did you ever take the test? Everyone else here knows that essentially splitting carries, means the load isn't given to a lead back.

    What's MORE: Woodhead was used more so in the 4th qtr than BJGE which proves how wrong you are. Keep in mind, Brady threw an INT, threw high, etc with Woodhead used the most at those points of the game.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Please don't talk about IQ when you can't see or admit he was the lead back.  NE always splits carries.  That's why they carry 5 backs.  He was the lead.

    You are just too dopey to recognize that they go with what works.  16 straight pass completions (a NFL SB record) works.  Negative yardage to put the team in 3rd and 14's, don't.

    Do you think they should have run Benny more in the Steelers game when he averaged 1.9 with a long of 3?

    You are also too dopey to realize that 8 possession games limit runs due to the lack of opportunities  (4 less possessions) and the urgent need to move the ball and score quickly.

    [/QUOTE]

    16 straight pass completion didn'tn work because Brady failed at the end.  Do you see any points scored of any kind in the 4th qtr? No, we don't either.

    FAIL.

     In fact, you just ran into a brick wall.  The whole reason Brady was forced to throw that many times, but to fail in the end with no run game established, was because they never tried to establish it earlier!

    How does that wall taste?

    [/QUOTE]


    Ummm, no  Benny's 1ypc in the 4th did nothing to instill confidence in the coaching staff.  They passed more because that was there BEST option.  Period!

    Running the ball did nothing to help score points, The 16 completed passes in a row did.

    How many times do you think they should have run the ball in their last possession of the 4th, which consisted of 57 seconds after the gints easily marched down the field to score the winning TD?  How many of those 16 completed passes(still early in the game) should Benny have gotten instead?  Try using common sense instead of interjecting your unnatural and irrational hate for TB in every situation,  People might take you more seriously than LEON, who uses the same sick tactics and aligns with you.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Is that what this thread is about...? Like all the other Benny threads...?  So..... Babe thinks Benny sux.  Jintsy just dinks around trying to take sides against Scully... Babe would rather take sides with juvenile dink weed of a troll than acquiesce to an obvious fact of bjge talent.... . Fascinating.

    Of course correct me if wrong.

    [/QUOTE]


    Funny stuff. I never said Benny sux. But then facts are oooooh so hard to retain for too many people around here. I said he's a good backup and a so so starter.

    And since he has yet to even reach the NFL average in ypc, my assessment is spot on.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's picking around stats and sh!t.  The guy is good.  Do you need stats to see it ?  he was trained by  BBs system... Ball security,  get upfield.   C'mon babe, and don't ever take sides with jintsy the dink please.

    [/QUOTE]


    I take sides with anybody that's right.

     

    What should I go by other than stats to measure performance? Your opinion?

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong answer... I don't care what Scully said or what name he called you, jintsy the dink and his kind are the worst troll scum ever to walk the earth never deserving of ANY respect whatsoever . turds of his ilk should be verbally and figuratively beaten down repeatedly, relentlessly, and ruthlessly. BTW... Its fun.

    [/QUOTE]


    Agree 100%, not a coincidence that Jints is trolling and agreeing with Babe and Mthurtl. 1 of these guys might be a Pats fans....but I doubt it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah , this trolling should not be accepted.  Maybe we can vote jints off the island for subversive behavior.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ever notice that Babe, Pezzy and Mt Hurl never take on the trolls?  They always ignore them as the trolls use them as a way to think they have leverage here.

    Another reason to find our irrational ballwashers as another form of a troll here.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I have lambasted doggy too many times to count. I have voiced a number of disagreements with the jets trolls and stomped them on occasion as well. Jints has shown a reasonable amount of football acumen and a general willingness to be reasonably objective, so we have had a fairly benign back and forth despite disagreements.

    More nonsense and lies from you junior. Same old.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    Good season for Benny. He's a decent back and was set back with injuries last year. I don't second guess BB for letting him walk though, Ridleys better. 

    Hope BJGE continues to do well as long as it isn't against us.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Is that what this thread is about...? Like all the other Benny threads...?  So..... Babe thinks Benny sux.  Jintsy just dinks around trying to take sides against Scully... Babe would rather take sides with juvenile dink weed of a troll than acquiesce to an obvious fact of bjge talent.... . Fascinating.

    Of course correct me if wrong.

    [/QUOTE]


    Funny stuff. I never said Benny sux. But then facts are oooooh so hard to retain for too many people around here. I said he's a good backup and a so so starter.

    And since he has yet to even reach the NFL average in ypc, my assessment is spot on.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's picking around stats and sh!t.  The guy is good.  Do you need stats to see it ?  he was trained by  BBs system... Ball security,  get upfield.   C'mon babe, and don't ever take sides with jintsy the dink please.

