Why no word on Mankins?

I hope the 5 years / $35 million dollar deal is still on the table. I hope Mankins accepts this deal. I hope he is maintaining his conditioning through all of this.

I’d much rather see this starting five:

Light at left tackle
Mankins at left guard
Koppen at center
Neal at right guard
Vollmer at right tackle

I would like to see a legitimate guard rotation utilizing Kazur, Ohrnberger, Bussey, and Connolly. Neal and Mankins see 50% of the snaps per game +/-.

I’d like to see a legitimate tackle rotation utilizing LeVoir, Kazur, and Welch.
Light and Vollmer see 50% of the snaps per game +/-.

1 I firmly believe in fresh bodies

2 I firmly believe in sideline coaching during the game [coaches and players viewing game photos and discussing / addressing game time adjustments and then re-entering the game to put these discussed issues into play.

3 I firmly believe in developing game experience for all of your key players on the depth chart so injuries are far less impacting.

Center is the only position that is not too conducive to a game rotation [because he makes all the line calls] though it would be nice to see Wendell and/or Larsen used in the 4th quarter if and when a game is pretty much decided. That saves Koppen for the long haul, and it achieves the forementioned development of your substitutes.

To this point, Brady should be substituted at the start of the 4th quarter anytime a game has been decided. It is absurd to risk an injury under those circumstances. Remember that the little injuries often go undetected [a jammed finger on a snap or a crushed foot by the center or a tackle immediately after the snap]. Those chances for those types of injuries can be lessened by using Hoyer more often in the 4th quarter.

These are the small but significant personnel decisions that can ultimately lead to a Super Bowl. It’s a long season, and they all play with injuries. IMHO, the team with the freshest guys has the best chance of winning. Small injuries are distracting. They DO affect a player’s performance.

We’re all discussing the painful effort of reducing the roster to 53 players. I would like to think that the final 53 players have the tools to play meaningful minutes. Therefore, they should be playing via a systematic rotation [with obvious flexibility tdepending on game time needs and match-ups].

Has BB stock piled D-lineman to combat the inexperience of the LB core and to address future LB injuries [such as Mayo’s]???

It seems like he has plenty of D-lineman to easily convert to a 4-3 if the LB core faulters this coming season. He has some serious beef along the D-line w/ Wilfork, Pryor, Damien Lewis, and Brace: lots of combinations to play with. That leaves T. Warren, G. Warren, and Wright as the available DE’s – and probably others that I am less familiar with.

Anyone can get injured. They all play hurt.

I think coaches and GM’s factor this into their off season planning and decision making more than ever before. I figured since BB has stock piled D-lineman more so than LB’s, he might be using the 4-3 as his insurance policy against LB injury and/or against another man handling like the one the Ravens handed them with their run attack: 234 yards. Ouch!

4-3 Run Stopper

G. Warren - Wilfork - Lewis - T. Warren
Banta -—————-Mayo——————— McKenzie

Subs: Wright, Brace, Pryor, and two others
Subs: Guyton, Spikes, Cunningham, Crable
-——————————————————————————————

I am. Mind you, I respect Colon and wish no ill will for the man, but this is Ben’s kharma catching up to him. Now they’re talking about Flozell “Who?Huh? whistle Offsides” Adams blocking for them next year. May Roethlisberger get to know every flavor of every turf he meets.

tells it like it is. Very well written and modern piece. just the facts and honest analysis. I like it.

I hope the PATS can finally begin beating the Colts, again. It’s been a while.

This is why I think the PATS must change their mindset and establish a power running game. The Colts rely on speed and quickness. The PATS have tried to out duel them with the same approach. It’s time to bring a legitimate power running game right at the Colts: between the tackles and behind the TE’s. Mix in the usual passing attack with Brady at the helm, and there’s no reason why the PATS cannot re-gain this head to head domination.

Is that his being out for at least the start of training camp provides A LOT more time for analysis of the younger OL players and can really help determine the bottom end of the roster.

