Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Three From Rutgers?

Expand Messages
  • frankdanabrewster
    That would be unfortunate, about Blount. If he doesn t make the roster, for whatever reason, it would mean we gave away Demps (and a 7th) for nothing. Maybe
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 29 7:13 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      That would be unfortunate, about Blount. If he doesn't make the roster, for whatever reason, it would mean we gave away Demps (and a 7th) for nothing. Maybe he's trade bait.

      fdb

      --- In patriotzip@yahoogroups.com, George Richman <patswingr@...> wrote:
      >
      > OK. Before everybody goes off the deep end on this, at least recognize that
      > Rutgers was ranked 10th in Total Defense in the NCAA last season.
      >
      > Let's at least see how these guys perform in training camp before moaning
      > and groaning about the fact that they didn't play at Alabama, LSU, or some
      > other high profile school.
      >
      > I will go on record as being a bit concerned about the trade for LaGarrette
      > Blount. He definitely has something we can use - power in the short yardage
      > game. The question is whether a guy who bitched about playing behind David
      > Martin at TB will be happy to be primarily a short yardage back with the
      > Patriots. That, IMO, is the role that the team will expect him to play,
      > with Ridley as our primary starter, and Vereen as the primary 3rd/passing
      > down back. Blount will be likely be competing with Bolden for the backup
      > and short yardage carries, and he hated that in TB.
      >
      > I am looking forward to the competition in training camp at the WR, DB, and
      > DE/OLB positions. There's a sufficient number of candidates for those
      > positions. Let's hope that some real quality comes out of that quantity.
      >
      > --
      > -- George
      >
    • George Richman
      We can only hope that BB had some discussion with Blount before the trade to ensure that he is willing to play whatever role the Patriots think best for him.
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 29 8:11 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        We can only hope that BB had some discussion with Blount before the trade to ensure that he is willing to play whatever role the Patriots think best for him. If so, maybe it's Bolden (due to the injury) that goes; and Blount becomes a very effective short yardage guy, and relief for Ridley. He certainly has the ability to fill that role. Or maybe, since Washington is unlikely to be more than a kick returner, they keep 5 RBs. Not outrageous.

        Three things we have to remember are: 1. Blount was also an attitude/behavior problem in college; and 2. he will be entering only his 4th season (with little work last year), so he's still fresh; 3. he had a monster year as a rookie. So, if he is ready to grow up, and be a professional, he could be a genuine threat to an equal share of carries with Ridley, depending upon the particular opponent and game situation - Ridley is an average sized back, Blount is a monster. 

        As with everything else, at this point, it's all speculation. We'll begin to know more after the hibernation period of May & June. I HATE May and June! :-)

        On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:13 PM, frankdanabrewster <frank.dana@...> wrote:
         

        That would be unfortunate, about Blount. If he doesn't make the roster, for whatever reason, it would mean we gave away Demps (and a 7th) for nothing. Maybe he's trade bait.

        fdb

        --- In patriotzip@yahoogroups.com, George Richman <patswingr@...> wrote:
        >
        > OK. Before everybody goes off the deep end on this, at least recognize that
        > Rutgers was ranked 10th in Total Defense in the NCAA last season.
        >
        > Let's at least see how these guys perform in training camp before moaning
        > and groaning about the fact that they didn't play at Alabama, LSU, or some
        > other high profile school.
        >
        > I will go on record as being a bit concerned about the trade for LaGarrette
        > Blount. He definitely has something we can use - power in the short yardage
        > game. The question is whether a guy who bitched about playing behind David
        > Martin at TB will be happy to be primarily a short yardage back with the
        > Patriots. That, IMO, is the role that the team will expect him to play,
        > with Ridley as our primary starter, and Vereen as the primary 3rd/passing
        > down back. Blount will be likely be competing with Bolden for the backup
        > and short yardage carries, and he hated that in TB.
        >
        > I am looking forward to the competition in training camp at the WR, DB, and
        > DE/OLB positions. There's a sufficient number of candidates for those
        > positions. Let's hope that some real quality comes out of that quantity.
        >
        > --
        > -- George
        >




        --
        -- George
      • Mark Morse
        I don t see Blount making the team unless there is something wrong with Bolden (drugs, injury etc).  Washington is strictly a ST player on KO returns and
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 30 7:37 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't see Blount making the team unless there is something wrong with Bolden (drugs, injury etc).  Washington is strictly a ST player on KO returns and occaisionally as a third down receiver.  Blount does not play special teams.  There is no room on the team for a player that doesn't play Special Teams.
           