    [/QUOTE]


    I take sides with anybody that's right.

     

    What should I go by other than stats to measure performance? Your opinion?

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong answer... I don't care what Scully said or what name he called you, jintsy the dink and his kind are the worst troll scum ever to walk the earth never deserving of ANY respect whatsoever . turds of his ilk should be verbally and figuratively beaten down repeatedly, relentlessly, and ruthlessly. BTW... Its fun.

    [/QUOTE]


    Agree 100%, not a coincidence that Jints is trolling and agreeing with Babe and Mthurtl. 1 of these guys might be a Pats fans....but I doubt it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah , this trolling should not be accepted.  Maybe we can vote jints off the island for subversive behavior.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ever notice that Babe, Pezzy and Mt Hurl never take on the trolls?  They always ignore them as the trolls use them as a way to think they have leverage here.

    Another reason to find our irrational ballwashers as another form of a troll here.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I really don't argue with anybody on here except you and jetsmangold (so you're in pretty rare company).

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Benny suks...

     

    RK PLAYER TEAM ATT YDS YDS/A LONG 20+ TD YDS/G FUM 1DN

    1 Adrian Peterson, RB MIN 265 1,600 6.0 82 18 10 123.1 3 64

    2 Marshawn Lynch, RB SEA 261 1,266 4.9 77 6 9 97.4 3 56

    3 Alfred Morris, RB WSH 253 1,235 4.9 39 7 7 95.0 4 62

    4 Doug Martin, RB TB 264 1,234 4.7 70 9 10 94.9 1 50

    5 Jamaal Charles, RB KC 240 1,220 5.1 91 7 4 93.8 4 54

    6 Arian Foster, RB HOU 298 1,148 3.9 46 5 14 88.3 2 68

    7 Stevan Ridley, RB NE 243 1,082 4.5 41 6 10 83.2 3 70

    8 BenJarvus Green-Ellis, RB CIN 263 1,080 4.1 48 7 6 77.1 3 54

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What's interesting is another knock against Benny was that he couldn't carry the load as the only back.  Dude is upto 263 carries and is getting stronger and stronger as the year goes along. 

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    In response to Patsman3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Benny suks...

     

    RK PLAYER TEAM ATT YDS YDS/A LONG 20+ TD YDS/G FUM 1DN

    1 Adrian Peterson, RB MIN 265 1,600 6.0 82 18 10 123.1 3 64

    2 Marshawn Lynch, RB SEA 261 1,266 4.9 77 6 9 97.4 3 56

    3 Alfred Morris, RB WSH 253 1,235 4.9 39 7 7 95.0 4 62

    4 Doug Martin, RB TB 264 1,234 4.7 70 9 10 94.9 1 50

    5 Jamaal Charles, RB KC 240 1,220 5.1 91 7 4 93.8 4 54

    6 Arian Foster, RB HOU 298 1,148 3.9 46 5 14 88.3 2 68

    7 Stevan Ridley, RB NE 243 1,082 4.5 41 6 10 83.2 3 70

    8 BenJarvus Green-Ellis, RB CIN 263 1,080 4.1 48 7 6 77.1 3 54

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What's interesting is another knock against Benny was that he couldn't carry the load as the only back.  Dude is upto 263 carries and is getting stronger and stronger as the year goes along. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, I guess Benny has proved he can be below average, a lot.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Benny suks...

     

    RK PLAYER TEAM ATT YDS YDS/A LONG 20+ TD YDS/G FUM 1DN

    1 Adrian Peterson, RB MIN 265 1,600 6.0 82 18 10 123.1 3 64

    2 Marshawn Lynch, RB SEA 261 1,266 4.9 77 6 9 97.4 3 56

    3 Alfred Morris, RB WSH 253 1,235 4.9 39 7 7 95.0 4 62

    4 Doug Martin, RB TB 264 1,234 4.7 70 9 10 94.9 1 50

    5 Jamaal Charles, RB KC 240 1,220 5.1 91 7 4 93.8 4 54

    6 Arian Foster, RB HOU 298 1,148 3.9 46 5 14 88.3 2 68

    7 Stevan Ridley, RB NE 243 1,082 4.5 41 6 10 83.2 3 70

    8 BenJarvus Green-Ellis, RB CIN 263 1,080 4.1 48 7 6 77.1 3 54

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Wow, Benny looks impressive at the #8 spot. Too bad he's played one more game than the rest or it would be more impressive though.

