Pats offense: Ongoing discussion

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,496
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33615518/bill-belichick-says-matt-patricia-joe-judge-play-key-roles-new-england-patriots-offensive-staff

"PALM BEACH, Fla. -- New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick said Monday that Matt Patricia, the former Detroit Lions head coach and New England defensive coordinator, will be part of the team's offensive coaching staff in 2022.

It's a notable transition for Patricia, whose primary focus since entering the NFL in 2004 has been on defense.

Patricia will work alongside former New York Giants head coach Joe Judge, the longtime Patriots special teams coach, as Belichick reshapes his offensive staff following the departure of coordinator Josh McDaniels to become Las Vegas Raiders head coach.

Belichick hasn't named an official offensive coordinator -- he said Monday that he doesn't believe in titles -- but in his first public remarks since mid-January, he singled out Patricia and Judge as those whom he will be relying upon to help replace McDaniels. He deflected a question on which coach would call plays -- a key role given the presence of promising second-year quarterback Mac Jones.

Belichick also said he will continue to meet with Jones himself, as he has with all quarterbacks throughout his 22 seasons as coach."
 

macal

lurker
Jul 31, 2005
34
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33615518/bill-belichick-says-matt-patricia-joe-judge-play-key-roles-new-england-patriots-offensive-staff

"PALM BEACH, Fla. -- New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick said Monday that Matt Patricia, the former Detroit Lions head coach and New England defensive coordinator, will be part of the team's offensive coaching staff in 2022.

It's a notable transition for Patricia, whose primary focus since entering the NFL in 2004 has been on defense.

Patricia will work alongside former New York Giants head coach Joe Judge, the longtime Patriots special teams coach, as Belichick reshapes his offensive staff following the departure of coordinator Josh McDaniels to become Las Vegas Raiders head coach.

Belichick hasn't named an official offensive coordinator -- he said Monday that he doesn't believe in titles -- but in his first public remarks since mid-January, he singled out Patricia and Judge as those whom he will be relying upon to help replace McDaniels. He deflected a question on which coach would call plays -- a key role given the presence of promising second-year quarterback Mac Jones.

Belichick also said he will continue to meet with Jones himself, as he has with all quarterbacks throughout his 22 seasons as coach."
If BB doesn't believe in titles, would he be OK if Kraft called him "one of the coaches" instead of "Head Coach"?

I understand that it doesn't matter to him what a coach is called. As long as he and the coaches are aware of their responsibility and do their job. As a fan, it's frustrating not to be able to scream to the TV at a coordinator, when something goes wrong.
 
Aug 9, 2015
397
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33615518/bill-belichick-says-matt-patricia-joe-judge-play-key-roles-new-england-patriots-offensive-staff

"PALM BEACH, Fla. -- New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick said Monday that Matt Patricia, the former Detroit Lions head coach and New England defensive coordinator, will be part of the team's offensive coaching staff in 2022.

It's a notable transition for Patricia, whose primary focus since entering the NFL in 2004 has been on defense.

Patricia will work alongside former New York Giants head coach Joe Judge, the longtime Patriots special teams coach, as Belichick reshapes his offensive staff following the departure of coordinator Josh McDaniels to become Las Vegas Raiders head coach.

Belichick hasn't named an official offensive coordinator -- he said Monday that he doesn't believe in titles -- but in his first public remarks since mid-January, he singled out Patricia and Judge as those whom he will be relying upon to help replace McDaniels. He deflected a question on which coach would call plays -- a key role given the presence of promising second-year quarterback Mac Jones.

Belichick also said he will continue to meet with Jones himself, as he has with all quarterbacks throughout his 22 seasons as coach."
I would think this matters more to the staff than to HCs (and staff BB might feel different than HC BB). But that is mitigated in the Pats context by guys like Judge and Flores jumping from non-assistant jobs (in title) to HC jobs elsewhere. Is this some kind of throwback to the 50s? When did coaching staff hierarchies really entrench in the NFL? Of course BB has a reason, but it’s a mysterious one. As his apparent commitment to Patricia as an O coach.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,675
Mansfield MA
If BB doesn't believe in titles, would he be OK if Kraft called him "one of the coaches" instead of "Head Coach"?
I'm sure Belichick could get a VP title or "head of football operations" added to his nameplate if he wanted to.

