Mankins with 2 TD yesterday

[Shelterdog]

I'm generally an "In BB I trust" guy, and I don't have a huge issue with the Mankins trade (especially in hindsight), but there are still a couple things I do have issue with:
 
They didn't really do this, though. Stork is young, but the other two interior spots are being manned by 32-year-old (and in the last year of his contract) Connolly and 28-year-old (and two years left) Wendell. There's still an issue with the interior OL going forward.
 
I think it's fair to posit that adding Mankins wouldn't considerably upgrade the Connolly / Stork / Wendell combination, but it took five weeks to find that group as they cycled through Cannon, Devey, and Fleming as sub-par interior options. Of those guys, Devey was the only one who saw significant time at G in the preseason. If the Pats had made the same Mankins trade at draft time and cycled through OL combinations in the preseason, it would have been one thing, but doing it on the eve of the season put the position through upheaval over the first quarter of the season, when they went 2-2 (and nearly 1-3). The trade itself was fine; the timing of the trade and the general offseason approach to the interior OL were pretty curious.

 
I agree with the bolded.  The offensive line was clearly a shitshow early on the and huge number of changes they made suggest they didn't have a good plan in place--in fact it didn't settle down until they went with their seventh different starter at guard (Wendell) after tinkering with Mankins, Klein, Devey, Cannon and Flemming. 
 
I also suspect that Wendell's starting role is a bit of a fluke--they demonstrated that they wanted a big boy out there and it seems like they love Flemming--but once the line started playing well with Wendell why mess with success. 

 

[amarshal2]

 
I agree with the bolded.  The offensive line was clearly a shitshow early on the and huge number of changes they made suggest they didn't have a good plan in place--in fact it didn't settle down until they went with their seventh different starter at guard (Wendell) after tinkering with Mankins, Klein, Devey, Cannon and Flemming. 
 
I also suspect that Wendell's starting role is a bit of a fluke--they demonstrated that they wanted a big boy out there and it seems like they love Flemming--but once the line started playing well with Wendell why mess with success. 

 
Right.  They had NO PLAN.  They didn't even bother playing Cannon at G in pre-season and then he was the week 1 opening day starter, promptly falling flat on his face.  It was a total clown show on the O-Line and very un-Belichickian.  I hope he never does something that spur of the moment again.  The nicest thing I can say about the timing is that maybe he felt like he got an unexpected offer that was so good it was worth the upheaval...but that seems doubtful.

 

[m0ckduck]

The nicest thing I can say about the timing is that maybe he felt like he got an unexpected offer that was so good it was worth the upheaval...but that seems doubtful.

Why does it seem doubtful? In appraising this trade, we haven't even gotten to (and hopefully never will) the part where Gronk goes down and Wright provides the only decent pass-receiving threat out of the TE position in his absence. Seems quite probable to me that BB got this offer and felt it made too much sense on multiple levels to pass up.

 

[amarshal2]

Why does it seem doubtful? In appraising this trade, we haven't even gotten to (and hopefully never will) the part where Gronk goes down and Wright provides the only decent pass-receiving threat out of the TE position in his absence. Seems quite probable to me that BB got this offer and felt it made too much sense on multiple levels to pass up.

Because nobody in the NFL thought this trade was a one-sided deal where one team just got absolutely fleeced by the other. If Bill wanted this type of move he could have made it. It's not like Tim Wright is one of a kind. He was maybe getting released.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with it really as it wasn't new information at the time of the trade. We all knew that for months.

 

[MainerInExile]

Right.  They had NO PLAN.  They didn't even bother playing Cannon at G in pre-season and then he was the week 1 opening day starter, promptly falling flat on his face.  It was a total clown show on the O-Line and very un-Belichickian.  I hope he never does something that spur of the moment again.  The nicest thing I can say about the timing is that maybe he felt like he got an unexpected offer that was so good it was worth the upheaval...but that seems doubtful.

 
Both Stork and Wendell had early season injuries.  Maybe BB knew he only had to make due for a couple of weeks.

 

[Phragle]

I both agree and applaud one heckuva rant.

