Week 7 Game Thread

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,452
Hingham, MA
The Pats are ranked 1:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/page/NFLpowerrankingsx171024/nfl-2017-week-8-power-rankings-new-england-patriots-unseat-kansas-city-chiefs-no-1-chances-win-division

Tims said last night that we'd move back into this spot -- when Philly was trailing. Game outcome made no difference.

Not that it matters or ever mattered Wentz, Ertz and Co. would likely shred our defense. TB would shred theirs -- if the o-line could keep Brady clean.
Yeah, I don't think it is necessarily who would be favored to beat another team on a neutral field, but who is "deserving" of the top spot based on some sort of combination of performance to date, expectations, peak level, etc. I think Philly is "deserving" of the top spot right now since they are 6-1 with the lone blemish a 7 point loss in Kansas City. I look at it like the CFP rankings - KC would be #1 based on resume. I agree the Pats would be favored on a neutral field but they don't deserve the top spot - yet.

Also, KC is still ranked ahead of Pittsburgh here, but clearly if they were to play on a neutral field Pittsburgh would have to be favored.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Inpredictable says market would have KC -1 as of today. Maybe with recent history it opens pickem, but markets dont say Pitt is favored on a neutral.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,452
Hingham, MA
Inpredictable says market would have KC -1 as of today. Maybe with recent history it opens pickem, but markets dont say Pitt is favored on a neutral.
Very interesting considering Pitt has won the last 3 matchups within about 13 months - 2 of which were in KC
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Inpredictable is just calculating what the betting markets are saying about the strength of teams, not opining on specific matchups, but I dont think this opens that far off the generic number based on recent results. If this game happened and the line moved to Pitt -1 or something I wouldnt be shocked, but I dont think its a lock that Pitt has to be favored on a neutral field.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,024
Mansfield MA
The two year deal was less player friendly than if they had just signed him through the end of the season in 2014. He was basically on the vet minimum for '14-'16 right? I think they liked him as a fungible running back for the dead min. They were never paying him because their evaluation of the player was fairly close to DOTB's evaluation.
I don't think their evaluation is close to DOTB's evaluation that Blount was "Mr. Minimum" who "is fucking bad" and "never gets you one more yard than a league average back," or they would have brought in more competition. They didn't pay Blount, but they also just straight out handed him the early-down work in 2015 and 2016, so clearly they were content with what they were getting from him. That seems a far cry from DOTB's eval.

(This year might be different. Blount is over 30 now and they might have felt like he was losing a step late in the year)

I think they were betting on talent and it hasnt quite worked out as planned yet, but that's part of the reason I personally have a bias against paying for a running back that doesnt catch passes. I think scheme and line matter more than RB talent at creating efficiency in the run game outside of the very top and bottom of the talent pool.
It seems to me that what Belichick values in terms of (early-down) RB skill set is kind of non-obvious stuff - avoiding fumbles, hitting the hole hard, making the right read, etc. He doesn't place as much emphasis on one guy being able to do everything, guys who make highlight-reel moves, or guys with breakaway long speed. I think that makes it easier to view that role as fungible, but I don't think Belichick sees it that way.

It's also worth noting that when they signed him, Gillislee was the only RB under contract for 2018. They've since extended White. I don't know how Gillislee's role might expand (or not) over the 1.5 years he's got left.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
That evaluation just seems like a less polite way to say JAG. My take was it was a bit harsh, but not by much. The team always walked away from Blount when they had to pay him more than the min, so I dont think he's far off base.

It seems to me that what Belichick values in terms of (early-down) RB skill set is kind of non-obvious stuff - avoiding fumbles, hitting the hole hard, making the right read, etc. He doesn't place as much emphasis on one guy being able to do everything, guys who make highlight-reel moves, or guys with breakaway long speed. I think that makes it easier to view that role as fungible, but I don't think Belichick sees it that way.

Its not really that non obvious based on the team's personnel choices. BJGE was basically the talent floor version of what you are describing. Its pretty fungible in the sense that guys like that dont really cost anything in the NFL today nor are they particularly scarce. Shit, Blount was rumored to be on the cutting block again in Philly before Sproles got hurt and Smallwood got banged up.

I also will say, I wont fall off my chair in surprise if Gillislee is cut and Blount is back for close to nothing again next year.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,024
Mansfield MA
That evaluation just seems like a less polite way to say JAG. My take was it was a bit harsh, but not by much. The team always walked away from Blount when they had to pay him more than the min, so I dont think he's far off base.
They walk away from lots of players when they have to pay them more than the minimum. To me, their willingness to hand Blount a job basically without competition is much more rare and telling than how they treated his contract.

Its not really that non obvious based on the team's personnel choices. BJGE was basically the talent floor version of what you are describing. Its pretty fungible in the sense that guys like that dont really cost anything in the NFL today nor are they particularly scarce. Shit, Blount was rumored to be on the cutting block again in Philly before Sproles got hurt and Smallwood got banged up.
BJGE was in some ways almost the perfect Patriots RB. Never fumbled, never a breakaway threat but got to the hole and got what was blocked, tough, even brought some ST value earlier in his career. That doesn't mean they were going to pay him a lot of money when he got older and more expensive, but I don't think that means they didn't value what he brought.