I understand that it doesn't matter to him what a coach is called. As long as he and the coaches are aware of their responsibility and do their job. As a fan, it's frustrating not to be able to scream to the TV at a coordinator, when something goes wrong.
I think this is at least part of the reason he doesn't do it - he's shielding the playcaller from some blame / criticism by not putting him in the spotlight with the coordinator title.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,924
New York City
I'm sure Belichick could get a VP title or "head of football operations" added to his nameplate if he wanted to.


I think this is at least part of the reason he doesn't do it - he's shielding the playcaller from some blame / criticism by not putting him in the spotlight with the coordinator title.
I suspect there's also an element of setting some type of internal standards before calling someone a coordinator. Like you can be the play caller but until you hit metric X (perhaps i will only call you a coordinator if can trust you to set the scheme, do the game plan, call a game, make adjustments yourself). IIRC it also impacts some of the requirements on media availability, who you can block from interviewing elsewhere, etc.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
9,795
Seems like instead of worrying about titles we should be more concerned with replacing an OC with significant OC experience who seemed to squeeze out every possible bit of production on the offensive side of the ball with a ST coach and DC. The Lions under Patricia and the Joe Judge Giants were not exactly offensive dynamos. Really curious to see what this offense looks like next year with no offensive minds seemingly left in the "brain trust". Will also be interesting to see how Mac continues to develop under them.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,924
New York City
Seems like instead of worrying about titles we should be more concerned with replacing an OC with significant OC experience who seemed to squeeze out every possible bit of production on the offensive side of the ball with a ST coach and DC. The Lions under Patricia and the Joe Judge Giants were not exactly offensive dynamos. Really curious to see what this offense looks like next year with no offensive minds seemingly left in the "brain trust". Will also be interesting to see how Mac continues to develop under them.
I for one (and pretty sure I've said it) will continue to have zero concerns about the coaching staff until I actually see them having problems. Which can happen definitely--coach DeGuglielmo didn't work out great, the special teams unit was bad last year but not sure if that's coaches or players, etc--but i'm comfortable with Bill's approach.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,496
They won a super bowl and went to an AFCCG with Gugs as OL coach. I’d consider that to be pretty successful.
 

Dr. Gonzo

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2010
3,441
I'm sure Belichick could get a VP title or "head of football operations" added to his nameplate if he wanted to.


I think this is at least part of the reason he doesn't do it - he's shielding the playcaller from some blame / criticism by not putting him in the spotlight with the coordinator title.
To your point about shielding criticism, I would think that could mean Caley is calling the plays on gameday. He’s been in the organization, uninterrupted, for a bit and worked with McDaniels. Judge and Patricia are easy targets but I would assume they will help install but can’t imagine them calling plays.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,170
Hingham, MA
They won a super bowl and went to an AFCCG with Gugs as OL coach. I’d consider that to be pretty successful.
On the flip side, they almost lost the Super Bowl because they couldn’t block Bennett and they definitely lost the AFCCG because they couldn’t block Miller.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,496
On the flip side, they almost lost the Super Bowl because they couldn’t block Bennett and they definitely lost the AFCCG because they couldn’t block Miller.
True but by any definition those two years constitute a highly successful stretch. Even for the Patriots dynasty.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
They're just taking their time hiring a new OC or is BB going to call the plays?
I don't think we will see BB calling plays a la Sean McVay or Andy Reid. I think he will have a similar overview role on offense as he currently does on defense. One of the other coaches will be calling in the plays -- my money is on Joe Judge.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
3,016
Worcester
I don't think we will see BB calling plays a la Sean McVay or Andy Reid. I think he will have a similar overview role on offense as he currently does on defense. One of the other coaches will be calling in the plays -- my money is on Joe Judge.
Which will lead to "Only God (Or BBTL) Can Judge Judge" thread here by halftime of preseason game 1.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,170
Hingham, MA
In Reiss's weekly notes, he points out that the Pats were the first team since the 2009 Rams to not have a single 100 yard receiving game from an individual player.

I'm all for spreading the ball around, but this stat helps tell the story that there's no one on the team that scares the opposing team. Hopefully the addition of Parker helps.

As a reminder, those Rams went 1-15. So clearly the Pats have more talent, and better coaching, etc. But that's kind of scary.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,496
It doesn't matter if your players "scare" the opposing team. It matters that they are *effective*. And the Pats - no matter how you slice it - had a pretty darned good offense last year. They just did.

There's always players on the pick up court that don't scare anyone. They don't look the part. But man they can play ball.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,170
Hingham, MA
Yeah I get that and I didn't word it well. I guess I was trying to dance around saying "they just don't have anyone very good". Which I think is a fair and true statement. They have a bunch of guys who are all pretty good. And like you said, it made for a fairly effective offense. But they need a more talented piece.
 