          Mark Morse
          Razor's Edge Tailgate Patriots Fangroup
          http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/RazorsEdgeTailgate/
          From: George Richman <patswingr@...>
          To: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 11:11 PM
          Subject: Re: [patriotzip] Re: Three From Rutgers?
           
          We can only hope that BB had some discussion with Blount before the trade to ensure that he is willing to play whatever role the Patriots think best for him. If so, maybe it's Bolden (due to the injury) that goes; and Blount becomes a very effective short yardage guy, and relief for Ridley. He certainly has the ability to fill that role. Or maybe, since Washington is unlikely to be more than a kick returner, they keep 5 RBs. Not outrageous.

          Three things we have to remember are: 1. Blount was also an attitude/behavior problem in college; and 2. he will be entering only his 4th season (with little work last year), so he's still fresh; 3. he had a monster year as a rookie. So, if he is ready to grow up, and be a professional, he could be a genuine threat to an equal share of carries with Ridley, depending upon the particular opponent and game situation - Ridley is an average sized back, Blount is a monster. 

          As with everything else, at this point, it's all speculation. We'll begin to know more after the hibernation period of May & June. I HATE May and June! :-)
          On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:13 PM, frankdanabrewster <frank.dana@...> wrote:
           
          That would be unfortunate, about Blount. If he doesn't make the roster, for whatever reason, it would mean we gave away Demps (and a 7th) for nothing. Maybe he's trade bait.

          fdb

          --- In mailto:patriotzip%40yahoogroups.com, George Richman <patswingr@...> wrote:
          >
          > OK. Before everybody goes off the deep end on this, at least recognize that
          > Rutgers was ranked 10th in Total Defense in the NCAA last season.
          >
          > Let's at least see how these guys perform in training camp before moaning
          > and groaning about the fact that they didn't play at Alabama, LSU, or some
          > other high profile school.
          >
          > I will go on record as being a bit concerned about the trade for LaGarrette
          > Blount. He definitely has something we can use - power in the short yardage
          > game. The question is whether a guy who bitched about playing behind David
          > Martin at TB will be happy to be primarily a short yardage back with the
          > Patriots. That, IMO, is the role that the team will expect him to play,
          > with Ridley as our primary starter, and Vereen as the primary 3rd/passing
          > down back. Blount will be likely be competing with Bolden for the backup
          > and short yardage carries, and he hated that in TB.
          >
          > I am looking forward to the competition in training camp at the WR, DB, and
          > DE/OLB positions. There's a sufficient number of candidates for those
          > positions. Let's hope that some real quality comes out of that quantity.
          >
          > --
          > -- George
          >


          -- -- George
        • George Richman
          Part of my thinking here, Mark, is that the Patriots (BB) may believe that it s time to begin a transition back to more of a power running game. Or, at the
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 30 8:21 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Part of my thinking here, Mark, is that the Patriots (BB) may believe that it's time to begin a transition back to more of a power running game. Or, at the very least, a lot more balance in the offense. Brady is not getting any younger, and his increasing lack of effectiveness in the deep passing game, combined with the team's less than stellar running game, is, in the opinion of many, a big part of the reason for their failures in the playoffs against sturdy defenses in recent years. 

            Now, if that is the case, would you want to attempt such a transition with only 32 RBs, one of whom (Vereen) is clearly a 3rd Down / Change-of-Pace guy? As you said, Washington is not likely to be a significant factor at RB. So doesn't significant use of   Ridley, Blount, and Bolden - all young, strong RBs - make sense. If 1 goes down, you still have 2 guys capable of sharing carries for a very effective power running game. Don't you need 3 capable "factor back" types to make such an offense work in today's "safety first" NFL?

            Yes, the more I think about it, the more I believe it likely that the Patriots will keep 5 RBs on the roster this year; that one of them will be Blount; and that one of them (Washington) will rarely see action in the backfield.

            Go ahead. Save this. You can either send me an "I told you so" note; or a "nice call" note in late August. :-)

            On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Mark Morse <packy001@...> wrote:
             

            I don't see Blount making the team unless there is something wrong with Bolden (drugs, injury etc).  Washington is strictly a ST player on KO returns and occaisionally as a third down receiver.  Blount does not play special teams.  There is no room on the team for a player that doesn't play Special Teams.
             
            Mark Morse
            Razor's Edge Tailgate Patriots Fangroup
            http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/RazorsEdgeTailgate/
            From: George Richman <patswingr@...>
            To: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 11:11 PM
            Subject: Re: [patriotzip] Re: Three From Rutgers?
             
