Henry changes that game bottom line

[Doomsdayblitz]

I think our missing players were more costly in this game than theirs were. Would they have run the ball more if Maroney was in the game? If so, then I wish he would have played. And I don't think Seymour would have had a huge impact in the game. We hardly tried to run, and it's unlikely he would have gotten a sack (he averages less than five a season). It's not like we were exploiting or tryng to exploit their defensive line.

On the other hand, Henry would have greatly helped the one weakness in our defense that the Patriots attacked -- Newman would have been covering Welker in the slot. And a healthy Glenn would have helped our offense, both early in the game, when we couldn't move the ball, and late in the game, when we were passing to try to catch up.

WWHHHAAATTTT???? Seymour is a perrenial ALL-PRO! Not just a Pro-Bowler, but an All-Pro. When is the world did a defensive line not make a difference, either way? The game is won & lost at the line of scrimmage----yes, I'm sure I've heard that somewhere. Not having arguably the most dominating defensive lineman in the NFL didn't make any difference?! Well, then they had better trade him for another LB, then, because this guy is just taking up space!!
Did you really write that underlined sentence? Man, some of you make me wonder why you open your mouth.

 

[NextGenBoys]

We lost, Minn is next. Can we talk about that now? Is this what's going to happen after every loss? People will spend the week talking about what could have been?

No but when you lose a game of that magnitude and with that much hype, it's going to take unusually long to get over the sting and bitterness.

Just how it goes. I'm still gonna be pissed off untill Sunday.

 

[theogt]

WWHHHAAATTTT???? Seymour is a perrenial ALL-PRO! Not just a Pro-Bowler, but an All-Pro. When is the world did a defensive line not make a difference, either way? The game is won & lost at the line of scrimmage----yes, I'm sure I've heard that somewhere. Not having arguably the most dominating defensive lineman in the NFL didn't make any difference?! Well, then they had better trade him for another LB, then, because this guy is just taking up space!!
Did you really write that underlined sentence? Man, some of you make me wonder why you open your mouth.

Jarvis Green isn't a slouch. He's already notched 3 sacks in six games this season. He's just saying that Seymour over Green wouldn't have made a whole heckuva lot of different in the game. Not like the jump between Nate Jones and Terence Newman (covering Welker on 3rd downs).

 

[CATCH17]

I would have let them have Maroney and Seymoure if we could have had Henry.

 

[smarta5150]

I would have let them have Maroney and Seymoure if we could have had Henry.

I agree.

The Patriots bread and butter is the spread offense right now.

Maroney and Seymour don't fit into that equation.

We needed better coverage.

Overall penalties may have been a bigger factor in that game.

4th and 1 with a hold was a back breaker.

Oh well, there will always be February.

 

[Jack-Reacher]

I think the biggest difference in having both Henry and Newman healthy is that we can FINALLY play up on the receivers at times instead of giving these ridiculous 10 yrd cushions that we are seeing far too much of. I want to see Henry use his size and get physical on the point of attack and get these timings routes off kilter. It pisses me off to see the defense in a 3rd and 4 situation with both DB's 8yrds off the LOS.

 

[BouncingCheese]

Henry has been playing well this season, but he was also taking huge chances by jumping on the recievers routes. I know Henry isn't all that fast and not letting him jump on the routes may lead to a few first downs given up but it is better than being toasted for 60 yards to Randy Moss, Wes Welker,Ben Watson or Donte Stallworth.

Sure Henry would have helped but he was not a decisive factor in the game. The Pats simply executed perfectly.

 

[AdamJT13]

WWHHHAAATTTT???? Seymour is a perrenial ALL-PRO! Not just a Pro-Bowler, but an All-Pro. When is the world did a defensive line not make a difference, either way? The game is won & lost at the line of scrimmage----yes, I'm sure I've heard that somewhere. Not having arguably the most dominating defensive lineman in the NFL didn't make any difference?! Well, then they had better trade him for another LB, then, because this guy is just taking up space!!
Did you really write that underlined sentence? Man, some of you make me wonder why you open your mouth.

