Week 7 Game Thread
- Thread starter tims4wins
- Start date
That should have been the second Kerrigan sack. The first was prevented by the hold that prompted the penalty that the fans booed.
Oh, and Barnett going up the back of Sherif's legs, which was a penalty not called? That shit is why they are calling this closely.
Philly got a fuckton of penalties last week vs Carolina. From a different crew.
Oh, and Barnett going up the back of Sherif's legs, which was a penalty not called? That shit is why they are calling this closely.
Philly got a fuckton of penalties last week vs Carolina. From a different crew.
That pregame Wentz story was gut wrenching, he's a class act for what he's done for that family.
As he said, it's about more than just football.
Browns fans must be fucking vomiting in their mouths on a weekly basis watching what coulda been with Wentz or Watson.
Wentz is the real deal. Anyone who is still pining for LeGarrette Blount in short yardage needs to just watch tonight's game over and over again, and realize just how fucking bad the guy is. Like I've been saying for two years, the guy never gets you one more yard than a league average running back would get you. Never. Now, he's not even able to get that much. He's running in mud, and he isn't even fast enough to get to the LOS before the defenders are getting off their blocks.
Oh no, there is some pining for LGBT in the game threads whenever Gillislee gets stuffed. And on cue, Blount "busts" one for 21 yards. And by "busts," I mean "ran through a gigantic hole that any running back in the NFL could have run through, and got tackled by the first defender that made contact, from behind." Mr. Minimum.
I'm not arguing for LGBT. But are you saying they Legarrette "Drag Five Guys Into the End Zone" falls down at the first sign of contact?
That's a myth. He maybe had one, two runs ever, in his time here where he "dragged" anyone anywhere. It just didn't happen. But any time he did have a long run, usually through a massive hole because he was facing a defense that was completely spent, Gruden or some other announcer would suck his balls like he was the second coming of Larry Czonka. You know, kind of like Gruden did tonight on his one run over 5 yards, failing to even mention the guys up front that bulldozed a lane wide enough for his fat ass to fit through.
Edit: I'll be very clear on my position, Blount gets the exact amount of yards that a league average back (or below average in most cases) would get on the same play. It's why I dubbed him Mr. Minimum. If Dion Lewis or James White (or a combination of the two) was given the rock just as much as Blount, and given the same holes, they would have ended up with more touchdowns and double the yardage. I still believe one of the best things that happened for the Pats in the Super Bowl was Blount fumbling, because his ass got pinned to the bench from there onward, and we got to see James White take over the game in his absence.
Wow, stunned to wake up and see the Eagles put 34 on the board.
Loss of Peters is a big one, though.
Blount is a little better than that missive suggests. He’s decent at short yardage, has some burst, and could run the ball 25 times a game. But he’s a close to fungible ball carrier with no role in the passing game. His value to the Pats was being virtually free, which is why they’ve moved on whenever he wasn’t virtually free. I think Blount was more of an asset at his contract than Gillislee has been so far. I know the advanced stats loved Gillislee, but I was surprised the Pats gave a pick and semi real contract for someone to play the Blount role
That's like saying I'd rather have crabs than herpes. You don't really want either.
I think they place more value on this role than you do. They trade a second-rounder for Corey Dillon and used a first on Maroney and a third on Steven Ridley. Dillon and Maroney had a little more of a passing game role than Blount (or Ridley / BJGE / Gillislee so far) but not much, and it seems like over time they've been more siloed in these roles, maybe with this reversing a little bit this year with guys like Lewis and Burkhead. I think over time they've found that they can get these guys relatively inexpensively because other teams feel like they can just draft RBs (meanwhile the Patriots haven't drafted a back since White in '14, and no early-down back since Ridley in '11).
Blount in particular has a weird skill set. Would it surprise you to learn that no Patriots RB in the BB/TB era has had more 25+ yard TD runs (Blount has 6; #2 is Maroney with 4)?
No it wouldnt surprise me, that's Blount's skill set, I should have wrote "has some big play ability" instead of "has some burst".