            We can only hope that BB had some discussion with Blount before the trade to ensure that he is willing to play whatever role the Patriots think best for him. If so, maybe it's Bolden (due to the injury) that goes; and Blount becomes a very effective short yardage guy, and relief for Ridley. He certainly has the ability to fill that role. Or maybe, since Washington is unlikely to be more than a kick returner, they keep 5 RBs. Not outrageous.

            Three things we have to remember are: 1. Blount was also an attitude/behavior problem in college; and 2. he will be entering only his 4th season (with little work last year), so he's still fresh; 3. he had a monster year as a rookie. So, if he is ready to grow up, and be a professional, he could be a genuine threat to an equal share of carries with Ridley, depending upon the particular opponent and game situation - Ridley is an average sized back, Blount is a monster. 

            As with everything else, at this point, it's all speculation. We'll begin to know more after the hibernation period of May & June. I HATE May and June! :-)
            On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:13 PM, frankdanabrewster <frank.dana@...> wrote:
             
            That would be unfortunate, about Blount. If he doesn't make the roster, for whatever reason, it would mean we gave away Demps (and a 7th) for nothing. Maybe he's trade bait.

            fdb

            --- In mailto:patriotzip%40yahoogroups.com, George Richman <patswingr@...> wrote:
            >
            > OK. Before everybody goes off the deep end on this, at least recognize that
            > Rutgers was ranked 10th in Total Defense in the NCAA last season.
            >
            > Let's at least see how these guys perform in training camp before moaning
            > and groaning about the fact that they didn't play at Alabama, LSU, or some
            > other high profile school.
            >
            > I will go on record as being a bit concerned about the trade for LaGarrette
            > Blount. He definitely has something we can use - power in the short yardage
            > game. The question is whether a guy who bitched about playing behind David
            > Martin at TB will be happy to be primarily a short yardage back with the
            > Patriots. That, IMO, is the role that the team will expect him to play,
            > with Ridley as our primary starter, and Vereen as the primary 3rd/passing
            > down back. Blount will be likely be competing with Bolden for the backup
            > and short yardage carries, and he hated that in TB.
            >
            > I am looking forward to the competition in training camp at the WR, DB, and
            > DE/OLB positions. There's a sufficient number of candidates for those
            > positions. Let's hope that some real quality comes out of that quantity.
            >
            > --
            > -- George
            >


            -- -- George




            --
            -- George
          • Mark Morse
            What are you talking about?  The Patriots were one of the most balanced teams in the league last year and ranked in the top 5 in rushing.  I agree that Brady
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 30 11:07 AM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              What are you talking about?  The Patriots were one of the most balanced teams in the league last year and ranked in the top 5 in rushing.  I agree that Brady is on the down side and he is a terrible long passer.  Opponents sit in a 20 yard box and thats all they defend.
               
              Both Bolden and Ridley are 220lbs.  Thats not small for a RB.  Blount is huge at 247.  Can he still move at that size?  I know the comparison
               to clock killing Corey Dillon, to Antoine Smith and former Giant OJ Anderson.  I fear the loss of Woodhead is going to greatly reduce the effectiveness of the running game.
               
               
              Mark Morse Razor's Edge Tailgate Patriots Fangroup http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/RazorsEdgeTailgate/
              From: George Richman <patswingr@...>
              To: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:21 AM
              Subject: Re: [patriotzip] Re: Three From Rutgers?
               
              Part of my thinking here, Mark, is that the Patriots (BB) may believe that it's time to begin a transition back to more of a power running game. Or, at the very least, a lot more balance in the offense. Brady is not getting any younger, and his increasing lack of effectiveness in the deep passing game, combined with the team's less than stellar running game, is, in the opinion of many, a big part of the reason for their failures in the playoffs against sturdy defenses in recent years. 

              Now, if that is the case, would you want to attempt such a transition with only 32 RBs, one of whom (Vereen) is clearly a 3rd Down / Change-of-Pace guy? As you said, Washington is not likely to be a significant factor at RB. So doesn't significant use of   Ridley, Blount, and Bolden - all young, strong RBs - make sense. If 1 goes down, you still have 2 guys capable of sharing carries for a very effective power running game. Don't you need 3 capable "factor back" types to make such an offense work in today's "safety first" NFL?

              Yes, the more I think about it, the more I believe it likely that the Patriots will keep 5 RBs on the roster this year; that one of them will be Blount; and that one of them (Washington) will rarely see action in the backfield.

