mgteich

With the patriots not using the tight end and running backs much as receivers, it is time to accept that in order for Brady to have enough weapons, we need five wide receivers that are able to be significant contributers.

For me, Tate is the #5 for now, with Patten, Aiken and Stanback as alternatives if he fails.
===========
We have no #2 or #4. Moss is a fine #1 and Edelman is a fine #3 (slot) wide receiver.
==============

I have said that the offense is almost set with regard to roster, needing only 2 TE's, 2 WR's and a RB upgrade. The other 20 positions are fine. However, this is a tall order when we continue to pass on receivers and tight ends, even in these first week or so. Every day a receiver option goes away. It is early, but as of now, even ignoring Brady, we are one injury away from total disaster on the offense. If we want to consider ourselves a Super Bowl, we should be able to play without Moss for at least some of the year. We know that Welker is no playing anyn time soon; it's not like he got injured in Game 1.

emoney_33

How many times do you think the Patriots lined up in 5 WR formation in the past? (I'm talking 5 WR not empty backfield)

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who do not.

DW Toys

You have a valid point.
DW Toys

tanked_as_usual

not sure what was wrong with the charlie weis way of doing things where the the general impression NFL-wide was the amazement with the number of different targets that would be used in any given game...you used to hear '3 or more receptions by 6 different targets'

does the offense really need to be that 'dynamic'?

sieglo

Injuries, bro. Think about it.

mgteich

In order to run the 4 receiver set, we need at least five receivers. There are different roles. In addition, there are injuries. Finally, if one of your five isn't devloping well, or playing well, you need to have options.

My personal best case is to have two tight ends who can block and catch passes, as well as three recieving running backs. We have decided not to go in that direction.

In 2007, we could count on Faulk and Watson running deep as receiver options. So, we needed only three receivers. We had Moss and Welker. For part of the year Stallworth was productive and for the rest, Gaffney was productive. Faulk was also a major part of the short passing game. Faulk WAS the #4 receiver and Watson the #5.

QUOTE=emoney_33;1756910]How many times do you think the Patriots lined up in 5 WR formation in the past? (I'm talking 5 WR not empty backfield)[/QUOTE]

Warren94

surprised Reed wasn't offered a contract. He would be a good addition to this team.

blackcat54

No, it doesn't, but you need NFL caliber receivers to make it work. I don't think Stanbach fits this criteria, and even though I hope he can still play, Patten probably doesn't either.

alvinnf

That's what we need to get back to. We used to operate out of twin TE's more frequently. Allot more under center for Brady and play action. Move the chains, not chuck and duck! We need TE's and recievers at this point. The reason lesser known recievers did well in the past is because there was a threat of a running game so play action was effective. With the amount of time Brady spends in the shotgun, cornerbacks need not worry about peaking into the backfield they just focus solely on their man.

robertweathers

Need a running game that demands respect and receivers that get the respect from the secondary.

Without those two things, play-action is irrelevent.

__________________
“I'm not really concerned about the other 31 teams,” - Bill Belichick

"If a player has talent and doesn't succeed, that means that they either don't want to be successful or I have failed as a coach." - Bill Belichick