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

    Re: Benny Watch

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Hey Pro, how are ya brother? I think you and I are coming to a middle ground here. I understand what you are saying and agree that Benny was not fantastic at producing extra yards on his talent alone, although I think he is a way tougher back then you guys give him credit for. He does push the pile forward and fall forward on almost every run.

    Now with that said I agree Ridley can "make things happen" so to speak, but at the same time other then the Fins game we have trouble producing positive yardage in obvious run formations this year as well. Probably the reason Rids numbers have gone from 6-5-4.5 ypc. If you don't see him getting stuffed often in our 2 TE heavy run sets then you have been lying to yourself.

    With all that said BJGE DID perform in the playoff games against the Ravens and the Giants, and all I have ever said is that we should have used that run game more in order to keep the Gints from limiting Brady(opening up the offense) I don't care about 50-50 balance every game, and I think you know that. I care about not being obvious and falling back on Brady to carry us. I think that is what we did most of the time OB was here. If we disagree then so be it, but I don't see how any Patriot fan could look at our offense last year and deny it was one dimensional and deny that style had a negative impact on our post season success.

    And if that is true then we should have ran BJGE/Ridley/Vareen/Woodhead/or signed a street FA RB in order to utilize and commit to a run game so that we could have increased offensive efficiency....kind of what BB and McD have done this season.

    [/QUOTE]


    Champ, you and I have always been in agreement about the one-dimensionality of last year's offense.  I said repeatedly last year that it was a problem that the offense was so dependent on just three weapons (Gronk, Hern, and Welker) or maybe four if you wanted to include Branch. Where we have tended to disagree is in whether the play calling was at fault for that or whether it was the quality of the talent beyond those three or four.  My hypothesis is that the play-calling (or really game planning) was good, because it allowed the Pats to get the most from their strengths (those three or four receivers), though it still left them vulnerable if a defense could shut down the short passing game.  You and Wozzy argued that the play calling (or again really the game planning) was weak, because they should have incorporated more (and more varied) running plays.  It's hard to prove either of those points, because we didn't get to see too many games with that exact combination of players that were called the way you and Wozzy wanted them to be called.  So we end up having to speculate or attempt to draw conclusions from the play of teams that are constructed a bit differently. 

    My feeling about Benny is that he's a serviceable back who will get the yards that are there, but who isn't explosive enough to create many yards on his own.  He's weak running to the outside because he lacks elite speed and best when he has a decent hole up the middle to exploit.  He's got just average power and shiftiness and maybe below-average straight-line speed.  He is obviously good with ball security.  He's also not a great contributor in the passing game.  While he can catch the ball, he's not great at getting open, and he's just an average blitz pick-up guy. 

    The reason I tend to think that the game-planning approach that you and Wozzy (and to some degree Rusty) were advocating last year wouldn't work is because:

    1. Benny just was too prone to unproductive runs of 2 yards or less.  Those runs can be drive killers. If nothing else, they kind of force you back to the passing game.  Second and eight, third and five--all of those require passes because even with a good running game you can't rely on the run regularly when you really need five or more yards.

    2. The lack of deep threats created a challenge because it allowed defenses to keep their LBs and safeties close to the LOS.  This defefensive strategy wasn't just effective against the short pass, it also put defenders in good position to stop runs.  With a back who isn't that explosive and needs some space, running into a crowd of defenders isn't terribly effective.  It's one reason the Pats ran so much from spread formations.  With their backs, getting space between the defenders was critical.  They couldn't stretch the field vertically, so they fell back on horizontal spread formations and ran lots of draws and similar runs that exploit spaces in the defense. 

    3.  We didn't have enough blockers (TEs or FBs) to really execute a power running strategy.  This was another talent issue.  Gronk of course is a good dual blocker-receiver and Hern is reasonably good as well.  The problem with Hern, though, is we also relied on him to be our outside receiver, so if we brought him in tight, we had a hole to fill on the outside opposite Branch.  Welker can be used outside, but that's not his best spot.  Ocho (who was clearly intended to fill that role) was a disappointment, Edleman is also not a great outside receiver, Underwood was just a body, and Slater just isn't really much of a receiver (as much as I love him on special teams).  The Pats experimented with Dan Gronkowski and Lousaka Polite, but they never really picked up a third blocker and they never had any good outside receiver.  

    4. None of the backs was terribly effective as a dual threat.  Woodhead was the best receiver out of the backfield and a decent pass blocker, but he isn't a great runner (in the way Faulk was and Vereen seems to be).  Benny can run okay, but he isn't a great passing back.  This led to some of the predictability because we really didn't have a guy who was as versatile as we needed.  A lot of people wonder why Woodhead plays so much.  The reason is because this is always going to be a passing team with Brady as QB, and Woodhead was the best passing back.  Benny just wasn't nearly as good.  (Neither is Ridley, by the way, which is why Ridley gets replaced by Woodhead and increasingly by Vereen this year, much to Rusty's and Wozzy's dismay.) 

