tombonneau

Re: Welker, I'm seeing a lot of the "Pats don't need another #2, they need a #1 WR" talk. Yet, a dynasty has been built on a fleet of #2 WRs. (Say what you want about Branch, he is not a traditional #1WR and never will be.)

Unless the Pats are going to adjust their offensive philosophy (the philosophy that has helped them become the most successful NFL franchise of the pats 6 years), don't expect them to make any sort of big investment in a #1WR.

Sure, you could argue that they drafted CJax to be that dominant #1 guy, but until it happens on the field and they start offensively game planning that way, it is what it is.

The Pats will trot out a bunch of Welkers, Caldwells, and Gaffneys and still move the ball.

And let's face it, stud #1WRs don't grow on trees. I'd say less than half the teams in the league have a strong #1 WR that defenses game plan about. So rather than try to manufacture that rare commodity, why not do what the Pats are doing?

Warren94

Nice post.

I see us taking McKnight from ND in the later rounds to have a WR corp of Gaffney, Caldwell, Welker, Jackson, McKnight, Childress

Sean Pa Patriot

I think we could use another taller reciever, I know we played with smurfs for the last 5 yrs, but I just would like another weapon for Tom Brady...

__________________

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



We going to take it one game at a time

bradmahn

But what about Brown?

Ghost of Ben Dreith

Besides just having a better player if you have a true #1, it also will make your #2 a better receiver just due to the defensive secondary having to rotate more to the #1 and leaving the #2 in single coverage more often. Guess who else would be better.....Brady.

Just because Brady gets it done without a #1, doesn't mean he wouldn't like to have a true #1.

Brady has been the epitome of the tired business bs bromides of "Do more with less" and "Work smarter, not harder".

People have posted for years asking "I wonder how Brady would do with Manning's receivers?". Brady would be better...easy answer.

TB12

I mean Brady has obviously gotten it done with the WRs hes been given, but thats not to say he wouldnt be even better with a top notch WR. Give Brady a WR corps of Harrison and Wayne and hes probaly the best player in the league.

tombonneau

Agreed, that is an easy answer.

A harder answer is, at what position are you willing to sacrifice the salary cap space to afford this elite #1WR?

I think BB looks at the entire puzzle of his team, and determines he is only willing to allot so much money to WRs. He would rather have the highest paid DL & LB in the league than two pricey WRs.

pats63

Who is open will get the ball...

patfanken

You must be reading my mind. I just finished posting on this topic in another thread. The #1 WR label was an invention of the media and has unfortunately become part of our everyday lexicon.

Part of the success of the Pats offense IS EXACTLY that we DON'T have a #1 WR. In some respects is actually HARDER to prepare a defense when you DON'T know who is going to be the focus of the passing game. With the Pats offense, who will be the primary target is determined by the coaches when they do their match up planning during the week. Depending to the personel of the defense they are facing, each week it can be a different guy.

That's why WRs don't put up great numbers here. You can't have huge numbers when the ball is being spread around to 8-10 guys EVERY weeks

BradyManny

How about that sculpted 6'1 guy we got who runs a 4.4 and despite nagging injuries and limited playing time, still showed flashes of big-play ability?