Wilfork probably out for the year

guppy wrote: I know the Pats aren't the only ones dealing with injuries, but this really hurts.

We're screwed, screwed, screwed.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



Maybe not.  You already have guys out hurt and their getting it done!  

~Sheila~ wrote:

guppy wrote: I know the Pats aren't the only ones dealing with injuries, but this really hurts.

We're screwed, screwed, screwed.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



Maybe not.  You already have guys out hurt and their getting it done!  


Ya, maybe so.  But this particular guy counts as two. 

George1963 wrote:I know the Pats aren't the only ones dealing with injuries, but this really hurts.

We're screwed, screwed, screwed.


Not really. Don't take this as a shot, although I know you will, but he's been slowing down the last few years. His snap counts have been going down since 2011 and you're even starting to see him get single teamed. At least I did in the Jets game. He's still an above average player and is good for the occasional highlight reel play, but he's not what he was so I don't see it as a huge thing. Of course that depends on who replaces him, I guess.

LRJets wrote:

George1963 wrote:I know the Pats aren't the only ones dealing with injuries, but this really hurts.

We're screwed, screwed, screwed.


Not really. Don't take this as a shot, although I know you will, but he's been slowing down the last few years. His snap counts have been going down since 2011 and you're even starting to see him get single teamed. At least I did in the Jets game. He's still an above average player and is good for the occasional highlight reel play, but he's not what he was so I don't see it as a huge thing. Of course that depends on who replaces him, I guess.

Just heard minutes ago on PTI, the Pats fall to 32nd against the run when Vince iis out. 


Yes, so when Vince is in there, they are in the upper third, statistically, against the run.  When he's out, they fall to the bottom in that category.  It is what it is.  That clearly says something.  Losing him may not hurt in the short term, but over the course of the season, I don't see how it can't mean the difference between winning and losing a game here or there.  I'm not dismissing George's offering that he's slowed down or not what he was.  Maybe true, maybe not.  I don't think there is any big change that's obviously noticeable to the eye in terms of a palpable drop off in his play from years past.   I think he still disrupts the other team's running game to a very high degree, and he's still pretty special.  I don't think you just pull a similar part off the shelf and plug a replacement part in and expect the same level of production.  

I'm sure Belichick designs some of his defensive schemes around Vince's ability to clog the middle.  Perhaps now they have to change the schemes up, and do things differently.  Or they go make a trade for someone. 


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

George1963 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Thanking God for a successful surgery [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

 What's the over-under that he will be back before Gronk?

George1963 wrote:I know the Pats aren't the only ones dealing with injuries, but this really hurts.

We're screwed, screwed, screwed.


Not really. Don't take this as a shot, although I know you will, but he's been slowing down the last few years. His snap counts have been going down since 2011 and you're even starting to see him get single teamed. At least I did in the Jets game. He's still an above average player and is good for the occasional highlight reel play, but he's not what he was so I don't see it as a huge thing. Of course that depends on who replaces him, I guess.


The Bengals had 162 yards on the ground, much of it right up the middle.  So much for Wilfork's absence not being felt big time.

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:I know the Pats aren't the only ones dealing with injuries, but this really hurts.

We're screwed, screwed, screwed.


Not really. Don't take this as a shot, although I know you will, but he's been slowing down the last few years. His snap counts have been going down since 2011 and you're even starting to see him get single teamed. At least I did in the Jets game. He's still an above average player and is good for the occasional highlight reel play, but he's not what he was so I don't see it as a huge thing. Of course that depends on who replaces him, I guess.


The Bengals had 162 yards on the ground, much of it right up the middle.  So much for Wilfork's absence not being felt big time.

George1963 wrote:6

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:I know the Pats aren't the only ones dealing with injuries, but this really hurts.

We're screwed, screwed, screwed.


Not really. Don't take this as a shot, although I know you will, but he's been slowing down the last few years. His snap counts have been going down since 2011 and you're even starting to see him get single teamed. At least I did in the Jets game. He's still an above average player and is good for the occasional highlight reel play, but he's not what he was so I don't see it as a huge thing. Of course that depends on who replaces him, I guess.


The Bengals had 162 yards on the ground, much of it right up the middle.  So much for Wilfork's absence not being felt big time.

Yeah. 162 yards rushing. 28 on a Bernard sweep and 25 on Dalton scrambles but, it all counts.
162 yards.
On 39 carries.
4.1 yards per carry.
Dead on their season average.
Big time.
Yeah.


Coming into this game, the Bengals averaged 83.8 rushing yards per game (22nd in NFL).  Now they rush for 162.  Looks to me like they basically doubled their rushing yards in this one. 


Prior to this game, the Pats were allowing 105 rushing yards per game against them.  Now, without Vince, they allow 162. 

Also, the Bengals yds per attempt coming in to this one was 3.4 (26th in NFL).   Now they improve that to 4.1 against the Pats defensive front without Wilfork. 

Big time. 

Yeah. 

I've learned that when you start throwing numbers around, your spin on things cannot always be trusted.

For good reason.

Finally, any person who watches the Pats on a regular basis doesn't even need numbers or stats to see that their run defense suffered without Wilfork in this game.  You can see that's the case just by the eyeball test watching the game.

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:6

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:I know the Pats aren't the only ones dealing with injuries, but this really hurts.

We're screwed, screwed, screwed.


Not really. Don't take this as a shot, although I know you will, but he's been slowing down the last few years. His snap counts have been going down since 2011 and you're even starting to see him get single teamed. At least I did in the Jets game. He's still an above average player and is good for the occasional highlight reel play, but he's not what he was so I don't see it as a huge thing. Of course that depends on who replaces him, I guess.