They probably do value the role more than I would have said a year ago. I was surprised they paid as much as they did in cap and a draft pick for Gillislee to fill that specific role. I thought they'd use Gillislee in the passing game a bit based on what they paid and some of BB's comments about trying to move away from a running back and a passing back, but it seems like they're doing it more by having "passing backs" who can run more. Id put Dillon and Maroney in slightly different categories for different reasons (Dillon for talent, Maroney because he had passing work), but through the last 8 years of BJGE/Ridley/Blount they hadnt really paid someone to fill the "Blount" role and seemed to be willing to live with JAGS like BGJE or Blount. They basically hadnt paid a running back since Dillon and the league has sort of evolved since then. Might be more of team needs and opportunity than a view on the role though. I do think they viewed Blount as a JAG and are correct on their assessment.
The Pats do seem to value rookie running backs differently than the league as a whole. Its one of the easier positions for a rookie to step in and contribute, but the Pats dont really go that route. Unfamiliarity with the passing game might explain some of it for guys like Vereen, but Maroney and Ridley didnt win the starting job their rookie years either against pretty weak incumbent competition.
They probably do value the role more than I would have said a year ago. I was surprised they paid as much as they did in cap and a draft pick for Gillislee to fill that specific role. I thought they'd use Gillislee in the passing game a bit based on what they paid and some of BB's comments about trying to move away from a running back and a passing back, but it seems like they're doing it more by having "passing backs" who can run more. Id put Dillon and Maroney in slightly different categories for different reasons (Dillon for talent, Maroney because he had passing work), but through the last 8 years of BJGE/Ridley/Blount they hadnt really paid someone to fill the "Blount" role and seemed to be willing to live with JAGS like BGJE or Blount. They basically hadnt paid a running back since Dillon and the league has sort of evolved since then. Might be more of team needs and opportunity than a view on the role though. I do think they viewed Blount as a JAG and are correct on their assessment.
The Pats do seem to value rookie running backs differently than the league as a whole. Its one of the easier positions for a rookie to step in and contribute, but the Pats dont really go that route. Unfamiliarity with the passing game might explain some of it for guys like Vereen, but Maroney and Ridley didnt win the starting job their rookie years either against pretty weak incumbent competition.
I didn't know what you were talking about re: BB's comments, but I found this:
https://www.boston.com/sports/new-england-patriots/2017/08/01/bill-belichick-explained-the-difference-between-legarrette-blount-and-the-new-patriots-running-backs
I guess the other thing to consider is that sometimes a team values flexibility from a roster construction standpoint but does not necessarily need to employ that versatility in-game. They may feel like Gillislee could contribute in the passing game, but there's just not that much reason to use him in passing situations when they have White / Burkhead / Lewis available. BB might have felt like they didn't have ideal flexibility to build depth (who was going to play early-down RB last year if Blount got hurt?) and got away with it because the RB were healthy, but wanted a stable of guys that would let them mix-and-match even if not everyone is healthy.
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I don't think they saw Blount as a JAG. I don't think they would put him in a big role with lots of touches for multiple season, often with no backup, and give him almost 300 carries last year, if they thought he was a JAG. That's a different matter than whether they were willing to pay him a lot of money relative to the other options, and certainly also different than whether they wanted to pay him a lot of money on the wrong side of 30.
Maybe I'm making this up, but I also think they feel like Blount is less effective as a rotational back than as a primary guy. I'm not sure how much of that is Blount psychologically (things ended badly for him in Tampa and Pittsburgh when he didn't think he was getting enough touches) and how much is feeling like he would wear teams down if he got the ball a lot but he wasn't that effective getting six carries or whatever. Probably both. He's a pretty weird, unique player.
Most teams seem to have decided that FA RB have little value, and BB seems to see that as opportunity to pick up guys like Blount, Lewis, Burkhead, and Gillislee fairly inexpensively.