 
Is there a TLDR version available?
 

Take pity on Phragle.  Something snapped in him when he saw Ryan "Jerry Ferrara on a strict custard diet" Wendell beating the crap out of Suh one-on-one about 15 times.

 
Well I didn't see that happen. Sunday was Wendell's worst game of the year, and Suh dominated him. You only have to watch the first few series (but I know you're not a big film guy so your comments don't surprise me) before it's clear BB made an adjustment.  It was ugly if Wendell wasn't getting help from Vollmer or Stork. And despite destroying him regularly last year I don't dislike Wendell at all, only his past performance. By all accounts he's a nice guy and a hard worker, but his physical limitations are apparent.
 

I disagree with Phragle's opinion on the trade, but think he's getting piled on a little hard here.

 
Don't worry about me Stitch. I know I'm right, it doesn't matter how many fanboys tell me I suck.

 

[lexrageorge]

I think the issue here is that Belichick's assessment of the 2014 Mankins is less glowing than the assessment of those that hated the trade.  As to the timing, it was probably influenced by what Belichick saw of Mankins during training camp and the preseason, the preseason injuries to Stork and Wendell, and the fact the trade opportunity opened up when it did.  Had Belichick attempted to trade Mankins earlier, it's quite possible he would not have found someone willing to give up both a 4th round pick and a tight end.  Finding a team that wanted to cut a 2nd year TE that had 54 catches in his rookie season just made it all the easier (and perhaps Tampa doesn't cut Wright if Myers or Sefarian-Jenkins go down in the preseason).  I can't really blame Belichick the GM from attempting to maximize the return. 
 
The other calculus is that the coaching staff probably decided that they could use the first few games to evaluate exactly what type of team they really have; I've heard this before from other sources (first 4 games to decide what you need; next 4 to fix it; etc.).  Interior line may not be a strength of this team, but with Stork coming along they probably decided can live with Connolly/Cannon and Wendell, who's been OK recently (I'm willing to give him a pass on his supposed struggles against a perennial All-Pro).  

 

[nazz45]

Well I didn't see that happen. Sunday was Wendell's worst game of the year, and Suh dominated him. You only have to watch the first few series (but I know you're not a big film guy so your comments don't surprise me) before it's clear BB made an adjustment.  It was ugly if Wendell wasn't getting help from Vollmer or Stork. And despite destroying him regularly last year I don't dislike Wendell at all, only his past performance. By all accounts he's a nice guy and a hard worker, but his physical limitations are apparent.

 
Are we sure about this? No question protection was slid to Suh's side when possible, leaving Connolly man-on-man most often (and Connolly allowed 4 of the 6 QB hits and/or hurries on the day - one nullified by offsetting penalties). But I didn't see any actual adjustment - that seemed to be the plan from the start.

But Wendell feared pretty well for what he was asked to do. And on the handful of occasions he had man-block assignments, I charted no negative plays in pass pro (edit correction - I have one negative on a batted ball at the line by Caraun Reid). He also may have saved Brady’s life on an A gap blitz from Levy (Q1 5:47) - Wendell peeled off a double-team just in time to pick him up. Levy still knocked Brady down but could have been a lot worse.

He did struggle with Suh against the run a bit (3 negative plays).

I see Wendell as an average performer overall this year - and that’s after a string of pretty competitive games (Wendell’s performance last week against the Colts may have been his best as a run blocker this season). I see his performance against the Lions as solid - aided by both the quick passing game and emphasis on sliding Stork to Suh’s side, but certainly not worst game ever material.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Yeah I get that you can't evaluate trades purely from results alone, particularly if one of the traded players gets injured, but if both traded players are playing, you should also use their play to reevaluate your initial evaluations of their respective skill levels. You can't start from the implicit assumption that your initial evaluation was correct to figure out if the trade was right - that's classic begging the question.

 

[Shelterdog]

 
Are we sure about this? No question protection was slid to Suh's side when possible, leaving Connolly man-on-man most often (and Connolly allowed 4 of the 6 QB hits and/or hurries on the day - one nullified by offsetting penalties). But I didn't see any actual adjustment - that seemed to be the plan from the start.