              Go ahead. Save this. You can either send me an "I told you so" note; or a "nice call" note in late August. :-)
              On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Mark Morse <packy001@...> wrote:
               
              I don't see Blount making the team unless there is something wrong with Bolden (drugs, injury etc).  Washington is strictly a ST player on KO returns and occaisionally as a third down receiver.  Blount does not play special teams.  There is no room on the team for a player that doesn't play Special Teams.
               
              Mark Morse Razor's Edge Tailgate Patriots Fangrouphttp://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/RazorsEdgeTailgate/
              From: George Richman <patswingr@...>
              To: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 11:11 PM
              Subject: Re: [patriotzip] Re: Three From Rutgers?
               
              We can only hope that BB had some discussion with Blount before the trade to ensure that he is willing to play whatever role the Patriots think best for him. If so, maybe it's Bolden (due to the injury) that goes; and Blount becomes a very effective short yardage guy, and relief for Ridley. He certainly has the ability to fill that role. Or maybe, since Washington is unlikely to be more than a kick returner, they keep 5 RBs. Not outrageous.

              Three things we have to remember are: 1. Blount was also an attitude/behavior problem in college; and 2. he will be entering only his 4th season (with little work last year), so he's still fresh; 3. he had a monster year as a rookie. So, if he is ready to grow up, and be a professional, he could be a genuine threat to an equal share of carries with Ridley, depending upon the particular opponent and game situation - Ridley is an average sized back, Blount is a monster. 

              As with everything else, at this point, it's all speculation. We'll begin to know more after the hibernation period of May & June. I HATE May and June! :-)
              On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:13 PM, frankdanabrewster <frank.dana@...> wrote:
               
              That would be unfortunate, about Blount. If he doesn't make the roster, for whatever reason, it would mean we gave away Demps (and a 7th) for nothing. Maybe he's trade bait. fdb --- In mailto:patriotzip%40yahoogroups.com, George Richman <patswingr@...> wrote: > > OK. Before everybody goes off the deep end on this, at least recognize that > Rutgers was ranked 10th in Total Defense in the NCAA last season. > > Let's at least see how these guys perform in training camp before moaning > and groaning about the fact that they didn't play at Alabama, LSU, or some > other high profile school. > > I will go on record as being a bit concerned about the trade for LaGarrette > Blount. He definitely has something we can use - power in the short yardage > game. The question is whether a guy who bitched about playing behind David > Martin at TB will be happy to be primarily a short yardage back with the > Patriots. That, IMO, is the role that the team will expect him to play, > with Ridley as our primary starter, and Vereen as the primary 3rd/passing > down back. Blount will be likely be competing with Bolden for the backup > and short yardage carries, and he hated that in TB. > > I am looking forward to the competition in training camp at the WR, DB, and > DE/OLB positions. There's a sufficient number of candidates for those > positions. Let's hope that some real quality comes out of that quantity. > > -- > -- George >

              -- -- George

              -- -- George
            • George Richman
              OK. We agree to disagree. The Patriots had 641 pass plays versus 523 runs. I d like to see that closer to 50-50, regardless of how it relates to what other
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 30 8:01 PM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                OK. We agree to disagree. The Patriots had 641 pass plays versus 523 runs. I'd like to see that closer to 50-50, regardless of how it relates to what other teams percentages were. 

                I think Ridley was adequate inside the tackles, but Bolden, before he went down, then out, was better. Blount, IMO, is better than either inside. Ridley is the best outside the tackles than either. Bolden is better at it than Blount. Nice balance there, IMO.

                Ridley gets the start, and most of the action vs teams weakest in edge D. Blount gets the start, and most of the action vs teams weakest vs the inside run game. Blount is also the primary short yardage guy. Bolden can backup either player, because he can fill either role; just not as well as Ridley outside, or Blount inside.  

                As I said, I think that Blount and Bolden both stay; and I think the running game, particularly the short game, improves. 

                On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Mark Morse <packy001@...> wrote:
                 

                What are you talking about?  The Patriots were one of the most balanced teams in the league last year and ranked in the top 5 in rushing.  I agree that Brady is on the down side and he is a terrible long passer.  Opponents sit in a 20 yard box and thats all they defend.
                 
                Both Bolden and Ridley are 220lbs.  Thats not small for a RB.  Blount is huge at 247.  Can he still move at that size?  I know the comparison
                 to clock killing Corey Dillon, to Antoine Smith and former Giant OJ Anderson.  I fear the loss of Woodhead is going to greatly reduce the effectiveness of the running game.
                 
                 
                Mark MorseRazor's Edge Tailgate Patriots Fangrouphttp://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/RazorsEdgeTailgate/
                From: George Richman <patswingr@...>
                To: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:21 AM
                Subject: Re: [patriotzip] Re: Three From Rutgers?
                 