Apr 24, 2019
1,001
Isn’t it a bit misleading, though, that the patriots piled up points and yards in a handful of games against terrible opponents and struggled to move the ball as consistently as those stats typically suggest? I know that there are peaks and valleys, to some degree, with most teams, but wasn’t last year’s offense a bit more up and down?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
26,719
Isn’t it a bit misleading, though, that the patriots piled up points and yards in a handful of games against terrible opponents and struggled to move the ball as consistently as those stats typically suggest? I know that there are peaks and valleys, to some degree, with most teams, but wasn’t last year’s offense a bit more up and down?
For points, Patriots were 6th in PF. They had 3 games (incl BUF wind game win) where they scored less than 17 points, the 5 teams ahead of them were:
5th LAC, 2 games under 17
4th KC, 2 games under 17
3rd: BUF, 4 games under 17 (incl. wind game loss)
2nd: TB, 1 game under 17
1st DAL, 2 games under 17.

If you want to go to 21, Patriots had 6 games, LAC had 5, KC had 5, BUF had 4, TB had 3, DAL had 5.

So in terms of scoring, the answer is they didn't really have significantly more struggle games than other top 10 offenses. Expected points put them around 10th. Generally the thing is...even the best offenses tend to put up big games against bad defenses, and "struggle" comparatively speaking against others.
 
Apr 24, 2019
1,001
For points, Patriots were 6th in PF. They had 3 games (incl BUF wind game win) where they scored less than 17 points, the 5 teams ahead of them were:
5th LAC, 2 games under 17
4th KC, 2 games under 17
3rd: BUF, 4 games under 17 (incl. wind game loss)
2nd: TB, 1 game under 17
1st DAL, 2 games under 17.

If you want to go to 21, Patriots had 6 games, LAC had 5, KC had 5, BUF had 4, TB had 3, DAL had 5.

So in terms of scoring, the answer is they didn't really have significantly more struggle games than other top 10 offenses. Expected points put them around 10th. Generally the thing is...even the best offenses tend to put up big games against bad defenses, and "struggle" comparatively speaking against others.
Thanks for the effort, I genuinely appreciate it.

I guess I just can’t get the following scores out of my head that - yes, this happens sometimes, but these games were circumstantially “special,” based on injury/COVID situations - really helped skew the numbers: Patriots hang 45 on Cleveland, 54 on jets, 50 on Jags. The Patriots offense, in my perhaps misguided view, does not seem as potent as top 6 typically suggests. Hope that changes in 2022 with Mac’s continued development and the uptick in familiarity from the guys who arrived last off-season.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
26,719
Thanks for the effort, I genuinely appreciate it.

I guess I just can’t get the following scores out of my head that - yes, this happens sometimes, but these games were circumstantially “special,” based on injury/COVID situations - really helped skew the numbers: Patriots hang 45 on Cleveland, 54 on jets, 50 on Jags. The Patriots offense, in my perhaps misguided view, does not seem as potent as top 6 typically suggests. Hope that changes in 2022 with Mac’s continued development and the uptick in familiarity from the guys who arrived last off-season.
I think the 10th of expected points is probably more accurate to talent level, I'd say it was probably a top half to top 3rd offense, but....

The Patriots have an averagish QB, had an above average line, have good RBs, above average TEs, and pretty good depth at WR. The offense is much like the whole teams of the dynasty era, there is a lot of depth of solid players rather than the stars and scrubs some teams have, and yes that brings up the issue of "who can make the big play" but it also means that you don't need to worry as much about teams taking away your 1 guy.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
4,077
They also seemed to put up a lot of points late in games, after they were sort of out of reach. This seemed especially true in a lot of their losses, where they were often buried early, down the stretch.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
26,719
They also seemed to put up a lot of points late in games, after they were sort of out of reach. This seemed especially true in a lot of their losses, where they were often buried early, down the stretch.
I think that it's as simple as people not watching and caring enough about all the other teams to see when they score their points. Points are points, the idea that one team or another's points are scored in a qualitatively less valuable way is dubious, it all evens out.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
4,077
I think that it's as simple as people not watching and caring enough about all the other teams to see when they score their points. Points are points, the idea that one team or another's points are scored in a qualitatively less valuable way is dubious, it all evens out.
That’s a fair point, could be true.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,675
Mansfield MA
If you want to go to 21, Patriots had 6 games, LAC had 5, KC had 5, BUF had 4, TB had 3, DAL had 5.
In addition to those six, though, they had three other games (LAC, Carolina, Atlanta) where they were under 21 offensive points but scored more than 21 by dint of a defensive touchdown. They also scored 17 in the playoff game. That's more than half the schedule. They really only had one stinker offensive performance (vs NO), but they had a lot of C-minus type games.