But Wendell feared pretty well for what he was asked to do. And on the handful of occasions he had man-block assignments, I charted no negative plays in pass pro (edit correction - I have one negative on a batted ball at the line by Caraun Reid). He also may have saved Brady’s life on an A gap blitz from Levy (Q1 5:47) - Wendell peeled off a double-team just in time to pick him up. Levy still knocked Brady down but could have been a lot worse.

He did struggle with Suh against the run a bit (3 negative plays).

I see Wendell as an average performer overall this year - and that’s after a string of pretty competitive games (Wendell’s performance last week against the Colts may have been his best as a run blocker this season). I see his performance against the Lions as solid - aided by both the quick passing game and emphasis on sliding Stork to Suh’s side, but certainly not worst game ever material.

 
I actually had Wendell one on one in pass pro against Suh 11 times with no negative plays.  Which is pretty shocking because Suh tends to be really, reall good.

 

[SWHB]

Sure, now that the game has happened it's easy to say Wendell played well, but I think Phragle's right to stick to his pregame assessment - Suh against Wendell is a mismatch and clearly Wendell's worst of the season.  Looking at how it actually played out just invites hindsight bias.  Personally, I was done analyzing Wendell's play in this game the day the schedule was announced.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

 
Both Stork and Wendell had early season injuries.  Maybe BB knew he only had to make due for a couple of weeks.

I love how people overlook this.

The team wanted to try Devey out and had to push Connolly to center, knowing that Wendell was the safety net at center if it didnt work (as he was all of 2013). When Devey struggled in the first half of week 1, they went to Wendell in the second half, only Wendell got hurt on the first drive of the second half. Stork was hurt the week prior. They had their third string center (Connolly) in - who clearly struggled to decipher interior alignments on blitzes - and had him flanked by two inexperienced guards.

And were surprised they struggled? The team did have a plan for the line, but wasnt able to utilize it until Stork returned from injury.

Or Belichick had no plan and is super lucky things worked out. Whichever.

 

[Super Nomario]

The team wanted to try Devey out and had to push Connolly to center, knowing that Wendell was the safety net at center if it didnt work (as he was all of 2013). When Devey struggled in the first half of week 1, they went to Wendell in the second half, only Wendell got hurt on the first drive of the second half.

I'm with you so far.
 

Stork was hurt the week prior.

Stork was hurt much of the preseason, but he was actually healthy at that point - he played in the final preseason game and wasn't on the injury report for Week 1; he was just a healthy scratch.
 

They had their third string center (Connolly) in - who clearly struggled to decipher interior alignments on blitzes - and had him flanked by two inexperienced guards.

Not sure why you call Connolly the third-string center; he played center all preseason and beat out Wendell and Stork for the job. As for inexperienced guards, yes - but that's the criticism of the approach. That's what Belichick created by dealing Mankins and running Cannon and Devey out there.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

So because he allegedly struggled against arguably the most dominant interior DL in football (he didn't, btw), we are supposed to judge decent-ish OL Ryan Wendell and his performance in a (25-point) win on Sunday as terrible. Got it.

 

[Shelterdog]

I'm with you so far.
 
Stork was hurt much of the preseason, but he was actually healthy at that point - he played in the final preseason game and wasn't on the injury report for Week 1; he was just a healthy scratch.
 
Not sure why you call Connolly the third-string center; he played center all preseason and beat out Wendell and Stork for the job. As for inexperienced guards, yes - but that's the criticism of the approach. That's what Belichick created by dealing Mankins and running Cannon and Devey out there.

 
Stork had missed a bunch of practice time.  I suspect they wanted him to start eventually but didn't quite think he was ready to start on the road against a good defensive line in week 1. 

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Sure, now that the game has happened it's easy to say Wendell played well, but I think Phragle's right to stick to his pregame assessment - Suh against Wendell is a mismatch and clearly Wendell's worst of the season.  Looking at how it actually played out just invites hindsight bias.  Personally, I was done analyzing Wendell's play in this game the day the schedule was announced.

 
This needs some love.