    My feeling has always been that O'Brien and Belichick did a very good job of figuring out a way to create a highly effective offense from the odd collection of talent the Pats had last year.  The hurry-up approach was, in my opinion, brilliant--and Josh has preserved that this year and built on it by mixing in a far more effective running game.  But the "Josh is a genius, O'Brien is stupid" line that some posters hold really isn't fair in my mind to O'Brien, who did a very good job developing that hurry-up offense last year.  Yeah, it was somewhat unbalanced and one-dimensional.  But this year, with better talent (Lloyd, a more experienced Ridley, Vereen, and a surprisingly effective hybrid FB/TE in Hoomanawanui) Josh has been able to really build on the hurry-up foundation O'Brien laid by integrating a much more effective running game.  Over the past few games, he also seems to be trying to incorporate more of the deep passing game.  This may be in response to some declining productivity in the running game.  It's too bad Stallworth was injured, because he seemed to add yet another wrinkle to the offense.  We'll see what happens with Lloyd and Slater and Branch . . . I expect Josh would like a little more productivity from the deeper passing game, which will keep defenses from over-focusing on the shorter passes and run.  Should be interesting to watch over the coming weeks . . .

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Hey Pro, how are ya brother? I think you and I are coming to a middle ground here. I understand what you are saying and agree that Benny was not fantastic at producing extra yards on his talent alone, although I think he is a way tougher back then you guys give him credit for. He does push the pile forward and fall forward on almost every run.

    Now with that said I agree Ridley can "make things happen" so to speak, but at the same time other then the Fins game we have trouble producing positive yardage in obvious run formations this year as well. Probably the reason Rids numbers have gone from 6-5-4.5 ypc. If you don't see him getting stuffed often in our 2 TE heavy run sets then you have been lying to yourself.

    With all that said BJGE DID perform in the playoff games against the Ravens and the Giants, and all I have ever said is that we should have used that run game more in order to keep the Gints from limiting Brady(opening up the offense) I don't care about 50-50 balance every game, and I think you know that. I care about not being obvious and falling back on Brady to carry us. I think that is what we did most of the time OB was here. If we disagree then so be it, but I don't see how any Patriot fan could look at our offense last year and deny it was one dimensional and deny that style had a negative impact on our post season success.

    And if that is true then we should have ran BJGE/Ridley/Vareen/Woodhead/or signed a street FA RB in order to utilize and commit to a run game so that we could have increased offensive efficiency....kind of what BB and McD have done this season.

    [/QUOTE]


    Champ, you and I have always been in agreement about the one-dimensionality of last year's offense.  I said repeatedly last year that it was a problem that the offense was so dependent on just three weapons (Gronk, Hern, and Welker) or maybe four if you wanted to include Branch. Where we have tended to disagree is in whether the play calling was at fault for that or whether it was the quality of the talent beyond those three or four.  My hypothesis is that the play-calling (or really game planning) was good, because it allowed the Pats to get the most from their strengths (those three or four receivers), though it still left them vulnerable if a defense could shut down the short passing game.  You and Wozzy argued that the play calling (or again really the game planning) was weak, because they should have incorporated more (and more varied) running plays.  It's hard to prove either of those points, because we didn't get to see too many games with that exact combination of players that were called the way you and Wozzy wanted them to be called.  So we end up having to speculate or attempt to draw conclusions from the play of teams that are constructed a bit differently. 

    My feeling about Benny is that he's a serviceable back who will get the yards that are there, but who isn't explosive enough to create many yards on his own.  He's weak running to the outside because he lacks elite speed and best when he has a decent hole up the middle to exploit.  He's got just average power and shiftiness and maybe below-average straight-line speed.  He is obviously good with ball security.  He's also not a great contributor in the passing game.  While he can catch the ball, he's not great at getting open, and he's just an average blitz pick-up guy. 

    The reason I tend to think that the game-planning approach that you and Wozzy (and to some degree Rusty) were advocating last year wouldn't work is because:

    1. Benny just was too prone to unproductive runs of 2 yards or less.  Those runs can be drive killers. If nothing else, they kind of force you back to the passing game.  Second and eight, third and five--all of those require passes because even with a good running game you can't rely on the run regularly when you really need five or more yards.