                Part of my thinking here, Mark, is that the Patriots (BB) may believe that it's time to begin a transition back to more of a power running game. Or, at the very least, a lot more balance in the offense. Brady is not getting any younger, and his increasing lack of effectiveness in the deep passing game, combined with the team's less than stellar running game, is, in the opinion of many, a big part of the reason for their failures in the playoffs against sturdy defenses in recent years. 

                Now, if that is the case, would you want to attempt such a transition with only 32 RBs, one of whom (Vereen) is clearly a 3rd Down / Change-of-Pace guy? As you said, Washington is not likely to be a significant factor at RB. So doesn't significant use of   Ridley, Blount, and Bolden - all young, strong RBs - make sense. If 1 goes down, you still have 2 guys capable of sharing carries for a very effective power running game. Don't you need 3 capable "factor back" types to make such an offense work in today's "safety first" NFL?

                Yes, the more I think about it, the more I believe it likely that the Patriots will keep 5 RBs on the roster this year; that one of them will be Blount; and that one of them (Washington) will rarely see action in the backfield.

                Go ahead. Save this. You can either send me an "I told you so" note; or a "nice call" note in late August. :-)
                On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Mark Morse <packy001@...> wrote:
                 
                I don't see Blount making the team unless there is something wrong with Bolden (drugs, injury etc).  Washington is strictly a ST player on KO returns and occaisionally as a third down receiver.  Blount does not play special teams.  There is no room on the team for a player that doesn't play Special Teams.
                 
                Mark Morse Razor's Edge Tailgate Patriots Fangrouphttp://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/RazorsEdgeTailgate/
                From: George Richman <patswingr@...>
                To: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 11:11 PM
                Subject: Re: [patriotzip] Re: Three From Rutgers?
                 
                We can only hope that BB had some discussion with Blount before the trade to ensure that he is willing to play whatever role the Patriots think best for him. If so, maybe it's Bolden (due to the injury) that goes; and Blount becomes a very effective short yardage guy, and relief for Ridley. He certainly has the ability to fill that role. Or maybe, since Washington is unlikely to be more than a kick returner, they keep 5 RBs. Not outrageous.

                Three things we have to remember are: 1. Blount was also an attitude/behavior problem in college; and 2. he will be entering only his 4th season (with little work last year), so he's still fresh; 3. he had a monster year as a rookie. So, if he is ready to grow up, and be a professional, he could be a genuine threat to an equal share of carries with Ridley, depending upon the particular opponent and game situation - Ridley is an average sized back, Blount is a monster. 

                As with everything else, at this point, it's all speculation. We'll begin to know more after the hibernation period of May & June. I HATE May and June! :-)
                On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:13 PM, frankdanabrewster <frank.dana@...> wrote:
                 
                That would be unfortunate, about Blount. If he doesn't make the roster, for whatever reason, it would mean we gave away Demps (and a 7th) for nothing. Maybe he's trade bait. fdb --- In mailto:patriotzip%40yahoogroups.com, George Richman <patswingr@...> wrote: > > OK. Before everybody goes off the deep end on this, at least recognize that > Rutgers was ranked 10th in Total Defense in the NCAA last season. > > Let's at least see how these guys perform in training camp before moaning > and groaning about the fact that they didn't play at Alabama, LSU, or some > other high profile school. > > I will go on record as being a bit concerned about the trade for LaGarrette > Blount. He definitely has something we can use - power in the short yardage > game. The question is whether a guy who bitched about playing behind David > Martin at TB will be happy to be primarily a short yardage back with the > Patriots. That, IMO, is the role that the team will expect him to play, > with Ridley as our primary starter, and Vereen as the primary 3rd/passing > down back. Blount will be likely be competing with Bolden for the backup > and short yardage carries, and he hated that in TB. > > I am looking forward to the competition in training camp at the WR, DB, and > DE/OLB positions. There's a sufficient number of candidates for those > positions. Let's hope that some real quality comes out of that quantity. > > -- > -- George >

                -- -- George

                -- -- George




                --
                -- George
              • frankdanabrewster
                And if Vereen stays healthy, I think he can do everything that Woody did - catching out of the backfield, open-field elusiveness. BTW, for you history buffs,
                Message 7 of 9 , May 1, 2013
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  And if Vereen stays healthy, I think he can do everything that Woody did - catching out of the backfield, open-field elusiveness.