If you'd stop to actually think about what you're reading, you wouldn't have posted that. I didn't say having Seymour wouldn't make "any difference," I said it wouldn't have made a huge difference because of the way the game went.

Our running game wasn't much of a factor even without Seymour in there. We called only 14 running plays all game. Only three of those had any positive effect for us. Two of those went away from where Seymour would have been playing. So he might have eliminated ONE positive running play for us -- a third-and-1 conversion that helped lead to a field goal. Maybe he could have stuffed Barber for a loss or no gain. But most likely, considering that Adams blocked down and Davis pulled while Barber ran outside, Barber still would have gotten the 1 yard needed to pick up the first down. (Seymour would've had to have made both Adams and Davis whiff on him AND run down Barber from behind.)

And given that Seymour averages fewer than five sacks per season, it's unlikely that he would have made a huge difference in the passing game.

If we had run the ball 25 or 30 times, if we had run the ball consistently well, if we had exploited Seymour's replacement by running at him all game, if we had run for a couple of touchdowns in the red zone, THEN you could say Seymour might have made a huge difference in our running game. But none of those were the case. If he was a big-time pass-rusher who averages 12 sacks per season and must be double-teamed or accounted for in the pass rush, then you might be able to say he would have sacked Romo a few times and changed the game. But that's not the case, either.

Would he have made a difference? Of course. Every missing player makes a difference. But would it have been a huge difference? That's doubtful.

I'd be saying the same thing about Henry if the Patriots had thrown the ball only 14 times, had converted only a few third downs by the pass, had never attacked Nate Jones (who was on the field only because Henry was out) and didn't throw multiple touchdown passes. Then not having the NFL's interception leader wouldn't have been much of a factor at all. But the Patriots specifically and repeatedly attacked the weakness created by Henry's absence, and that had a huge effect on the game. That's why Henry's absence was a bigger factor in this game.

 

[AdamJT13]

Henry has been playing well this season, but he was also taking huge chances by jumping on the recievers routes. I know Henry isn't all that fast and not letting him jump on the routes may lead to a few first downs given up but it is better than being toasted for 60 yards to Randy Moss, Wes Welker,Ben Watson or Donte Stallworth.

Reeves was beaten for a 69-yard touchdown, so even if Henry had done the same, it wouldn't have been any different. But Henry is better than Reeves (who wouldn't have started if Henry was healthy) and FAR better than Nate Jones (who wouldn't have seen the field on defense if Henry was healthy).

 

[smarta5150]

Henry has been playing well this season, but he was also taking huge chances by jumping on the recievers routes. I know Henry isn't all that fast and not letting him jump on the routes may lead to a few first downs given up but it is better than being toasted for 60 yards to Randy Moss, Wes Welker,Ben Watson or Donte Stallworth.

Sure Henry would have helped but he was not a decisive factor in the game. The Pats simply executed perfectly.

Looking at Henry alone no.

But you are looking at it the wrong way.

With Henry in Jones doesn't have to see the field.

More specifically, Jones doesn't cover the slot WRs (IE Stallworth and Welker).

Newman would have been in the slot where he thrives at locking down WRs.

 

[bbgun]

You want to seduce yourself into thinking Henry would have made a profound difference? Fine. Go subtract seven points from the final score.

"No! He would have totally shut down Welker and scored two defensive TDs!"

Go lie down, sweetie. You're tired. Apologies to any Patriots fans who had to suffer through this "poor loser" thread. Not all of us are detached from reality.

 

[smarta5150]

You want to seduce yourself into thinking Henry would have made a profound difference? Fine. Go subtract seven points from the final score.

"No! He would have totally shut down Welker and scored two defensive TDs!"

Go lie down, sweetie. You're tired. Apologies to any Patriots fans who had to suffer through this "poor loser" thread. Not all of us are detached from reality.