    2. The lack of deep threats created a challenge because it allowed defenses to keep their LBs and safeties close to the LOS.  This defefensive strategy wasn't just effective against the short pass, it also put defenders in good position to stop runs.  With a back who isn't that explosive and needs some space, running into a crowd of defenders isn't terribly effective.  It's one reason the Pats ran so much from spread formations.  With their backs, getting space between the defenders was critical.  They couldn't stretch the field vertically, so they fell back on horizontal spread formations and ran lots of draws and similar runs that exploit spaces in the defense. 

    3.  We didn't have enough blockers (TEs or FBs) to really execute a power running strategy.  This was another talent issue.  Gronk of course is a good dual blocker-receiver and Hern is reasonably good as well.  The problem with Hern, though, is we also relied on him to be our outside receiver, so if we brought him in tight, we had a hole to fill on the outside opposite Branch.  Welker can be used outside, but that's not his best spot.  Ocho (who was clearly intended to fill that role) was a disappointment, Edleman is also not a great outside receiver, Underwood was just a body, and Slater just isn't really much of a receiver (as much as I love him on special teams).  The Pats experimented with Dan Gronkowski and Lousaka Polite, but they never really picked up a third blocker and they never had any good outside receiver.  

    4. None of the backs was terribly effective as a dual threat.  Woodhead was the best receiver out of the backfield and a decent pass blocker, but he isn't a great runner (in the way Faulk was and Vereen seems to be).  Benny can run okay, but he isn't a great passing back.  This led to some of the predictability because we really didn't have a guy who was as versatile as we needed.  A lot of people wonder why Woodhead plays so much.  The reason is because this is always going to be a passing team with Brady as QB, and Woodhead was the best passing back.  Benny just wasn't nearly as good.  (Neither is Ridley, by the way, which is why Ridley gets replaced by Woodhead and increasingly by Vereen this year, much to Rusty's and Wozzy's dismay.) 

    My feeling has always been that O'Brien and Belichick did a very good job of figuring out a way to create a highly effective offense from the odd collection of talent the Pats had last year.  The hurry-up approach was, in my opinion, brilliant--and Josh has preserved that this year and built on it by mixing in a far more effective running game.  But the "Josh is a genius, O'Brien is stupid" line that some posters hold really isn't fair in my mind to O'Brien, who did a very good job developing that hurry-up offense last year.  Yeah, it was somewhat unbalanced and one-dimensional.  But this year, with better talent (Lloyd, a more experienced Ridley, Vereen, and a surprisingly effective hybrid FB/TE in Hoomanawanui) Josh has been able to really build on the hurry-up foundation O'Brien laid by integrating a much more effective running game.  Over the past few games, he also seems to be trying to incorporate more of the deep passing game.  This may be in response to some declining productivity in the running game.  It's too bad Stallworth was injured, because he seemed to add yet another wrinkle to the offense.  We'll see what happens with Lloyd and Slater and Branch . . . I expect Josh would like a little more productivity from the deeper passing game, which will keep defenses from over-focusing on the shorter passes and run.  Should be interesting to watch over the coming weeks . . .

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Nice, I agree with this. I will give Benny some credit as well for getting a 1k yards. I think there is enough evidence out there on Benny now to really paint a picture of what he is...a decent, average back that won't necessarily hurt you, but not enough to change your offense for either. He's 8th in rushing yards right now, but like Babe pointed out that's because he also has played one more game than everyone else on that list. I imagine after this weekend he will slide down out of the top ten and put him in a class that is more in line of his skill set. Average.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    Pro...

     

     

    Champ, you and I have always been in agreement about the one-dimensionality of last year's offense. I said repeatedly last year that it was a problem that the offense was so dependent on just three weapons (Gronk, Hern, and Welker) or maybe four if you wanted to include Branch. Where we have tended to disagree is in whether the play calling was at fault for that or whether it was the quality of the talent beyond those three or four. My hypothesis is that the play-calling (or really game planning) was good, because it allowed the Pats to get the most from their strengths (those three or four receivers), though it still left them vulnerable if a defense could shut down the short passing game. You and Wozzy argued that the play calling (or again really the game planning) was weak, because they should have incorporated more (and more varied) running plays. It's hard to prove either of those points, because we didn't get to see too many games with that exact combination of players that were called the way you and Wozzy wanted them to be called. So we end up having to speculate or attempt to draw conclusions from the play of teams that are constructed a bit differently.

    My feeling about Benny is that he's a serviceable back who will get the yards that are there, but who isn't explosive enough to create many yards on his own. He's weak running to the outside because he lacks elite speed and best when he has a decent hole up the middle to exploit. He's got just average power and shiftiness and maybe below-average straight-line speed. He is obviously good with ball security. He's also not a great contributor in the passing game. While he can catch the ball, he's not great at getting open, and he's just an average blitz pick-up guy.