                  BTW, for you history buffs, did you know his full name is Shane Patrick-Henry Vereen?

                  fdb

                  --- In patriotzip@yahoogroups.com, George Richman <patswingr@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > OK. We agree to disagree. The Patriots had 641 pass plays versus 523 runs.
                  > I'd like to see that closer to 50-50, regardless of how it relates to what
                  > other teams percentages were.
                  >
                  > I think Ridley was adequate inside the tackles, but Bolden, before he went
                  > down, then out, was better. Blount, IMO, is better than either inside.
                  > Ridley is the best outside the tackles than either. Bolden is better at it
                  > than Blount. Nice balance there, IMO.
                  >
                  > Ridley gets the start, and most of the action vs teams weakest in edge D.
                  > Blount gets the start, and most of the action vs teams weakest vs the
                  > inside run game. Blount is also the primary short yardage guy. Bolden can
                  > backup either player, because he can fill either role; just not as well as
                  > Ridley outside, or Blount inside.
                  >
                  > As I said, I think that Blount and Bolden both stay; and I think the
                  > running game, particularly the short game, improves.
                  >
                  > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Mark Morse <packy001@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > **
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > What are you talking about? The Patriots were one of the most balanced
                  > > teams in the league last year and ranked in the top 5 in rushing. I agree
                  > > that Brady is on the down side and he is a terrible long passer. Opponents
                  > > sit in a 20 yard box and thats all they defend.
                  > >
                  > > Both Bolden and Ridley are 220lbs. Thats not small for a RB. Blount is
                  > > huge at 247. Can he still move at that size? I know the comparison
                  > > to clock killing Corey Dillon, to Antoine Smith and former Giant OJ
                  > > Anderson. I fear the loss of Woodhead is going to greatly reduce the
                  > > effectiveness of the running game.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Mark Morse**Razor's Edge Tailgate Patriots Fangroup**
                  > > http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/RazorsEdgeTailgate/**
                  > > *From:* George Richman <patswingr@...>
                  > > *To:* patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
                  > > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:21 AM
                  > > *Subject:* Re: [patriotzip] Re: Three From Rutgers?
                  > >
                  > > Part of my thinking here, Mark, is that the Patriots (BB) may believe that
                  > > it's time to begin a transition back to more of a power running game. Or,
                  > > at the very least, a lot more balance in the offense. Brady is not getting
                  > > any younger, and his increasing lack of effectiveness in the deep passing
                  > > game, combined with the team's less than stellar running game, is, in the
                  > > opinion of many, a big part of the reason for their failures in the
                  > > playoffs against sturdy defenses in recent years.
                  > >
                  > > Now, if that is the case, would you want to attempt such a transition with
                  > > only 32 RBs, one of whom (Vereen) is clearly a 3rd Down / Change-of-Pace
                  > > guy? As you said, Washington is not likely to be a significant factor at
                  > > RB. So doesn't significant use of Ridley, Blount, and Bolden - all young,
                  > > strong RBs - make sense. If 1 goes down, you still have 2 guys capable of
                  > > sharing carries for a very effective power running game. Don't you need 3
                  > > capable "factor back" types to make such an offense work in today's "safety
                  > > first" NFL?
                  > >
                  > > Yes, the more I think about it, the more I believe it likely that the
                  > > Patriots will keep 5 RBs on the roster this year; that one of them will be
                  > > Blount; and that one of them (Washington) will rarely see action in the
                  > > backfield.
                  > >
                  > > Go ahead. Save this. You can either send me an "I told you so" note; or a
                  > > "nice call" note in late August. :-)
                  > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Mark Morse <packy001@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > **
                  > >
                  > > I don't see Blount making the team unless there is something wrong with
                  > > Bolden (drugs, injury etc). Washington is strictly a ST player on KO
                  > > returns and occaisionally as a third down receiver. Blount does not play
                  > > special teams. There is no room on the team for a player that doesn't play
                  > > Special Teams.
                  > >
                  > > Mark Morse Razor's Edge Tailgate Patriots Fangroup
                  > > http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/RazorsEdgeTailgate/
                  > > *From:* George Richman <patswingr@...>
                  > > *To:* patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
                  > > *Sent:* Monday, April 29, 2013 11:11 PM
                  > > *Subject:* Re: [patriotzip] Re: Three From Rutgers?
                  > > **
                  > >
                  > > We can only hope that BB had some discussion with Blount before the trade
                  > > to ensure that he is willing to play whatever role the Patriots think best
                  > > for him. If so, maybe it's Bolden (due to the injury) that goes; and Blount
                  > > becomes a very effective short yardage guy, and relief for Ridley. He
                  > > certainly has the ability to fill that role. Or maybe, since Washington is
                  > > unlikely to be more than a kick returner, they keep 5 RBs. Not outrageous.
                  > >
                  > > Three things we have to remember are: 1. Blount was also an
                  > > attitude/behavior problem in college; and 2. he will be entering only his
                  > > 4th season (with little work last year), so he's still fresh; 3. he had a
                  > > monster year as a rookie. So, if he is ready to grow up, and be a
                  > > professional, he could be a genuine threat to an equal share of carries
                  > > with Ridley, depending upon the particular opponent and game situation -
                  > > Ridley is an average sized back, Blount is a monster.
                  > >
                  > > As with everything else, at this point, it's all speculation. We'll begin
                  > > to know more after the hibernation period of May & June. I HATE May and
                  > > June! :-)****
                  > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:13 PM, frankdanabrewster <frank.dana@...
                  > > > wrote:**
                  > >
                  > > **
                  > >
                  > > That would be unfortunate, about Blount. If he doesn't make the roster,
                  > > for whatever reason, it would mean we gave away Demps (and a 7th) for
                  > > nothing. Maybe he's trade bait. fdb --- In
                  > > mailto:patriotzip%40yahoogroups.com <patriotzip%40yahoogroups.com>,
                  > > George Richman <patswingr@> wrote: > > OK. Before everybody goes off
                  > > the deep end on this, at least recognize that > Rutgers was ranked 10th in
                  > > Total Defense in the NCAA last season. > > Let's at least see how these
                  > > guys perform in training camp before moaning > and groaning about the fact
                  > > that they didn't play at Alabama, LSU, or some > other high profile school.
                  > > > > I will go on record as being a bit concerned about the trade for
                  > > LaGarrette > Blount. He definitely has something we can use - power in the
                  > > short yardage > game. The question is whether a guy who bitched about
                  > > playing behind David > Martin at TB will be happy to be primarily a short
                  > > yardage back with the > Patriots. That, IMO, is the role that the team will
                  > > expect him to play, > with Ridley as our primary starter, and Vereen as the
                  > > primary 3rd/passing > down back. Blount will be likely be competing with
                  > > Bolden for the backup > and short yardage carries, and he hated that in TB.
                  > > > > I am looking forward to the competition in training camp at the WR, DB,
                  > > and > DE/OLB positions. There's a sufficient number of candidates for those
                  > > > positions. Let's hope that some real quality comes out of that quantity.
                  > > > > -- > -- George >
                  > >
                  > > ****
                  > >
                  > > -- **-- George
                  > > ****
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > -- -- George
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --
                  > -- George
                  >
                • Stephen Basile
                  I giggled. 55-45 is pretty darn close to 50-50. I m with Mark on this one. I think Blount can be just one more guy others thought was a problem who isn t
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 1, 2013
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I giggled.  55-45 is pretty darn close to 50-50.   I'm with Mark on this one.  