Did anyone actually say we would have won if Henry played?

Maybe I missed it.

 

[bbgun]

Did anyone actually say we would have won if Henry played?

Maybe I missed it.

"Henry changes that game bottom line"

Gee. He must have meant we would have lost by a bigger margin, right?

 

[smarta5150]

"Henry changes that game bottom line"

Gee. He must have meant we would have lost by a bigger margin, right?

When a team loses by 21 and gives up 5 passing TDs even you can makes sense of Henry changing the game.

If not you haven't been watching our games closely enough (Henry has 4 INTs and Jones is awful).

Once again you exaggerate.

How surprising.

 

[AdamJT13]

You want to seduce yourself into thinking Henry would have made a profound difference? Fine. Go subtract seven points from the final score.

"No! He would have totally shut down Welker and scored two defensive TDs!"

Maybe you should watch the Cowboys sometime, and you wouldn't be saying stupid things.

Henry doesn't play the slot. Never has and never will. If you had ever watched the Cowboys, you'd know this.

Welker beat Nate Jones and Greg Ellis repeatedly for key third-down conversions that led to points and touchdowns that scored points. How many times would he have beaten Newman for third-down conversions? Maybe a couple?

And even if you subtract only seven points from the Patriots' score, it's a completely different game in the fourth quarter -- we'd have a chance to tie when we got inside the 10 with 10 minutes left, and we'd be down only seven points when we got the ball with four minutes left. There's a huge difference in the play calling when you need one score compared to needing two scores with four minutes left.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Maybe you should watch the Cowboys sometime, and you wouldn't be saying stupid things.

Whether he watches or doesn't watch, it doesn't matter.

 

[RomoFan4ever]

Whether he watches or doesn't watch, it doesn't matter.

Honestly, we're 5-1, and I'm happy-many teams in the league would KILL for that record. But instead, we're bickering and complaining. First it's the refs fault, then it's b/c the Pats "play dirty", then it was b/c of the slow starts, then it's b/c "we didn't have much of a pass rush", then it's b/c "Romo's a little boy", then it's b/c "the REAL penalties killed us-thank you Kyle Kosiar", then it's b/c "Wade and Garrett made bad coaching calls", etc, etc.

Personally, when Malroney, Watson, Morris, Seymour, Harrison(at less than 100%) were out, I was LICKING MY CHOPS at that pt. And now we're complaining about ONE GUY??

 

[CATCH17]

I agree.

The Patriots bread and butter is the spread offense right now.

Maroney and Seymour don't fit into that equation.

We needed better coverage.

Overall penalties may have been a bigger factor in that game.

4th and 1 with a hold was a back breaker.

Oh well, there will always be February.

Penalties definetely hurt us because of the catch up game we were having to play but if Henry is out there I dont even think we are trailing nearly as much and there for we dont have to play a perfect game.

I was at the game and watched it on tape and it was absolutely awful watching them just dink and dunk on us knowing we could do nothing to stop it.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Watson and Morris played. Both were knocked out.

Seymour would have impacted little as Adam already discussed.

Maroney probably wouldn't have fared much better seeing that the Pats were pass happy and exploited Nate Jones, who sucks right now, and who's presence Henry would have obviously obviated.

And it's not a complaint. It's called a discussion. They happen on forums.

 

[bbgun]

When a team loses by 21 and gives up 5 passing TDs even you can makes sense of Henry changing the game.

If not you haven't been watching our games closely enough (Henry has 4 INTs and Jones is awful).

Once again you exaggerate.

How surprising.

So you agree with me that the point of this thread was to suggest that Henry could have tipped the final score in our favor--not just made it less of a blowout. That is deluded; that is insulting to our opponents; that is poor sportsmanship. Henry is a steady if unspectacular corner with a knack for taking advantage of lousy QBs (Green and Grossman). I don't see Brady trembling in fear at his presence, nor do I see Henry making up 21 points all by his lonesome. Go sell crazy somewhere else.