 

[DJnVa]

Yeah, that's a slow clapper.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Sure, now that the game has happened it's easy to say Wendell played well, but I think Phragle's right to stick to his pregame assessment - Suh against Wendell is a mismatch and clearly Wendell's worst of the season.  Looking at how it actually played out just invites hindsight bias.  Personally, I was done analyzing Wendell's play in this game the day the schedule was announced.

I came all over this post. Not really a slow clap so much as Miagi hot rub.

 

[Tony C]

Sure, now that the game has happened it's easy to say Wendell played well, but I think Phragle's right to stick to his pregame assessment - Suh against Wendell is a mismatch and clearly Wendell's worst of the season.  Looking at how it actually played out just invites hindsight bias.  Personally, I was done analyzing Wendell's play in this game the day the schedule was announced.

 
 

 
This needs some love.

 
I'll join the love-fest...

 

[Ralphwiggum]

I had the same argument with Phragle after the draft. No need to see how players actually end up doing. You can assess a draft pick the moment it is made and whatever happens next is irrelevant.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

I hope he's happy to pay me out top dollar for this Enron stock I've got here - when I bought it, it was a great investment, surely that's all we need to know to judge the returns I ought to be due.

 

[crystalline]

I had the same argument with Phragle after the draft. No need to see how players actually end up doing. You can assess a draft pick the moment it is made and whatever happens next is irrelevant.

The confusion is because people are squashing two different ideas together: process, and results.

You can evaluate a trade right when it's made, using all the available information to see if the decision was good. That's process. The player you got may turn out to be good or bad, that's results.

Front offices and teams should have good processes to make decisions, because they don't get to see the future and know what the results are. But Super Bowl trophies are awarded on the basis of results.

This distinction between process and results is very general: process is about making the best prediction about what will happen in the future, and results are about what has happened in the past.
In baseball, ERA and OPS are useful process stats because they predict future performance, but RBI and wins are useful for handing out MVP awards because they describe what actually happened. Same with buying stocks: many people made what looked like a good decision on buying Enron but all trades have a chance of going wrong and they got burned. Or with blackjack: if you hit on 19 that's a bad process decision. You might get a two which ia a great result but that doesn't make the process any better, it just means you got lucky that one time.


Phragle is making a process argument which is why he said he's done evaluating after the trade happened. Most others here are making a results argument.

I agree that the results have been great and I think no one can really argue with that (though "you're never as good as you look when you win").

Phragle's point on trade process can be argued, though. I think Belichick did the right thing to dump salary and trade Mankins on the downside. But given that bad interior line play hurt the Pats in every recent playoff loss I remember, one could certainly argue that even a reduced Mankins might be nice for depth this year.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

But given that bad interior line play hurt the Pats in every recent playoff loss I remember...

Mankins was part of that bad interior line play though right?

 

[crystalline]

Mankins was part of that bad interior line play though right?

Yeah. Let's hope the interior line has gotten better, not worse. Early returns look promising.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Crystalline - I agree in principle, but a lot of what has happened since the trade was made has revealed information that was available to insiders like BB before the trade was made.  It helps us evaluate whether a good decision was made by Belichick at the time of the trade.
 
And take a look at other points made here - many of them are things that were factors that could be considered ex-ante, like the need for cap relief or getting younger.  Furthermore, some of the factors that we're now saying are in the Pats' favor (e.g. a healthy Brady, a well-performing OL) were merely risks at the time, which BB had to evaluate, but where the results at this point can help illustrate why we may have overestimated the probability of some of those risks.
 
Finally, a lot of Phragle's reasoning involved stuff that happened after the trade, like "Wendell got rocked by Suh".  He only backtracked to "there's no need to evaluate a trade based on results!" after people called out his clearly-faulty support for his conclusion.  You can't have it both ways.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I'm with you so far.
 
Stork was hurt much of the preseason, but he was actually healthy at that point - he played in the final preseason game and wasn't on the injury report for Week 1; he was just a healthy scratch.
 
Not sure why you call Connolly the third-string center; he played center all preseason and beat out Wendell and Stork for the job. As for inexperienced guards, yes - but that's the criticism of the approach. That's what Belichick created by dealing Mankins and running Cannon and Devey out there.