    I disagree that Benny was just average. Probably the reason another NFL team signed him and paid him starter money, and gave him starter carries, and he has produced with top 10 starter performance.

    Now I do think Ridley is better as he has more burst, but at this point I would say Benny has more patience and is a stronger goal line and short yardage back Then again, he also has 7 plays of 20 yards or more compared to 6 for Ridley. he also has a longer season high at 48. Point being, Benny and his 4.5 ypc in the Ravens and Pats playoff game was good enough to use...but Obrien didn't use it....again.

    The reason I tend to think that the game-planning approach that you and Wozzy (and to some degree Rusty) were advocating last year wouldn't work is because:

    1. Benny just was too prone to unproductive runs of 2 yards or less. Those runs can be drive killers. If nothing else, they kind of force you back to the passing game. Second and eight, third and five--all of those require passes because even with a good running game you can't rely on the run regularly when you really need five or more yards.

    We have similar diffuculty running out of run formations(2 TE power sets) this year, but we are committed to keep trying. This is the biggest dofference this year. Commitment. or did you not realize that as a team we average .2 ypc more then we did last year. Ridley is matching Benny's 2010 season at 4.5 ypc but the 2 change of pace guys are averaging 3.7 ypc, yet we still are 2nd in the LG in rushing att's. How do you explain that Pro?

     2. The lack of deep threats created a challenge because it allowed defenses to keep their LBs and safeties close to the LOS. This defefensive strategy wasn't just effective against the short pass, it also put defenders in good position to stop runs. With a back who isn't that explosive and needs some space, running into a crowd of defenders isn't terribly effective. It's one reason the Pats ran so much from spread formations. With their backs, getting space between the defenders was critical. They couldn't stretch the field vertically, so they fell back on horizontal spread formations and ran lots of draws and similar runs that exploit spaces in the defense.

    Where is our deep threat this year that has enabled us to be more efficient on offense? Lloyd is 76th in the LG at yard per catch. I hardly think that is scaring any safety into playing over the top of him. Actually I think last week was the 1st time we threw this guy the ball deep since week 1, and it was only do to establishing the run early and using brilliant PA passing to get Lloyd wide open.

    3. We didn't have enough blockers (TEs or FBs) to really execute a power running strategy. This was another talent issue. Gronk of course is a good dual blocker-receiver and Hern is reasonably good as well. The problem with Hern, though, is we also relied on him to be our outside receiver, so if we brought him in tight, we had a hole to fill on the outside opposite Branch. Welker can be used outside, but that's not his best spot. Ocho (who was clearly intended to fill that role) was a disappointment, Edleman is also not a great outside receiver, Underwood was just a body, and Slater just isn't really much of a receiver (as much as I love him on special teams). The Pats experimented with Dan Gronkowski and Lousaka Polite, but they never really picked up a third blocker and they never had any good outside receiver.

    I agree with that, and blame the pass 1st pass heavy offensive philosophy under Bill Obrien. Why the heck would we not have a 3rd TE on the roster? BB and McD have fixed that by using 5-6 TEs and FB's on this roster. Mixing up the offensive sets, not just 4 and 5 wide all day. They collected the talent that would help with a run commitment. you can not argue with that.

    4. None of the backs was terribly effective as a dual threat. Woodhead was the best receiver out of the backfield and a decent pass blocker, but he isn't a great runner (in the way Faulk was and Vereen seems to be). Benny can run okay, but he isn't a great passing back. This led to some of the predictability because we really didn't have a guy who was as versatile as we needed. A lot of people wonder why Woodhead plays so much. The reason is because this is always going to be a passing team with Brady as QB, and Woodhead was the best passing back. Benny just wasn't nearly as good. (Neither is Ridley, by the way, which is why Ridley gets replaced by Woodhead and increasingly by Vereen this year, much to Rusty's and Wozzy's dismay.)

    Well I wish we would throw a few balls to our lead back. Still my biggest gripe with this offense is that we do not check down to the RB EVER. teams still know when Ridley is in it will be a run, or we will flex him out wide and never throw to him(decoy) andthis is the reason that Ridley has averaged 3.9 ypc since the bye week imo.

