I know there are a thousand threads, but i have a few questions First, did he play yesterday? If not who was playing besides Thomas, Harris, Scott. I was also curious what the D will look like when Pace comes back and who will be getting less time. If he isn't cracking the lineup with pace out, I doubt he sees any time when he comes back. Guy can't play special teams and rex doesn't have the confidence in him to play him. I have heard all the hit we would take cutting him, but he seems like a waist of a roster space to me.
no, he played very minimal. There were alot of Nickle and Dime sets that Gholston did not see much time in.
Yeah, Gholston played yesterday. He didn't do anything noteworthy, but then again he didn't fuck anything up too bad either, which is a success in it of itself. This defense will be scary when Pace comes back. He is without a doubt our best passrushing LB.
It was almost like Rex was afraid to put #50 on the field against the Pats yesterday because they would target him.
I think it was more due to gameplanning than Vernon. Brady was in shotgun most of the game, three and four wide.
I think anything we get from Gholston at this point will be gravy. I'm looking forward to Pace returning. I will be shocked if Gholston registers a single sack over the next two weeks. The Patriots are clearly a pass first team and our corners and safeties are good enough against the run that we didn't really need him. I think Westerman didn't see much time either. I am looking forward to having Pace back against Miami. -X-
Lots of nickel sets, but I do agree with Abyz, it seemed like Gholston's limited play may have also been forethought.
was just wondering the same thing about gholston and westerman and was checking box score, no tackles for gholston and an assist credited to westerman, for that matter, murrell, trusnik are listed in tackles category, but those could be special teams tackles? It almost seemed yesterday that eric smith was the 4th LB. he played up on the line, covered TE's.
there was one run that went to his side for 8-10 yards. but with the spread the Pats were running he has no place on the field. its funny how before this game analysts said the pats would just spread the Jets out to beat the scheme we play. But I still wonder how closer that game is with Welker in there.
It is sad when you are hesitant to put a #6 pick on the field. But, I support that he must earn his time out there and if he doesn't pan out, so be it.
I honestly didn't think he played and I watched the entire game. Can we please, please not draft any more players from Ohio State?? Nuge, Schlegel, Gholston......<sigh>
Gholston was no doubt a ghost in the last game, but when we played Houston, he did well. I think it was only because of the defensive schemes that he was kept out most of the game against the Pats. We haven't heard anything else -- any rumors -- have we? I think he'll have a lot of playing time against the Titans. If we had to rely on him, maybe it would be a concern. But we have such an awesome defense, as long as he doesn't totally f up, his play (or non-play) doesn't hurt us. But I think he'll be playing in the next game, and I think he'll do alright -- as long as Bart Scott gets in his face and lights a fire under his a$$.
Not to say he is Welker but Edelman was their leading reciever and I thought he played pretty well... especially considered he played QB in college. Trick play QB, returner, Welker's substitute... I think this guy will have a good future with the Pats.
It's already been hit on by some-- that the # of nickel and dime packages kept Gholston off the field quite a bit, but someone else also noticed a severe lack of Westerman. I think Ryan knew what he was getting into in this game, and kept them off the field b/c of the number of ways that TE's and Faulk could exploit the 2 of them. Maybe had to do with lack of experience, maybe lack of agility/range in coverage, maybe not up to snuff on their film study and assignment(s) responsibilities. I did notice Murrell, I think, playing some DE in the 2nd half.