 
 

 
Stork had missed a bunch of practice time.  I suspect they wanted him to start eventually but didn't quite think he was ready to start on the road against a good defensive line in week 1. 

 
Yep. Messed my timeline up, although I think Shelterdog still illustrates the point. A rookie center - we know what the necessities are for succeeding in this particular position, so I won't rehash them - missed a large chunk of preseason. Declaring that Connolly "beat out" Wendell and Stork for the job doesn't seem genuine. 
 
More to the point, the Connolly-Devey center-right guard combo played poorly enough in the first half of the Dolphins game that they brought in Wendell to play C after 17 snaps (and shift Connolly to right guard). They gave Connolly-Devey another shot after their best drive of the game (occurred with Wendell at C), and the duo played poorly again. The team started the 2nd half with Wendell at center (a statement, in my opinion, about who they thought earned the second half start), only to see him suffer an injury in the drive that knocked him out for a few weeks. I think if Stork were to miss a game next week that Wendell would be the backup center, not Connolly (and, fwiw, I think Wendell is better at center as well).
 
I don't think it's accurate to say that Connolly "beat out Wendell and Stork for the job". I think it's oversimplifying the situation. The team wanted to test their depth. The team also suffered 2 injuries (Stork/Wendell) to 1 position. I think that if you want to criticize the Mankins trade, a good place to start would be depth on the interior line, and not the inexperienced guards. Without injuries, Wendell/Connolly have plenty of experience between them.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

I completely get the process vs results distinction. I just think it is important to look at both. If your awesome process yields shitty results over and over again I think you need to reevaluate the process.

 

[Super Nomario]

Yep. Messed my timeline up, although I think Shelterdog still illustrates the point. A rookie center - we know what the necessities are for succeeding in this particular position, so I won't rehash them - missed a large chunk of preseason. Declaring that Connolly "beat out" Wendell and Stork for the job doesn't seem genuine.

My point with respect to Stork is that it's not like they traded Mankins and then Stork got hurt, which would be unfortunate timing and understandable. At the time of the trade, they already knew Stork had missed a lot of time and was behind and not ready - and even with the struggles of the OL, they didn't start Stork until Week 4.
 

More to the point, the Connolly-Devey center-right guard combo played poorly enough in the first half of the Dolphins game that they brought in Wendell to play C after 17 snaps (and shift Connolly to right guard). They gave Connolly-Devey another shot after their best drive of the game (occurred with Wendell at C), and the duo played poorly again. The team started the 2nd half with Wendell at center (a statement, in my opinion, about who they thought earned the second half start), only to see him suffer an injury in the drive that knocked him out for a few weeks.

They were rotating a fair amount early in the season and it's hard to tell what was a response to performance and what was by design.
 

I think if Stork were to miss a game next week that Wendell would be the backup center, not Connolly (and, fwiw, I think Wendell is better at center as well).

Yes, and as evidence in Week 6 when Stork missed the game Wendell started at C and Connolly at LG. To me, this makes Connolly starting at C at the beginning of the season more strange and inexplicable, not less.
 

The team wanted to test their depth.

What do you mean by this?

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

My point with respect to Stork is that it's not like they traded Mankins and then Stork got hurt, which would be unfortunate timing and understandable. At the time of the trade, they already knew Stork had missed a lot of time and was behind and not ready - and even with the struggles of the OL, they didn't start Stork until Week 4.

 
Which doesn't negate that the team could have seen enough from Stork physically to feel comfortable that he would start when he got a few weeks of mental preparation in.
 

 
They were rotating a fair amount early in the season and it's hard to tell what was a response to performance and what was by design.

 
That's fair. I'm simply putting the most likely possibility (in my opinion) as reality, but that doesn't make it true.
 

 
Yes, and as evidence in Week 6 when Stork missed the game Wendell started at C and Connolly at LG. To me, this makes Connolly starting at C at the beginning of the season more strange and inexplicable, not less.

 

 
 
What do you mean by this?