The Bengals had 162 yards on the ground, much of it right up the middle.  So much for Wilfork's absence not being felt big time.

Yeah. 162 yards rushing. 28 on a Bernard sweep and 25 on Dalton scrambles but, it all counts.
162 yards.
On 39 carries.
4.1 yards per carry.
Dead on their season average.
Big time.
Yeah.


Coming into this game, the Bengals averaged 83.8 rushing yards per game (22nd in NFL).  Now they rush for 162.  Looks to me like they basically doubled their rushing yards in this one. 


Prior to this game, the Pats were allowing 105 rushing yards per game against them.  Now, without Vince, they allow 162. 

Also, the Bengals yds per attempt coming in to this one was 3.4 (26th in NFL).   Now they improve that to 4.1 against the Pats defensive front without Wilfork. 

Big time. 

Yeah. 

I've learned that when you start throwing numbers around, your spin on things cannot always be trusted.

For good reason.

Finally, any person who watches the Pats on a regular basis doesn't even need numbers or stats to see that their run defense suffered without Wilfork in this game.  You can see that's the case just by the eyeball test watching the game.

George1963 wrote:

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:6

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:I know the Pats aren't the only ones dealing with injuries, but this really hurts.

We're screwed, screwed, screwed.


Not really. Don't take this as a shot, although I know you will, but he's been slowing down the last few years. His snap counts have been going down since 2011 and you're even starting to see him get single teamed. At least I did in the Jets game. He's still an above average player and is good for the occasional highlight reel play, but he's not what he was so I don't see it as a huge thing. Of course that depends on who replaces him, I guess.


The Bengals had 162 yards on the ground, much of it right up the middle.  So much for Wilfork's absence not being felt big time.

Yeah. 162 yards rushing. 28 on a Bernard sweep and 25 on Dalton scrambles but, it all counts.
162 yards.
On 39 carries.
4.1 yards per carry.
Dead on their season average.
Big time.
Yeah.


Coming into this game, the Bengals averaged 83.8 rushing yards per game (22nd in NFL).  Now they rush for 162.  Looks to me like they basically doubled their rushing yards in this one. 


Prior to this game, the Pats were allowing 105 rushing yards per game against them.  Now, without Vince, they allow 162. 

Also, the Bengals yds per attempt coming in to this one was 3.4 (26th in NFL).   Now they improve that to 4.1 against the Pats defensive front without Wilfork. 

Big time. 

Yeah. 

I've learned that when you start throwing numbers around, your spin on things cannot always be trusted.

For good reason.

Finally, any person who watches the Pats on a regular basis doesn't even need numbers or stats to see that their run defense suffered without Wilfork in this game.  You can see that's the case just by the eyeball test watching the game.

Well, that's your opinion, and while we all know that you're the only one here on what you've decided is the unicorns and rainbows happy news only Patriots fan-boy board who's allowed to have one of those, according to NFL.com the Bengals ran 18 times between the tackles for 54 yards.
Last week the Falcons ran 9 times for 51.
The week before the Bucs ran 12 times for 53
The Jets did it 23 times for 92 yards.
In week one the Bills ran between the tackles 26 times for 101 yards.
The Pats defense had their best game of the year on runs up the middle.
You need to get your eyeballs tested.
Big time.


I haven't seen the stat "runs between the tackles" on  nfl.com.  Where can I find it?


If you say the Bengals ran between the tackles 18 times for 54 yards, that means, by subtraction from the total rushing yards, that they ran 21 times for 108 yards "outside the tackles".   Where do I go to find the breakdown of these rushing numbers "between the tackles" and "outside the tackles" on nfl.com?

George1963 wrote:

The Pats defense had their best game of the year on runs up the middle.


So you're saying they actually did better with Wilfork out of there?  And that since Cincy gashed them for 162 total on the ground, which is well above what they've given up on average prior to that game (105), then they must have had their worst game of the season on outside containment.  Is that what happened?

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:

The Pats defense had their best game of the year on runs up the middle.


So you're saying they actually did better with Wilfork out of there?  And that since Cincy gashed them for 162 total on the ground, which is well above what they've given up on average prior to that game (105), then they must have had their worst game of the season on outside containment.  Is that what happened?

George1963 wrote:I haven't seen the stat "runs between the tackles" on  nfl.com.  Where can I find it?


If you say the Bengals ran between the tackles 18 times for 54 yards, that means, by subtraction from the total rushing yards, that they ran 21 times for 108 yards "outside the tackles".   Where do I go to find the breakdown of these rushing numbers "between the tackles" and "outside the tackles" on nfl.com?


Go through the play by play on the game book.   They put middle, guard, tackle, or end on every run.


So its something you have to go figure out by adding numbers up?  Those numbers are not just stated for us, we actually have to do some work to figure them out?

George1963 wrote:

You got a hair across your ass and thought you'd found something to pick at. You were wrong. Let it go.


Fine.  But in general, you don't mind if I question your statements from time to time rather than just accept them whole hog totally on faith do you?  Because speaking of wanting to pick at things, by no means do I have a monopoly on that around here.

LRJets wrote:Some stats to me are created due to the so many media venues that fans have to be drawn to as customers.


The stat "sack" by the way is a good one, albeit recent.


In the 80s, in baseball a stat was created, "game winning home run".  I remember in 1986, the Mets' Keith Hernandez hit a home run , bases empty in the first inning.  The Mets won 1-0, and of course it will be in the books detailing how, they categorized it into a baseball stat.

LRJets wrote:Heard a surprising factoid today, could also be a stat.


Last night Geno Smith was only the second rookie in the 43 year old hstory of Monday Night Football to win on the road.
The other?  Dan Marino.


If I were asked the number, I'd probably put it in the  teens.