    My feeling has always been that O'Brien and Belichick did a very good job of figuring out a way to create a highly effective offense from the odd collection of talent the Pats had last year. The hurry-up approach was, in my opinion, brilliant--and Josh has preserved that this year and built on it by mixing in a far more effective running game. But the "Josh is a genius, O'Brien is stupid" line that some posters hold really isn't fair in my mind to O'Brien, who did a very good job developing that hurry-up offense last year. Yeah, it was somewhat unbalanced and one-dimensional. But this year, with better talent (Lloyd, a more experienced Ridley, Vereen, and a surprisingly effective hybrid FB/TE in Hoomanawanui) Josh has been able to really build on the hurry-up foundation O'Brien laid by integrating a much more effective running game. Over the past few games, he also seems to be trying to incorporate more of the deep passing game. This may be in response to some declining productivity in the running game. It's too bad Stallworth was injured, because he seemed to add yet another wrinkle to the offense. We'll see what happens with Lloyd and Slater and Branch . . . I expect Josh would like a little more productivity from the deeper passing game, which will keep defenses from over-focusing on the shorter passes and run. Should be interesting to watch over the coming weeks . . .

    You could argue that we were more talented last year as Gronk and hern have seldom been on the field together. 100 million dollar TE's have missed most fo the season, and Lloyd has really been an after though until recently. We ahad Ridley, and vareen,  and Woody, with a 11 td BJGE as our RB platoon but didn't have the coach that was willing to utilize them in the game plan....which lead to another offensive collpase in the SuperBowl.

    A commitment to an unpredictable offense is the reason we are probably about to set the NFL record for least amount of turnovers in a season, and a top 5 pass and run offense. We acquired the talent to focus on a run game in the off season and re-hired a coordinator who is disciplined enough to mix up play calling, and not just fall back on the Tom Brady to do it all for us!

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Benny suks...

     

    RK PLAYER TEAM ATT YDS YDS/A LONG 20+ TD YDS/G FUM 1DN

    1 Adrian Peterson, RB MIN 265 1,600 6.0 82 18 10 123.1 3 64

    2 Marshawn Lynch, RB SEA 261 1,266 4.9 77 6 9 97.4 3 56

    3 Alfred Morris, RB WSH 253 1,235 4.9 39 7 7 95.0 4 62

    4 Doug Martin, RB TB 264 1,234 4.7 70 9 10 94.9 1 50

    5 Jamaal Charles, RB KC 240 1,220 5.1 91 7 4 93.8 4 54

    6 Arian Foster, RB HOU 298 1,148 3.9 46 5 14 88.3 2 68

    7 Stevan Ridley, RB NE 243 1,082 4.5 41 6 10 83.2 3 70

    8 BenJarvus Green-Ellis, RB CIN 263 1,080 4.1 48 7 6 77.1 3 54

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Wow, Benny looks impressive at the #8 spot. Too bad he's played one more game than the rest or it would be more impressive though.

    [/QUOTE]

    THats right Baby, he is 8th.  How many running backs in the nfl right now?  Yet 8 is average/mediocre.  Congrats you are now offically the biggest tool on the board.

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

    Re: Benny Watch

    Champ . . . 

    • I think we have to disagree about Benny's skills. Right now, of the 28 RBs averaging 12 or more carries per game, Benny is 17th in yards per carry.  And that's after three or four good games from him. By yards per carry, he's not a top 10 running back. Of course, what really matters is productive rushes and the stats don't necessarily get at that, so you kind of have to judge by what you see.  It's more subjective (unless you chart every game), but I just see Ridley getting more yards on runs where there's not a lot to gain than I ever saw BJGE get. 
    • As far as running out of heavy formations, there's a reason Josh still uses the spread offense so much.  The idea that the Pats were going to become an I-formation team using FBs and TEs a lot was just nonsense. 
    • Lloyd is not a true deep threat, but he still is effective at pulling defenders away from the short middle of the field.  That does improve the offense.  He's a major upgrade over Branch, just like Ridley is a major upgrade over BJGE.  That's why the talent is better than last year's, even if Gronk and Hern haven't been on the field together as much as any of us would like. 
    • I went back and watched the condensed version of the Super Bowl . . . if you go back and watch that carefully, I think you'll see O'Brien used Benny much more than you remember and also called a rather diverse set of plays.  The problem was execution, breakdowns at the LOS, and--again--a defense that couldn't get off the field and gave up a critical big pass play late in the game.  

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Champ . . . 

