mgteich

Would it be so unreasonable to have 5 receivers with 50 catches each? Perhaps five from: Caldwell, Gaffney, Faulk, Watson, Jackson and Brown? Might Graham or Thomas contribute more? Might Maroney?

This would more than equal the 234 catches from the top 5 in 2005. 2005 was the year the team set passing records, and almost equal the total of 256 from the top 6.

Caldwell, Gaffney, Watson and Jackson all have speed.

I understand that Jackson might not pan out and that Brown might retire.

However, this group seems to compares favorable to the best pass offense in recent memory. Should we really expect MORE than 250 catches from our top five? or from our top six (give Jackson and Brown 25 each)?

================================================

The real issue is the confidence of Josh and Brady with the receivers. They decided that this group wasn't good enough to count on in crunch time. In fact they decided that NONE was reliable enough to get 11 yards in two tries.

How will these six (including Brown or a mid-level free agant replacement) look to Tom after a full camp, preseason and a full season? Should we expect this group to be MUCH BETTER than this year's group? I would think so.

Of course, we will bring in at least three more receivers for camp, perhaps including a first or second rounder. However, we do seem to be in reasonable shape, even without a top addition.

mgteich

You and I could both try out. We still could. I'll write the game plan, and you call the plays.

JoeSixPat

I think there's too much focus on numbers of catches. I remember one game where Caldwell had 8 catches - and averaged 4 yards per catch.

Caldwell, Gaffney, Faulk and Watson might have speed - but that speed was only good for 12-13 yards a catch.

Sorry if I'm a broken record here, but having someone who can average closer to 20 yds per catch, even if they only catch 30 balls a season, is what we really need.

That will keep defenses off the backs of all our mid to short yardage receivers, give RBs more running room and limit pressure on Brady - as well as giving us the occasional big play.

No doubt some of our TEs can occasionally break a big one, but no defense is going to worry about a 250 lb. player being a consistent deep threat.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bertil

I think Randy Vataha is a Free Agent.

...so is Gene Washington
and the other Gene Washington
and Don Maynard
Max McGee has demonstrated he can play at an avanced age also.

I believe that's five.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

DarrylS

The 5 receivers over 50 could happen, and Jackson will probably be a major player. There is also Dave Thomas and Garrett Mills, so the ball will be spread out a lot amongst quite a few.

Hopefully, Maroney, Dillon, Faulk and Evans will be healthy and we will play a more complimentary game with less dependence on the passing game. I don't care how it happens, just as long as we win and prove all of the naysayers wrong once again.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

Gumby

Look, I think this is the most unrealistic thing I can think of.

As soon as you have 2 let alone 3, 4 or 5 wrs who can stretch the field and make plays and be a threat WHAT HAPPENS...................


You open up the playing field for the running game.

And if you don't think BB wouldn't love to go run, pass, run, pass, run, pass, run (with a few runs thrown in just to do something different) and keep the clock ticking rather than be some new StL Lambs / Indy Dolts /Buffy K-Gun shoot em up offense than I am not sure what team you have been watching.

mgteich

I think we used to have 5 receivers over 50. Note that only three are expected to be wide receivers.