mgteich

As of now, we seem likey to go into Game One with Caldwell, Brown and Childress as our wide receivers.

None have great separation. None will require a double team.

When WR's aren't double teamed, the defense gets at least one free defensive players to help out on the run and on the TE's and RB's out of the backfield.

JackBauer

Hopefully Jackson will return and be ready to contribute.

Amnorix

"Good" WRs are as necessary as good players at any other position. But is a "TOP" WR needed to win in this league, including to win a Super Bowl? Heck no.

Just look at our '01 SB winner... Or the Ravens' team when they won it all.

patchick

I think it's fair to say that a WR corps of Caldwell, Brown, Childress and Kight is extremely weak and will limit the offense in exactly the ways you describe. Right now teams are likely to cheat up close and dare the likes of Bam Childress to beat them.

I think it's also fair to say that a WR corps of Branch, Caldwell, Brown and Jackson is more than respectable and should open up ample opportunities for the powerhouse RB/TE lineup.

So the question is how well the team can make do, and for how long, until corps A finally morphs into corps B. While Branch is the lynchpin, even a relatively raw Jackson should make a difference because d-backs will have to honor his speed. If Jackson can get into a few good practices before game one my bet is that they'll make do ok.

BelichickFan

On the other hand, teams could pay too little attention to our WR and allow them to actually make plays. I'm kind of kidding (although what I said has some validity) but I am confident that Jackson will be playing soon and I still say that Branch will play opening day as there is no benefit to him to hold out.

So while your point is pretty much accurate - I think it will end up being moot also.

dryheat44

While that may or may not be true (and the argument is that with the new emphasis that WR will win the majority of 1-on-1 situations), Deion didn't really require a double team either. In fact, the last WR we had that required a double team was Terry Glenn.

__________________
When it's third and 10, you can have the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -- R.I.P. Max McGee

mikey

If we can build up big leads, then I agree the WR's are not important. We can let our defense and running game take over.

But most of our games are close.

We have won many important games in the closing minutes, including the first 2 SB.

We won our most important games on the arms of Brady throwing to our WRs (Brady to Brown in SB 1 and Brady to Branch in SB 2).

If we don't have our top WR's, I just don't see how we can win the SB this year.


.

maverick4

People. We won our first superbowl with Troy Brown and David Patten. Troy Brown caught over 100 passes that year. Offense is as much scheme and play calling as it is talent.

We have enough passing weapons on WR, TE, and RB. Wide receiver will not be a problem. We also have enough speed - Watson is a freak, and so is Chad Jackson.

.

mikey

It is the opposite.

We CAN win withOUT a RB or TE.

But we cannot win without a WR.

With 81 seconds left and NO timeout and the ball at our 17 yard, how did we win our SB 1??

We THREW the damn ball.

And that's how we won all those games.

We THREW the balls and they were all caught by our WR's.

.

CopenhagenPatsfan

No one said we could win without WR's, we have plenty of them and they are needed, but we can win without a "TOP" WR, and have been doing it for years.