Ideally Mankins comes back though it’s really hard to gauge right now. If he doesn’t at least the Pats will know more about what else they do have and may not need to keep as many guys on the roster on the OL…..assuming the Kazur move works comfortably

Do any of you desire a true FB in the PATS offensive system?

I really do.

I see the 3 yard gain with a FB as a superb approach to wearing down the opponent’s “D”. It eats up clock, it is usually TO free, and it creates much more effective play-action for the QB. If the run begins to churn out anything more than 3 yards per carry, the safety has to move up to help. The DE and OLB have to delay their rush to confirm it’s not another run.

Which NFL teams, if any, still use a power FB between the tackles?

So much of the NFL game is about deception. The talent on both sides of the ball is exceptional. The “O” has that one enormous advantage: the play call. “Defense” is reactionary. Taking full advantage of that split second delay before the “Defense” reads and reacts to the play called is often the difference between success or failure.

Establishing a running threat would do wonders for the passing attack. With the additions of Crumpler and Gronkowski, the PATS are one player away from a full blown power running attack. They just need a hefty FB.

I agree that the “Offensive” player names you listed would definitely not be worth releasing for a FB. That’s a trade off. I want to ADD a FB to the offfensive arsenal: another weapon in the arsenal. Of course, if you are correct that BB is disinterested in a FB, there’s no need to discuss this further. Yet, the yards that Evans and Eckel gained per carry certainly leave me wondering why any coach would not favor having this as an option on “O”.

To ADD a FB, I suggest releasing one of the second tier LB’s instead of an offensive player: choose from [Alexander, Woods, or Ninkovitch]. Their value at LB is insignificant in my view. If we get down to one of them, it means we have lost a key starting LB: maybe two of them. If that’s the case, I’d still prefer to have added the FB with the hope we could out score the opponent vs trying to defend with one of these LB’s as a starter. Just leave a LB on the PS for such a dire need.

As I see it:

1 You forfeit a back-up LB [one who sees little time on “D”] and you forfeit his starting role as a special teams player.

However,

2 You gain a starting FB and you gain his replacement as a special teams player [he’s about the same size and speed as the LB being released so he can easily assume that same role].

It all comes down to BB seeing a FB as a weapon. It comes down to putting a bit more emphasis on clock control, moving the chains more often [shorter gains], and out scoring your opponent in the process. It comes down to believing that those LB’s mentioned are less likely to assist in a victory than a FB.

I’m obviously spewing my personal preference, but I am trying to do so with household names that we currently have on the roster. I don’t have a FB to counter those LB names so I am forced to speak generically [and imagining someone like Unga] or re-thinking the release of Evans and/or Eckel while we kept Alexander and Woods.

Can they afford to lose one of those back-up LB’s? I think the answer is yes. I think a starting FB offers more bang for the roster spot than a back-up LB [since the special teams aspect is covered].

In hineside, I would rather have kept Evans or Eckel and released Alexander or Woods. A FB can have multiple skill sets: FB and special teams. That’s identical to the back-up LB’s multiple skill sets: LB and special teams. It’s a push.

You have Banta, Burgess, Cunningham, Guyton, Crable, Mayo, Spikes, and McKenzie: keep Alexander OR keep Woods OR keep Ninkovitch OR keep two of them and replace one with a FB.

How many LB’s do you need?

That’s 8 of significance and 1 or 2 more as back-ups: 10 total.

I say add a FB ;-)

Sorry, I didn’t fully answer your question.

I desire a pure, between the tackles or behind the TE, power running FB. A guy who weighs 140 lbs or more; a guy who can barrel into a LB and gain 2 or 3 yards with forward momentum after the collision. A guy who also has the ability to catch a short pass. A guy who can lead block for a HB that has the skills to change direction and make contact as the lead blocker. If you watch clips of Hockstein and Seymour, they ONLY hit a guy if he was directly in their path. I saw guys side step them w/ ease. Of course, that side step might be enough, but a guy like Unga can adjust to a side step. He might forfeit 60 lbs to Seymour, but his contact will be solid and shielding which is all that it needs to be.