 
I think these are entwined. The team already knew what they had with Wendell at center. They had no idea what they had with Cannon on the interior, with Kline in real game action, with Devey getting starter reps. Connolly hadn't started a game at center in 3 years. This is me projecting (again) but it almost felt like with the Stork injury and Mankins trade, the Patriots used the opportunity to see what they actually had for options at some of these positions.
 
People (not you) keep acting as if the Patriots lucked out and stumbled upon some successful line combination, when the reality is that this is the lineup that we layman folk thought had the best chance to succeed since day 1. I'd like to think the team used early and less meaningful games as a way to test what they didn't know. The line had been solid and the team has been happy enough to start Wendell at center for 2012 & 2013. Do we really think that they wanted to replace him with Connolly, the guy that he essentially replaced at center? Or did they want to see what Connolly could do at center if they needed him there?
 
Do we really think the Patriots wanted to replace Connolly - a player that was a starter for the team in one form or another since 2010 - with a non-drafted practice squad player in Devey (especially after just trading away their other starting guard) or did they want to take the opportunity of early season reps to see what he could do?
 
I have faith that this team wasn't plugging players in and simply hoping that things worked. I think they were dealt some injuries and also used early season reps to give some of these guys a trial by fire. Either that or BB had no plan when trading Mankins, thought that any player could fill in and start along the interior, and lucked out that he found a good rotation (ironically utilizing the same players who have had success with him for the past 3-5 years).

 

[Super Nomario]

Which doesn't negate that the team could have seen enough from Stork physically to feel comfortable that he would start when he got a few weeks of mental preparation in.

This may be true, but there's some risk there.
 

I think these are entwined. The team already knew what they had with Wendell at center. They had no idea what they had with Cannon on the interior, with Kline in real game action, with Devey getting starter reps. Connolly hadn't started a game at center in 3 years. This is me projecting (again) but it almost felt like with the Stork injury and Mankins trade, the Patriots used the opportunity to see what they actually had for options at some of these positions.

I think this is probably at least partly true, but again there's some risk here - the interior OL was a major problem the first four weeks and the offense was pretty bad. This was my point about timing upthread - if they'd made the trade at draft time and used the preseason for this kind of testing, that would have made a lot more sense to me than using the first quarter of real games that count to screw around.
 

 People (not you) keep acting as if the Patriots lucked out and stumbled upon some successful line combination, when the reality is that this is the lineup that we layman folk thought had the best chance to succeed since day 1. I'd like to think the team used early and less meaningful games as a way to test what they didn't know. The line had been solid and the team has been happy enough to start Wendell at center for 2012 & 2013. Do we really think that they wanted to replace him with Connolly, the guy that he essentially replaced at center? Or did they want to see what Connolly could do at center if they needed him there?

They straight up did replace Wendell with Connolly at C to begin the year. He got starter's reps in the preseason, and he started over Wendell to begin the regular season. So that does look like to me what happened. I have a hard time believing they thought Wendell was a better C but decided to start the worse player on purpose just to see what they had.
 
My impression wasn't that Wendell played C and Connolly G because Wendell was better at C but because they were two of the five best OL and Wendell fit better at C as a smaller guy.
 

 Do we really think the Patriots wanted to replace Connolly - a player that was a starter for the team in one form or another since 2010 - with a non-drafted practice squad player in Devey (especially after just trading away their other starting guard) or did they want to take the opportunity of early season reps to see what he could do?

I can't honestly say I have the foggiest idea what they saw in Devey that led them to believe he could or should play. But it's worth noting he wasn't replacing Connolly - Connolly has been a consistent starter all year, he was just starting at C rather than G to start with.
 

 I have faith that this team wasn't plugging players in and simply hoping that things worked. I think they were dealt some injuries and also used early season reps to give some of these guys a trial by fire. Either that or BB had no plan when trading Mankins, thought that any player could fill in and start along the interior, and lucked out that he found a good rotation (ironically utilizing the same players who have had success with him for the past 3-5 years).