I think the 10th of expected points is probably more accurate to talent level, I'd say it was probably a top half to top 3rd offense, but....
This is probably about where I'm at.
 
Last edited:

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,341
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I think the 10th of expected points is probably more accurate to talent level, I'd say it was probably a top half to top 3rd offense, but....

The Patriots have an averagish QB, had an above average line, have good RBs, above average TEs, and pretty good depth at WR. The offense is much like the whole teams of the dynasty era, there is a lot of depth of solid players rather than the stars and scrubs some teams have, and yes that brings up the issue of "who can make the big play" but it also means that you don't need to worry as much about teams taking away your 1 guy.
Uhh...

I'd also say that even the teams of the dynasty era had a clear number one option. Troy Brown in 2001, Deion Branch in 2003 and 2004, the Gronk/Edelman pairing in 2014, then Edelman in 2016 and 2018. These were all receivers that were clearly at a level above the remaining pass catchers in those respective Super Bowl seasons. 2014 is what comes closest to the "no real number one receiver" category, and even then you had Edelman, Gronk and LaFell with seasons we'd be absolutely ecstatic to get from a single receiver in 2022.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,496
LOL. Yeah, @rodderick - I thought the same thing. I mean, if you put prime Tom Brady on this Pats' offense, it's probably #1 or #2 in the NFL. The difference between Mac Jones (who I love and think will be terrific) and prime Tom Brady is.....VAST.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
26,719
Uhh...

I'd also say that even the teams of the dynasty era had a clear number one option. Troy Brown in 2001, Deion Branch in 2003 and 2004, the Gronk/Edelman pairing in 2014, then Edelman in 2016 and 2018. These were all receivers that were clearly at a level above the remaining pass catchers in those respective Super Bowl seasons. 2014 is what comes closest to the "no real number one receiver" category, and even then you had Edelman, Gronk and LaFell with seasons we'd be absolutely ecstatic to get from a single receiver in 2022.
I said the team as a whole not the WR corps.... ie they were teams built on depth rather than star/scrub.

Though also I think people are wildly overrating some of our past guys. Deion Branch was inside the top 30 WRs in yardage once with the Patriots, Troy Brown had a 2 year stretch as a top 20 WR. Most of those years the #1 WR on the team rotated between Brown, Branch and Patten, and whoever it was ended up in the 32-35th range, right where Meyers was last year, even Edelman didn't have many years as a top WR.

The better cases are Welker (truly elite for a stretch) Gronk and the 1.5 years of Moss, plus the Cooks year.

Even then, Cooks and Moss are the #1 WR type guys people talk about, not sure getting huge volume production out of slot guys they generally acquired fairly cheaply is evidence that the team should be investing in a "#1 WR", arguably they have that guy in Bourne who put up really good numbers on lower volume. Branch broke 820 yards in a season exactly once in his career, 998 on 125 targets, he broke 800 two other times, on 92 and 104 targets. Bourne put up 800 on 70 targets.

People really wildly overrate our past players because the team was good. I mean... LaFell? He's not any different than the guys we have.

If you mean we had a #1 guy in that Brady had favorites and forcefed targets... sure, but that's about QB play more than some mythical #1 WR.

The Patriots haven't really gone for long with star outside WRs, they prefer cheaper slot guys. Now for a stretch they also had one of the best TEs of all time, and that is a factor, but in terms of WR talent, the current team is not that far behind (if at all) a number of teams throughout the dynasty era.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,170
Hingham, MA
To me, the current offense most closely resembles the 2003-2005 Pats. I think the skill position talent is more talented than the 2006 crew. But by 2003, Brown and Patten weren't quite as good, Branch and Givens were both pretty good players, Graham and Watson were good not great tight ends... feels pretty similar to Agholor, Bourne, Parker, Meyers, Jonnu, Henry. The 2003-2004 teams won because they also played elite defense, and of course 2004 had monster Corey Dillon.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,341
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I said the team as a whole not the WR corps.... ie they were teams built on depth rather than star/scrub.