I agree these kind of RB don't cost much. I'm not so sure about scarcity. To me it says something that they kept bringing Blount back instead of just riding with what they had or trying to find a younger, cheaper replacement. That they were willing to pony up a little more money for Gillislee (and, really, Burkhead, who has basically the same contract but just for one year) suggests to me that they don't just want to throw anybody back there.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
They walk away from lots of players when they have to pay them more than the minimum. To me, their willingness to hand Blount a job basically without competition is much more rare and telling than how they treated his contract.


BJGE was in some ways almost the perfect Patriots RB. Never fumbled, never a breakaway threat but got to the hole and got what was blocked, tough, even brought some ST value earlier in his career. That doesn't mean they were going to pay him a lot of money when he got older and more expensive, but I don't think that means they didn't value what he brought.

I agree these kind of RB don't cost much. I'm not so sure about scarcity. To me it says something that they kept bringing Blount back instead of just riding with what they had or trying to find a younger, cheaper replacement. That they were willing to pony up a little more money for Gillislee (and, really, Burkhead, who has basically the same contract but just for one year) suggests to me that they don't just want to throw anybody back there.
Not sure there was no competition for Blount. He was losing running down snaps to Dion Lewis before Lewis got hurt in 2015.

BJGE being the perfect Patriot running back is kind of my point. That is a fungible guy who should never make more than the league minimum because his talent is freely available.

They did pay up this offseason, which was different than how they've handled the position for almost a decade. We'll see where they go from here with it I guess. My guess right now is that Gillislee is not on the team next year, and if they have a "big" running back its either Blount or some other guy they pay the minimum (yeah, I get Gillislee is front loaded so its not much savings, but they're gonna need every dollar next year, particularly if Jimmy G is involved)
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,024
Mansfield MA
Not sure there was no competition for Blount. He was losing running down snaps to Dion Lewis before Lewis got hurt in 2015.
The facts don't bear this out. Lewis got 15 carries Week 1 when Blount was suspended but had more targets than carries the rest of the way. Lewis' PT came at the expense of White, who basically didn't carve out any kind of role until Lewis got hurt. (27 snaps in the 7 games Lewis played, including two healthy scratches). Lewis is a little different player than White, but he (and Travaris Cadet) was more in that mix than in the early-down mix.

BJGE being the perfect Patriot running back is kind of my point. That is a fungible guy who should never make more than the league minimum because his talent is freely available.
BJGE seized the job not because the Patriots were trying to fill RB on the cheap but because he was better than the more heavily-invested players. That 2010 backfield had former first-round pick Maroney, Fred Taylor (who had a 2-year, $5 MM deal that was probably similar in relative dollars to Gillislee's), Sammy Morris (who had a not insubstantial 4 year, $7 MM deal that was way more than league minimum, which was < $300K back when he signed it in 2007). And BJGE was better. And when they replaced him, they spent a third-rounder to do so.

Sometimes that happens and cheap players beat out more expensive/invested-in incumbents, like with Malcolm Butler or David Andrews. I don't think that means the Patriots should always be looking to fill RB dirt-cheap any more than they should be looking to fill CB or OL dirt cheap. I do think the skill set they look for at RB probably lends itself to more bargains than at other positions. But they've had guys like Tyler Gaffney, LeShun Daniels, Jonas Gray, Joey Iosefa, Stephen Houston, etc. in the mix and none have been able to earn a roster spot.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Lewis outsnapped Blount virtually every game and Blount usage was heavily weighted towards the second half of games after the Pats took large leads. Lewis was absolutely taking running down work and was pretty clearly the starting running back when he got hurt.

This is sort of beat to death, but Im forced to amend my original contention from “the Pats dont pay for running down backs” to “the Pats have sometimes paid for running down backs at times and its kinda dumb to do in their offense”. I still think DOTB is close to on the mark on Blount and think the Pats pretty much agree with DOTB as well.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,086
The facts don't bear this out. Lewis got 15 carries Week 1 when Blount was suspended but had more targets than carries the rest of the way. Lewis' PT came at the expense of White, who basically didn't carve out any kind of role until Lewis got hurt. (27 snaps in the 7 games Lewis played, including two healthy scratches). Lewis is a little different player than White, but he (and Travaris Cadet) was more in that mix than in the early-down mix.
Wait a second. Lewis had more targets than carries the rest of the way in 2015 before his injury, but it certainly wasn't going because he was losing to carries to Blount. Be careful when not looking really deep into the numbers.

When Blount returned from suspension in week 3, he got 18 carries to Lewis' 8, but that's because it was a 51-17 blowout of Jacksonville, in which Blount was basically handed the ball over and over again in the second half. He had 16 of his 18 carries in the 2nd half, when the game was out of reach. Lewis dominated the snaps in the first half when the game was still a game.