    • I think we have to disagree about Benny's skills. Right now, of the 28 RBs averaging 12 or more carries per game, Benny is 17th in yards per carry.  And that's after three or four good games from him. By yards per carry, he's not a top 10 running back. Of course, what really matters is productive rushes and the stats don't necessarily get at that, so you kind of have to judge by what you see.  It's more subjective (unless you chart every game), but I just see Ridley getting more yards on runs where there's not a lot to gain than I ever saw BJGE get. 
    • As far as running out of heavy formations, there's a reason Josh still uses the spread offense so much.  The idea that the Pats were going to become an I-formation team using FBs and TEs a lot was just nonsense. 
    • Lloyd is not a true deep threat, but he still is effective at pulling defenders away from the short middle of the field.  That does improve the offense.  He's a major upgrade over Branch, just like Ridley is a major upgrade over BJGE.  That's why the talent is better than last year's, even if Gronk and Hern haven't been on the field together as much as any of us would like. 
    • I went back and watched the condensed version of the Super Bowl . . . if you go back and watch that carefully, I think you'll see O'Brien used Benny much more than you remember and also called a rather diverse set of plays.  The problem was execution, breakdowns at the LOS, and--again--a defense that couldn't get off the field and gave up a critical big pass play late in the game.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    • Benny will be a top 10 rusher in by years end on a mediocre at best offensive team. This proves he can handle a load. He averaged 4.4 ypc in the ravens and Giants most important games of the year. You saying OB used him yet he averaged 11 carries in the 2 games is wrong. You saying he wasn't good enough to be used is wrong. I think ridley is better, but this guy was good enough for us to not have to be 1 dimensional...as he is proving with Cinci. Where is the cut off point for you, Z, and babe to admit you were wrong? Does he have to average 4.3 ypc? 4.4 ypc and gain over 1,000 yards ? What statistic do you guys need to see that Benny + best QB in football was more then enough to keep a D guessing?
    • If Lloyd is not a deep threat then how does he stretch the field? he is 73rd in the NFL in ypc. Does he stretch the field because a CB guards him like every other wr in the NFL? He doesn't draw "defenders" away from the middle of the field. he draws a defender away from the middle of the field, just like Branch did, just like Chad did. The run game was always there, we are just now committed to it. Rush 4 drop 7 = run the ball.
    • No, OB did not use Benny enough that day. 44 yards on 10 carries against a weak run defense screams more running. Perhaps then our tired/always on the field D would not have given up that last score. Either they wouldn't have been so tired, or they wouldn't have been on the field in the 1st place. Hence "complimentary football" and balance = better T.O.P and less opportunity for the opposing QB to win the game. 
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    In response to Patsman3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Benny suks...

     

    RK PLAYER TEAM ATT YDS YDS/A LONG 20+ TD YDS/G FUM 1DN

    1 Adrian Peterson, RB MIN 265 1,600 6.0 82 18 10 123.1 3 64

    2 Marshawn Lynch, RB SEA 261 1,266 4.9 77 6 9 97.4 3 56

    3 Alfred Morris, RB WSH 253 1,235 4.9 39 7 7 95.0 4 62

    4 Doug Martin, RB TB 264 1,234 4.7 70 9 10 94.9 1 50

    5 Jamaal Charles, RB KC 240 1,220 5.1 91 7 4 93.8 4 54

    6 Arian Foster, RB HOU 298 1,148 3.9 46 5 14 88.3 2 68

    7 Stevan Ridley, RB NE 243 1,082 4.5 41 6 10 83.2 3 70

    8 BenJarvus Green-Ellis, RB CIN 263 1,080 4.1 48 7 6 77.1 3 54

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Wow, Benny looks impressive at the #8 spot. Too bad he's played one more game than the rest or it would be more impressive though.

    [/QUOTE]

    THats right Baby, he is 8th.  How many running backs in the nfl right now?  Yet 8 is average/mediocre.  Congrats you are now offically the biggest tool on the board.

    [/QUOTE]


    I chuckle recalling how you cried about personal attacks. Your hypocrisy makes you a joke, not anything I might call you.

     

    We know Benny gets less than the league average per carry. We also know 30 RBs average more per carry than him (70+ carries).

     

    I think those facts speak for themselves. Cling desperately to your #8 stat that the Bengals handing the ball off a lot of times to a mediocre back created. Me and the rest of us who know the game will just laugh at you.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    • Benny will be a top 10 rusher in by years end
    • [/QUOTE]

     

    Mediocre back with lots of carries.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Benny Watch

    LOL,30 guys at  70 plus carries average more then BJGE(230 carries) That is great Babe. "You're hypocrisy knows no bounds" What is 70 carries....about 6 a game? So change of pace backs are now included? 17 backs at 12 carries a game(lead backs) average more then benny, about 25 lead backs average more then Arian Foster. Is he below average? Don't bother answering.

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

    Re: Benny Watch

    Champ . . . the Bengals are 10th in points per game.  That offense is better than you think.  Dalton is in the top dozen QBs this year, AJ Green is in the top half-dozen receivers, and Gresham is a top 10 TE.  They aren't anywhere near as good as the Pats, but they're above-average in this year's NFL.  And in fairness, Benny has been a part of that success, especially recently.  (Though I wonder if Benny's recent success is because teams started to key on the passing game--I haven't watched enough Bengals games to be sure.)

     

Share