                    I think Blount can be just one more guy others thought was a problem who isn't one when he lands on a team with a shot at winning the Lombardi every single season.  If he's smart, or his agent is, he'll do his job at NE and go to the playoffs.


                    Baze
                    -- 
                    Steve Basile
                    Manager/Partner
                    B.D. Riley's Irish Pub
                    Austin, TX
                    Official Home: Austin Patriots Club
                    Web: www.bdrileys.com

                    On Apr 30, 2013, at 10:01 PM, George Richman <patswingr@...> wrote:

                     

                    OK. We agree to disagree. The Patriots had 641 pass plays versus 523 runs. I'd like to see that closer to 50-50, regardless of how it relates to what other teams percentages were. 


                    I think Ridley was adequate inside the tackles, but Bolden, before he went down, then out, was better. Blount, IMO, is better than either inside. Ridley is the best outside the tackles than either. Bolden is better at it than Blount. Nice balance there, IMO.

                    Ridley gets the start, and most of the action vs teams weakest in edge D. Blount gets the start, and most of the action vs teams weakest vs the inside run game. Blount is also the primary short yardage guy. Bolden can backup either player, because he can fill either role; just not as well as Ridley outside, or Blount inside.  

                    As I said, I think that Blount and Bolden both stay; and I think the running game, particularly the short game, improves. 

                    On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Mark Morse <packy001@...> wrote:
                     

                    What are you talking about?  The Patriots were one of the most balanced teams in the league last year and ranked in the top 5 in rushing.  I agree that Brady is on the down side and he is a terrible long passer.  Opponents sit in a 20 yard box and thats all they defend.
                     