Though also I think people are wildly overrating some of our past guys. Deion Branch was inside the top 30 WRs in yardage once with the Patriots, Troy Brown had a 2 year stretch as a top 20 WR. Most of those years the #1 WR on the team rotated between Brown, Branch and Patten, and whoever it was ended up in the 32-35th range, right where Meyers was last year, even Edelman didn't have many years as a top WR.

The better cases are Welker (truly elite for a stretch) Gronk and the 1.5 years of Moss, plus the Cooks year.

Even then, Cooks and Moss are the #1 WR type guys people talk about, not sure getting huge volume production out of slot guys they generally acquired fairly cheaply is evidence that the team should be investing in a "#1 WR", arguably they have that guy in Bourne who put up really good numbers on lower volume. Branch broke 820 yards in a season exactly once in his career, 998 on 125 targets, he broke 800 two other times, on 92 and 104 targets. Bourne put up 800 on 70 targets.

People really wildly overrate our past players because the team was good. I mean... LaFell? He's not any different than the guys we have.

If you mean we had a #1 guy in that Brady had favorites and forcefed targets... sure, but that's about QB play more than some mythical #1 WR.

The Patriots haven't really gone for long with star outside WRs, they prefer cheaper slot guys. Now for a stretch they also had one of the best TEs of all time, and that is a factor, but in terms of WR talent, the current team is not that far behind (if at all) a number of teams throughout the dynasty era.
That was my point? LaFell is kinda like the guys we have and was still the number 3 option in the 2014 team because Edelman and Gronk were just obviously better players. There is a single season after 2003 in which a guy like Kendrick Bourne (or Jakobi Meyers, or DaVante Parker) would have been the Patriots number one receiver with Brady without taking injuries into account, and that's 2006. Unless you think Edelman is at the same level as those guys and only produced like he did because of Brady's specific preferences as a QB and I would strongly disagree with that notion.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,170
Hingham, MA
That was my point? LaFell is kinda like the guys we have and was still the number 3 option in the 2014 team because Edelman and Gronk were just obviously better players. There is a single season after 2003 in which a guy like Kendrick Bourne (or Jakobi Meyers, or DaVante Parker) would have been the Patriots number one receiver with Brady without taking injuries into account, and that's 2006. Unless you think Edelman is at the same level as those guys and only produced like he did because of Brady's specific preferences as a QB and I would strongly disagree with that notion.
I still think the Branch-Givens years are good comps:
2003: Branch 57 for 803, Givens 34 for 510
2004: Branch 35 for 454 (missed 7 games), Givens 56 for 874
2005: Branch 78 for 998, Givens 59 for 738

vs. Bourne 55 for 800 and Meyers 83 for 866 in 2021
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
26,719
That was my point? LaFell is kinda like the guys we have and was still the number 3 option in the 2014 team because Edelman and Gronk were just obviously better players. There is a single season after 2003 in which a guy like Kendrick Bourne (or Jakobi Meyers, or DaVante Parker) would have been the Patriots number one receiver with Brady without taking injuries into account, and that's 2006. Unless you think Edelman is at the same level as those guys and only produced like he did because of Brady's specific preferences as a QB and I would strongly disagree with that notion.
I think it's very difficult to determine, but I think it's hard to parse with Edelman how much better he was than other WRs given the insane target load he got from Brady. Especially when you're comparing it to guys not being targeted by an all-time great.

Edelman was in his 5th year when he broke out (both Meyers and Bourne are well ahead of where he was at the same career stage) the best argument for Edelman as a higher level guy is that he had an elite skill of getting open, which is possible, but he's very target driven in terms of production. Another argument for the idea that he wasn't a significantly higher level guy is the rest of the league sure didn't think so when he hit free agency, he never even came close to a big offer.

Edelman was really good at getting open, but I'm not sure that isn't true of some of the guys we have now as well, it's hard to tell what a guy would do with 130+ targets unless you are willing to give them.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,496
To me, the current offense most closely resembles the 2003-2005 Pats. I think the skill position talent is more talented than the 2006 crew. But by 2003, Brown and Patten weren't quite as good, Branch and Givens were both pretty good players, Graham and Watson were good not great tight ends... feels pretty similar to Agholor, Bourne, Parker, Meyers, Jonnu, Henry. The 2003-2004 teams won because they also played elite defense, and of course 2004 had monster Corey Dillon.
And they had Tom Brady.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,170
Hingham, MA
And they had Tom Brady.
They did, but the style of offense was also more similar to 2021.