Did they even make Blount an offer last offseason (or in 2014 for that matter)? He signed with the Eagles 1 year/1.25MM. Yeah, maybe he was asking for more to start free agency, but its not like it would have taken a lot of money or, ultimately, multiple years to keep him. BJGE was like the definition of a JAG and got 400 carries over two years. Not quite as much work, but still the primary ball carrier on a less run heavy team. So I think they viewed Blount as pretty fungible. I thought DOTB's assessment was maybe a little harsh but pretty close to the mark.
I see what you are saying about cost, but I dont really think Gillislee fits the mold. Gillislee has the 10th highest cap hit on the team and cost a low draft pick as well. They seem to feel his talent was undervalued, but I wouldnt put him in the bargin bin bucket with Blount or Lewis. I dont really like the acquisition given how they are using him and dont love it in combination with signing Burkhead given I think both White and Lewis are talented. Id rather have just saved the draft pick and had Blount for less money.
I see what you are saying about cost, but I dont really think Gillislee fits the mold. Gillislee has the 10th highest cap hit on the team and cost a low draft pick as well. They seem to feel his talent was undervalued, but I wouldnt put him in the bargin bin bucket with Blount or Lewis. I dont really like the acquisition given how they are using him and dont love it in combination with signing Burkhead given I think both White and Lewis are talented. Id rather have just saved the draft pick and had Blount for less money.
Last edited:
You think the Eagles are favored against the Patriots if they play this week on a neutral field? Because I don't. And that's how ESPN does there rankings.
They did offer Blount a UFA tender in the offseason, though I think that was more about compensation rather than a sincere attempt to keep him. I don't think they made any push pre-2014, but they did trade for him in 2013, sign him to a two-year deal in 2014 (after Ridley got hurt), and re-signed him prior to 2016, so they signed / acquired him on three separate occasions, the last two of which he was basically set up to be the only early-down ballcarrier.
Gillislee wasn't bargain bin, but at the end of the day his cost was pretty modest. He's got like the 10th highest hit for 2017 but only 21st for 2018 because his contract is front-loaded while many others are back-loaded. We're talking about a veteran making 2.4% of the cap this year and 1.3% next year, which is peanuts considering half the roster is going to be on a rookie deal.
I don't have an issue with Gillislee's usage or what he cost; I just wish he was producing more. If he was getting 5+ YPC (he had 5.7 in BUF last year) I wouldn't care that he isn't catching the ball, but he's looked pretty much replacement-level. Should be noted: some of that is Simpson's paradox because he's getting so much short-yardage work. He's averaging 4.1 YPC outside the 10 (where the league average is 4.3) but has 12 carries inside the 10 (third-most in the league) at 1.0 YPC (league average is 1.6). So he's been below-average but the raw YPC is underrating him.
Wow, Dallas 5 and Seattle 6; there really aren't any great teams this year.
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.
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.
Gillislee wasn't bargain bin, but at the end of the day his cost was pretty modest. He's got like the 10th highest hit for 2017 but only 21st for 2018 because his contract is front-loaded while many others are back-loaded. We're talking about a veteran making 2.4% of the cap this year and 1.3% next year, which is peanuts considering half the roster is going to be on a rookie deal.
Yeah, I get that, but for a guy getting ~1/3 of the running back work Id have a hard time calling that fairly inexpensive or quasi-exploiting an inefficiency where other teams favor drafting running backs and its more expensive than the vet minimumish/rookie deal guys that have held this role for close to a decade.
I don't have an issue with Gillislee's usage or what he cost; I just wish he was producing more. If he was getting 5+ YPC (he had 5.7 in BUF last year) I wouldn't care that he isn't catching the ball, but he's looked pretty much replacement-level. Should be noted: some of that is Simpson's paradox because he's getting so much short-yardage work. He's averaging 4.1 YPC outside the 10 (where the league average is 4.3) but has 12 carries inside the 10 (third-most in the league) at 1.0 YPC (league average is 1.6). So he's been below-average but the raw YPC is underrating him
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. I know BB has said he's not a metrics guy, but all the advanced metrics loved Gillislee and he took work from McCoy in the short yardage game. He also was in a run friendly scheme with a mobile quarterback, both of which would make Gillislee appear more efficient.