In week 4 against Dallas, Blount got 13 carries to Lewis' 6, but 6 of Blount's carries came on one drive in the 3rd quarter, and 3 others came in the 4th when the game was over. Dion played 71% of the offensive snaps to Blount's 29%. This was a 30-6 Patriots win.

In week 5 against Indy, again Blount had 16 carries to Dion's 4, but 9 of those carries happened in the last seconds of the 3rd and then the 4th quarter, mostly after the Patriots had taken a 2 score lead and were trying to salt it away. Let's also not forget that this is BB's MO against the Colts going back to Jonas Gray. Pound the rock. Lewis outsnapped Blount 57% to 41%.

In week 6 against the Jets, Lewis was inactive, and the Patriots completely abandoned the run as a result. Brady had 4 carries, Blount had 3 and White had 2. Blount only played 8 snaps.

In week 7 against the Dolphins, a 36-7 beatdown, Blount had 17 carries to Lewis 6, but Lewis outsnapped him 54% to 38%. In fairness, this was the first time Blount was featured at all in the 1st half of a game. He carried the ball 4 times on the Pats opening possession, leading to a Gronk touchdown. He had 7 more carries (for 12 yards) in the 1st half, and then wasn't really seen again until the game was effectively over.

In week 8, Dion was playing really well until he blew out his ACL against the Redskins, and then Blount had a monster game.

Needless to say, I don't think Blount was handed anything in 2015. If anything, his role was pretty clear. He was second fiddle to Dion Lewis until the game got out of reach, and then Blount would come in and finish off the fourth quarter (kind of like Clock Killin Corey Dillon). Dion was in the game on almost every meaningful snap to start that season until his injury. Once Dion went down, Blount fell into the role of early down back.

In 2016, I think the Patriots believed they didn't need to upgrade the position, because they had James White, and because they knew Dion was coming back. Sure enough, once Dion came back, he played a few games and got his feet wet (incredibly, he played exactly 25% of the snaps in his first three games back, that's impressive by the training staff if planned) and then quickly overtook Blount until by the end of the season and in the playoffs, Blount became a non-factor except for when the games were out of hand, just like it was with Dion in the early part of 2015.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,024
Mansfield MA
Lewis outsnapped Blount virtually every game and Blount usage was heavily weighted towards the second half of games after the Pats took large leads. Lewis was absolutely taking running down work and was pretty clearly the starting running back when he got hurt.
Lewis outsnapped Blount, but that's not unusual for the passing back - White is leading all Pats RB in snaps this year. Blount was getting the bulk of the carries.

In games they both played:
BUF (2) - Lewis 7, Blount 2
JAX (3) - Blount 18, Lewis 8
DAL (4) - Blount 13, Lewis 6
IND (5) - Blount 16, Lewis 4
MIA (7) - Blount 17, Lewis 5
WAS (8) - Blount 29, Lewis 4 (to be fair, Lewis left this one in Q3)

Lewis got more carries than White or Vereen usually get (but not out of line for what Woodhead or Faulk would get), but I don't think there was really any question about who the primary ballcarrier was.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
DOTBs breakdown is more in line with my recollection, but I’ve sort of reached my Blount breakdown limit for the day so I’m not gonna dig back into the snap counts any deeper than he did.

Always enjoy your posts, but gonna have to just disagree on Blount I think.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,462
Canton, MA
Yeah, I don't think it is necessarily who would be favored to beat another team on a neutral field, but who is "deserving" of the top spot based on some sort of combination of performance to date, expectations, peak level, etc. I think Philly is "deserving" of the top spot right now since they are 6-1 with the lone blemish a 7 point loss in Kansas City. I look at it like the CFP rankings - KC would be #1 based on resume. I agree the Pats would be favored on a neutral field but they don't deserve the top spot - yet.

Also, KC is still ranked ahead of Pittsburgh here, but clearly if they were to play on a neutral field Pittsburgh would have to be favored.
Most sites have Philly ranked #1 (6 out of the 8 tracked here):

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/78fbnk/nfl_power_rankings_combined/

Also Pitt very slightly ahead of KC (mainly due to WaPo having KC 7th).
 

The Big Red Kahuna

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 14, 2003
3,564
Yeah, I don't think it is necessarily who would be favored to beat another team on a neutral field, but who is "deserving" of the top spot based on some sort of combination of performance to date, expectations, peak level, etc.
Except we were discussing solely the ESPN Power Poll, which has right there at the very top each week, the following:

Methodology: These rankings are based on which teams voters think would win head-to-head matchups. Higher-ranked teams would be favored against lower-ranked teams. Coming off a win doesn't guarantee a jump, and a loss doesn't guarantee a fall.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,452
Hingham, MA
Except we were discussing solely the ESPN Power Poll, which has right there at the very top each week, the following:

Methodology: These rankings are based on which teams voters think would win head-to-head matchups. Higher-ranked teams would be favored against lower-ranked teams. Coming off a win doesn't guarantee a jump, and a loss doesn't guarantee a fall.
Right, I said right after that the Pats would be favored over just about everyone, but I don't feel that they "deserve" the top spot - yet.