In 2003 they had 473 rushes and 537 passing attempts.
In 2004 it was 524 rushes and 485 passing attempts.
In total, 997 rushes and 1,022 passes. 50.6% passing attempts.

The 2021 Pats had 489 rushes and 535 passes (52.2%) in a much more passing friendly evironment.

In the 2018 "run heavy" SB season, they threw it 56.0% of the time.
In 2017, it was 56.7%.
In 2007, it was 56.5%.

Point being, in 2003-2004 the Pats weren't quite at "give the keys to Brady" yet. He was mostly brilliant in the playoffs in those years, he had very good regular seasons, but he wasn't GOAT / peak Brady yet.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,496
So best guess as to the starting OL:

LT - Wynn
LG - Strange
C - Andrews
RG - Onwenu
RT - Brown

Backups - Ferentz, Herron, Cajuste, Desjarlais, Durant, Hambright, Sherman

That starting OL looks pretty damned good to me.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,924
New York City
So best guess as to the starting OL:

LT - Wynn
LG - Strange
C - Andrews
RG - Onwenu
RT - Brown

Backups - Ferentz, Herron, Cajuste, Desjarlais, Durant, Hambright, Sherman

That starting OL looks pretty damned good to me.
It also helps a lot with continuity moving forward--even if Wynn/Brown leave you still have 3/5 back for 2023.
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
1,792
Last season, the Pats were 8th in total rushing yards and 12th in ypc. Between what I expect to be continued development from Stevenson (if not Harris as well) and the resolution of the line woes in the first third of last season (most notable in the brutal NO game and the TB game), I think there's some meat left on the bone in terms of the ceiling for the run game. Shoring up the interior line is a huge part of enabling that - time will tell if the opportunity cost outweighs the positives, and it's totally possible it does, but I'm delighted they addressed the need.

Building a balanced offense sounds like damning a lack of stars with faint praise, but I picture last year's offense with a little bit more from the run game and Parker knocking Harry a spot down the depth chart and I get excited. Not keep up with Buffalo in a shootout excited, but excited enough not to feel doomed after the insane arms race in the AFC over the past 2 months.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
20,885
Philadelphia
So best guess as to the starting OL:

LT - Wynn
LG - Strange
C - Andrews
RG - Onwenu
RT - Brown

Backups - Ferentz, Herron, Cajuste, Desjarlais, Durant, Hambright, Sherman

That starting OL looks pretty damned good to me.
I agree overall although the tackle depth/talent situation looks a bit scary both short and long term.

Even though he hardly played there in college, I do wonder whether there is some thought that Strange could become an option at left tackle down the line. He seems to have the frame and athleticism, especially with a bit more work in the weight room. Not that they drafted him planning to convert him, but that possibility being part of the package.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
7,982
Dallas
I agree overall although the tackle depth/talent situation looks a bit scary both short and long term.

Even though he hardly played there in college, I do wonder whether there is some thought that Strange could become an option at left tackle down the line. He seems to have the frame and athleticism, especially with a bit more work in the weight room. Not that they drafted him planning to convert him, but that possibility being part of the package.
He played LT against Mercer this year.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu5gMhHyEk0


He doesn't start there IIRC. I think the LT on his team got hurt the game before this one because Strange started at LT vs Wofford and then either the original LT got hurt again or the backup LT stunk vs Mercer so they shifted him over. I like his play at OG better. I am not sure if he could be an LT in the NFL.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
20,885
Philadelphia
He played LT against Mercer this year.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu5gMhHyEk0


He doesn't start there IIRC. I think the LT on his team got hurt the game before this one because Strange started at LT vs Wofford and then either the original LT got hurt again or the backup LT stunk vs Mercer so they shifted him over. I like his play at OG better. I am not sure if he could be an LT in the NFL.
Thanks.

Just from a body type/athleticism perspective he reminds me a bit of Matt Light. But obviously there is more to playing the position than body type and athleticism.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
41,859
So best guess as to the starting OL:

LT - Wynn
LG - Strange
C - Andrews
RG - Onwenu
RT - Brown

Backups - Ferentz, Herron, Cajuste, Desjarlais, Durant, Hambright, Sherman

That starting OL looks pretty damned good to me.
If the tackles stay healthy, yes.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,496
The WR corps: Meyers, Bourne, Parker, Agholor, Thornton, Harry, Montgomery, Nixon

Assuming Thornton actually turns out to be pretty good (big assumption), that's a solid group for Mac to throw to. And I do wonder if they'll mix in some Marcus Jones somehow.