I think it's somewhere between. I'm going to give Belichick more credit than to assume he knew the Cannon / Connolly / Devey interior would be as much of a disaster as it was. I do think he recognized there was risk there but felt like between Stork, Wendell, Fleming, and Kline he had options to find an adequate combination.
 
We also shouldn't oversell how good the current OL is. They're 22nd in rushing average, and while they've allowed few sacks a lot of that is Brady. Against Detroit they threw screens on third-and-long because they didn't have faith in the OL to hold up.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

One thing's for sure. From all accounts Logan Mankins is, most of the time, a prince off the field. And this whole situation has to be a real bummer for him. (And, conversely, manna from heaven for Tim Wright - and whoever we draft in early round four next April.)

 

[Deathofthebambino]

 
We also shouldn't oversell how good the current OL is. They're 22nd in rushing average, and while they've allowed few sacks a lot of that is Brady. Against Detroit they threw screens on third-and-long because they didn't have faith in the OL to hold up.

 
I know you know this, but rushing average is a pretty terrible statistic to use to gauge how well an offensive line is playing, particularly when you have an offense that is running a shotgun/passing/spread offense a significant part of the time.  In addition, the team lost it's starting running back to injury, and has used what, 3, 4 different guys as their primary back since that time.  Further, they've been in quite a few blowout wins recently, and when teams are winning and trying to start burning some clock, they go away from the pass, and the defense knows this too.  When you run as little as the Pats do when the game is still in doubt (and you can't just cite their rush vs. passing play numbers because it still doesn't take into context when they are running to salt away a game, which I would bet accounts for at least 20% of their running plays), it doesn't take a whole lot of "bad" running plays to skew the numbers (small sample and all that). Conversely, two of the Pats best games when looking at rushing average were the games they lost, because when playing from behind, the opponent starts defending the pass, opening up holes for the running game. 
 
Also, let's be clear here.  They aren't really 22nd in the NFL in rushing average.  They are averaging 4.0 ypc and are tied with 7 other teams (17th-23rd) at that number.  You only get to 22nd if you take it out a couple of decimal places to the hundredth of a yard. 
 
I think if you want to gauge how well they are actually doing blocking the run, you need to look at the games and see if they were able to get the yards when they needed them.  I haven't thought to myself too many times this year "If only the Pats could get that yard or two with the running game," or "Fuck, they blew that one because they couldn't run the ball."  In fact, it's the exact opposite.  I'm screaming at the TV a lot for them to actually run the ball more because it's working.  Look at what they did to Indy when they committed to the run.  If you take that game out of the stat sheets, Indy falls around 10th in the NFL in yards per game given up.  6 of the teams the Pats have faced this year are currently in the top 12 in rushing defense in the NFL, and it would probably be more if it weren't for the Pats numbers against them. I just don't believe there has been much, if any, evidence that shows that the O line's run blocking has been anything other than well above average, and could even be better than that if they were asked to do more of it.
 
The last part of your post about them going to the quick screen on third and long is simply not true.  It has nothing to do with the play of the offensive line.  The Patriots have been running quick bubble screens and draw plays on third and long forever.  It's pretty much a staple of McDaniels' offense, and BB's strategy of taking your medicine and punting, rather than forcing something and making a mistake.  Draw plays and screens tend to work on 2nd and 3rd and long, more than they do at other times, because you're hoping to catch the defense in a blitz as they are thinking you need to drop back and sit in the pocket for a long time to get off a pass on a route that's long enough to make a first down.  It is nothing close to an indictment of the offensive line, or evidence of a lack of faith in them to protect Brady.  Brady has been sacked 5 times in the past 7 weeks, twice in the past 4 and once in the past 3.  And these were against Denver, Detroit, Buffalo, Cincy, even the Jets have a very good defensive line.   Sure, I'm willing to agree that Brady has a lot to do with that, but come on, if you can't credit the offensive line for not giving up sacks, you just aren't going to be willing to give them credit for anything. 