The Unga film clips show a guy who seems to possess these exact skills. With coaching, he appears to be a pure FB with receiving skills. Taught better leverage skills, he looks like a FB who would be tough to stop cold, in his tracks, by any LB in a one on one collision. If not Unga, there are certainly others like him: add a FB … release a LB.

Ultimately, I am asking for, praying for, and hoping for a change in philosophy w/ regards to their use of the running game. Chances are slim to none that my request will ever happen, but I keep tossing it out there in case a PAT’S employee actually reads this silly stuff – and reports back to the staff.

When I say I want a FB [like Unga], I’m talking about using the FB in a single back backfield most of the time: sometimes using the FB as a lead blocker.

I’m looking for a shift in the philosophy as to what the run game represents. I want to see a FB [Unga, perhaps] line up behind Brady and be used as a power run option between the tackles or behind the TE. Smash face football at its best.

A 240lb or more human wrecking ball whose sole expectation is to get you 3 yards per carry while inflicting serious impact on the LB.

A FB of this stature only needs the O-lineman to stand up and nuetralize their opposing D-lineman [for two count] so they cannot make a straight on tackle. A beefy FB can break through their arm tackling attempts leaving a single LB in a head on collision. With four yards of momentum, I see no reason why a 240lb [or more] FB won’t win that collision for a 3 yard gain every time. And, on occasion, it’ll be a longer gain.

Evans and ERckel proved this. They each averaged right around 3 yds per carry.

What’s wrong with that???

I don’t see how that can be dismissed unworthy of having a starting FB in the system. Especially since I see the FB also assuming a starting role on special teams. And, you rotate in Maroney as the single back when you want to have the option of running outside the tackles.

We are on the exact same page regarding the use of a FB as described in your first paragraph. And, I agree that a conversion FB is not what I would opt for. I want an experienced FB who knows the position, and one who has stats to prove he knows the position.

Hence, I say get Unga in the supplemental draft. IMHO, assuming that BB and staff see him as a talented FB, Unga is well worth a 2nd round draft pick. I am all for stock piling future draft picks. However, I also feel that the PATS should use every asset available to win NOW.

Each season is different. Moss might be done at the end of this season. Key injuries could happen. Other issues such as Mankins contract dispute might surface after this season.

To me, this team looks primed to make a run at the Super Bowl. With 10 [maybe more] draft picks next year, why not use one of them NOW on Unga. Get that designated, bonifide, bruising FB for this season.

Implement a smash face, single back, running attack this season, with Unga. Use Maroney, as you put it, as a change of pace option. Release Morris, Taylor, or a spare LB in favor of Unga. Take your best shot at winning this coming Super Bowl while we know what we have player wise and health wise.

At the end of this season, we are NOT going to be discussing how Morris, Taylor, or a spare LB helped us win – or – caused us to lose. They’re rather insignificant. BUT, a guy like Unga might very well be a reason they win. He could be a difference maker if they implemented a smash face run attack. His blocking ability would be far superior to Faulk, Maroney, Morris, or Taylor’s, and it might be the key piece to a hugely important Brady TD pass.

He could get that 2+ yard gain on the ground to win the Colt’s game. Obviously, BB did not believe the others could do so, and he went with a pass to Faulk instead: a lighter weight, easier to tackle HB.

IMHO, a 2+ yard gain should be a crucial, regularly practiced play using a FB, double tight ends, and pure muscle. Practiced to perfection, it should be money in the bank. I never feel a pass play should be required to gain 2 yards on 3rd or 4th down. A pass makes the statement that we can’t gain 2+ yards on a run play. Ouch.

I am all for Brady running a pass first system. I just feel that a FB option would improve the passing attack.