                    Both Bolden and Ridley are 220lbs.  Thats not small for a RB.  Blount is huge at 247.  Can he still move at that size?  I know the comparison
                     to clock killing Corey Dillon, to Antoine Smith and former Giant OJ Anderson.  I fear the loss of Woodhead is going to greatly reduce the effectiveness of the running game.
                     
                     
                    Mark MorseRazor's Edge Tailgate Patriots Fangrouphttp://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/RazorsEdgeTailgate/
                    From: George Richman <patswingr@...>
                    To: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:21 AM
                    Subject: Re: [patriotzip] Re: Three From Rutgers?
                     
                    Part of my thinking here, Mark, is that the Patriots (BB) may believe that it's time to begin a transition back to more of a power running game. Or, at the very least, a lot more balance in the offense. Brady is not getting any younger, and his increasing lack of effectiveness in the deep passing game, combined with the team's less than stellar running game, is, in the opinion of many, a big part of the reason for their failures in the playoffs against sturdy defenses in recent years. 

                    Now, if that is the case, would you want to attempt such a transition with only 32 RBs, one of whom (Vereen) is clearly a 3rd Down / Change-of-Pace guy? As you said, Washington is not likely to be a significant factor at RB. So doesn't significant use of   Ridley, Blount, and Bolden - all young, strong RBs - make sense. If 1 goes down, you still have 2 guys capable of sharing carries for a very effective power running game. Don't you need 3 capable "factor back" types to make such an offense work in today's "safety first" NFL?

                    Yes, the more I think about it, the more I believe it likely that the Patriots will keep 5 RBs on the roster this year; that one of them will be Blount; and that one of them (Washington) will rarely see action in the backfield.

                    Go ahead. Save this. You can either send me an "I told you so" note; or a "nice call" note in late August. :-)
                    On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Mark Morse <packy001@...> wrote:
                     
                    I don't see Blount making the team unless there is something wrong with Bolden (drugs, injury etc).  Washington is strictly a ST player on KO returns and occaisionally as a third down receiver.  Blount does not play special teams.  There is no room on the team for a player that doesn't play Special Teams.
                     
                    Mark Morse Razor's Edge Tailgate Patriots Fangrouphttp://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/RazorsEdgeTailgate/
                    From: George Richman <patswingr@...>
                    To: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 11:11 PM
                    Subject: Re: [patriotzip] Re: Three From Rutgers?
                     
                    We can only hope that BB had some discussion with Blount before the trade to ensure that he is willing to play whatever role the Patriots think best for him. If so, maybe it's Bolden (due to the injury) that goes; and Blount becomes a very effective short yardage guy, and relief for Ridley. He certainly has the ability to fill that role. Or maybe, since Washington is unlikely to be more than a kick returner, they keep 5 RBs. Not outrageous.

                    Three things we have to remember are: 1. Blount was also an attitude/behavior problem in college; and 2. he will be entering only his 4th season (with little work last year), so he's still fresh; 3. he had a monster year as a rookie. So, if he is ready to grow up, and be a professional, he could be a genuine threat to an equal share of carries with Ridley, depending upon the particular opponent and game situation - Ridley is an average sized back, Blount is a monster. 

                    As with everything else, at this point, it's all speculation. We'll begin to know more after the hibernation period of May & June. I HATE May and June! :-)
                    On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:13 PM, frankdanabrewster <frank.dana@...> wrote:
                     
                    That would be unfortunate, about Blount. If he doesn't make the roster, for whatever reason, it would mean we gave away Demps (and a 7th) for nothing. Maybe he's trade bait. fdb --- In mailto:patriotzip%40yahoogroups.com, George Richman <patswingr@...> wrote: > > OK. Before everybody goes off the deep end on this, at least recognize that > Rutgers was ranked 10th in Total Defense in the NCAA last season. > > Let's at least see how these guys perform in training camp before moaning > and groaning about the fact that they didn't play at Alabama, LSU, or some > other high profile school. > > I will go on record as being a bit concerned about the trade for LaGarrette > Blount. He definitely has something we can use - power in the short yardage > game. The question is whether a guy who bitched about playing behind David > Martin at TB will be happy to be primarily a short yardage back with the > Patriots. That, IMO, is the role that the team will expect him to play, > with Ridley as our primary starter, and Vereen as the primary 3rd/passing > down back. Blount will be likely be competing with Bolden for the backup > and short yardage carries, and he hated that in TB. > > I am looking forward to the competition in training camp at the WR, DB, and > DE/OLB positions. There's a sufficient number of candidates for those > positions. Let's hope that some real quality comes out of that quantity. > > -- > -- George >

                    -- -- George

                    -- -- George




                    --
                    -- George


                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.