 

[Super Nomario]

I know you know this, but rushing average is a pretty terrible statistic to use to gauge how well an offensive line is playing, particularly when you have an offense that is running a shotgun/passing/spread offense a significant part of the time.  In addition, the team lost it's starting running back to injury, and has used what, 3, 4 different guys as their primary back since that time.  Further, they've been in quite a few blowout wins recently, and when teams are winning and trying to start burning some clock, they go away from the pass, and the defense knows this too.  When you run as little as the Pats do when the game is still in doubt (and you can't just cite their rush vs. passing play numbers because it still doesn't take into context when they are running to salt away a game, which I would bet accounts for at least 20% of their running plays), it doesn't take a whole lot of "bad" running plays to skew the numbers (small sample and all that). Conversely, two of the Pats best games when looking at rushing average were the games they lost, because when playing from behind, the opponent starts defending the pass, opening up holes for the running game. 
 
Also, let's be clear here.  They aren't really 22nd in the NFL in rushing average.  They are averaging 4.0 ypc and are tied with 7 other teams (17th-23rd) at that number.  You only get to 22nd if you take it out a couple of decimal places to the hundredth of a yard. 
 
I think if you want to gauge how well they are actually doing blocking the run, you need to look at the games and see if they were able to get the yards when they needed them.  I haven't thought to myself too many times this year "If only the Pats could get that yard or two with the running game," or "Fuck, they blew that one because they couldn't run the ball."  In fact, it's the exact opposite.  I'm screaming at the TV a lot for them to actually run the ball more because it's working.  Look at what they did to Indy when they committed to the run.  If you take that game out of the stat sheets, Indy falls around 10th in the NFL in yards per game given up.  6 of the teams the Pats have faced this year are currently in the top 12 in rushing defense in the NFL, and it would probably be more if it weren't for the Pats numbers against them. I just don't believe there has been much, if any, evidence that shows that the O line's run blocking has been anything other than well above average, and could even be better than that if they were asked to do more of it.

You make some fair points, but you also have to consider that the Patriots run a game plan offense where they run the ball a lot against poor run Ds (like Indy and Minnesota) and hardly run at all against teams with good run Ds (like Denver and Detroit). So that skews the numbers, too, because the Patriots are going to run disproportionately against weaker run Ds. They ran three times as much against the Colts as they did against the Jets, for instance. When I look at the way the Patriots call plays, it seems to me that the coaching staff has confidence that they can run the ball against certain teams and almost no confidence that they can run the ball against other teams. That doesn't suggest "well above average" to me, and I 100% disagree that they would be running more effectively if they ran more. The run D isn't terrible; I don't think it's great, either. It's adequate, mostly.
 

The last part of your post about them going to the quick screen on third and long is simply not true.  It has nothing to do with the play of the offensive line.  The Patriots have been running quick bubble screens and draw plays on third and long forever.  It's pretty much a staple of McDaniels' offense, and BB's strategy of taking your medicine and punting, rather than forcing something and making a mistake.  Draw plays and screens tend to work on 2nd and 3rd and long, more than they do at other times, because you're hoping to catch the defense in a blitz as they are thinking you need to drop back and sit in the pocket for a long time to get off a pass on a route that's long enough to make a first down.  It is nothing close to an indictment of the offensive line, or evidence of a lack of faith in them to protect Brady.  Brady has been sacked 5 times in the past 7 weeks, twice in the past 4 and once in the past 3.  And these were against Denver, Detroit, Buffalo, Cincy, even the Jets have a very good defensive line.   Sure, I'm willing to agree that Brady has a lot to do with that, but come on, if you can't credit the offensive line for not giving up sacks, you just aren't going to be willing to give them credit for anything.

I think they've improved, and I don't think they're terrible. I just don't think they're nearly as good as the surface sack numbers show. A quarterback with a slower release or less pocket awareness than Brady would have taken quite a few more sacks in recent weeks. Again, I'm looking at the playcalling; they've passed a lot out of play action some games, with more max protect than I remember in the past. Against teams like Detroit with tough DLs, they spread it out of the shotgun and throw short, because they don't have confidence they can run or execute slow-developing pass plays.
 
The OL has been good enough since Week 5 given the other pieces. If Brady went down or they had a rash of skill position injuries like in 2013, I think we'd see that there are quite a few chinks in the armor.