dryheat44

For those who want a WR in the first few rounds, add this name to the list if it isn't there already. A rare WR whose character matches his talent.

Through two decades of hardships, Maryland wide receiver Torrey Smith and his mother helped raise each other

__________________
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

stevedogc

I really dont understand why someone would want a WR early in the draft. We already have 3 young WR's in Tate, Price and Edelman. Why add another young, unproven 2-3 round WR who may take up playing time away from the other WR who have yet to prove anything.

And, I hate to paint brush the Pats scouting department, but they havent been the best at drafting WR's. 2002 was good in Branch and Givens, but since then it hasnt been to good. Bethel Johnson, Chad Jackson, PK Sam, Matt Slater. Price is still unproven, and Tate looks like he is more Johnson/Jackson then Branch/Givens. Edelman I have hopes for. I still think he can be a good option, but last year was a step in the wrong direction.

dryheat44

I wouldn't pick a WR before the #60 pick, but there is room for a big, fast, WR on this team. Mostly, though, I just wanted to link to what I thought was an interesting read on a player who has been mocked to NE more than once.

__________________
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

Tasco

Cut ties with Slater and draft someone new at #60 (Hankerson?Smith?). I'm sure they could do at least the same as Slater and would surely (or hopefully, with prospects you never know...) be an upgrade at WR.

BKBroiler

I'm a big fan of Hankerson's and would love to see him as a Patriot because he brings another dimension as a big receiver who can get separation to the WR group, but in no way would he be replacing Slater. Slater's position on the team is as a ST's player who can be an emergency fill in at WR or DB. If you were looking for a replacement for Slater, then it would most likely need to have to be a WR or DB who is an upgrade at their position and is an ace ST player. For example, Kendric Burney from UNC.

A receiver like Hankerson or Smith instead would most likely take playing time away from or replace Tate or Price. Although I think Hankerson is a better overall receiver and route runner, Smith would seem to fit what the Pats look for in terms of flexibility as he can also be used as a KR like Tate and Price.

Sciz

Slater is the best coverage guy on the team. Don't even consider his roster spot with the WRs. There are 5 WR spots available, and they are all full.

__________________

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

MaineMan

Depends on whether or not you count Johnson, Jackson, Sam, Slater and Tate all as actual WRs or primarily as returners with the expectation being that any other contributions they make would be more or less a bonus. There are always guys included in the roster to fulfill a specific function and whose positional designation is more or less nominal (e.g., Tracy White as an "LB"). Lumping all these guy together as "WR" as if they were intended to be #1 or even #3 positional guys is probably reading too much into their selection.

Sam and Slater were both mid-late 5th rounders, hardly enormous disasters if they don't become "starting WRs". Sam injured his groin in 2004 TC and spent his rookie year on PUP/IR. He was also injured in 2005 camp and, by the time final cuts came down, the Pats had moved on. Slater had been a WR/Safety in HS, but was almost exclusively a KR/ST/utility DB at UCLA, so it's probably stretching it to include him among "drafted WRs."

Johnson appears to have been drafted in '03 primarily to pick up Faulk's KR duties and he was okay at that, though he truly sucked at WR - way worse than Tate. Tate's 2010 "#3/4 WR" production alone nearly equaled all 3 years combined of Johnson's WR production and Tate's 2010 KR production exceeded Johnson's best-ever KR year. In Johnson's final (3rd) year with the Pats and his solitary season in Minny, he was almost exclusively a KR. Johnson was replaced as the Pats' KR by Ellis Hobbs who was much, much better.

Jackson came out as a junior having led the SEC as a WR and tied Florida's single-season receiving record. And then he put up some pretty kickass numbers at the Combine (4.32/40). He was drafted onto a Pats team that wouldn't have been hurting for WR help had the Branch thing not blown up between the draft and Camp. In that regard, Jackson probably seemed worth taking a flyer on at the time. And then he proceeded to fail at pretty much everything, of course. I'm sure there will be another one or two just like Jackson who get taken in the 2nd - by some other team (I hope).

dryheat44

Well, I'm not satisfied that a position is "full" because there are bodies on the roster. If we could get Larry Fitzgerald, for example, I'd gladly ship out any WR on the roster. I'm not going to refuse to draft a WR who represents the best value on the board because guys like Edelman, Tate, and even Price are on the roster. Get the best training camp competition you can, and let it sort itself out. Every position except for QB and NT can be improved upon.

Second, there are no set number of slots per position on our roster. We've had a year we've carred 4 QBs, and others that we've carried 2. The number of OLs and DLs year to year has fluctuated. A couple of years ago we broke camp with a lot of WRs and few RBs on the roster.

Third, even if there was a limit of slots per position, if rosters expand per the next CBA, there's a couple more roster slots to play with.

__________________
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

Sciz

The spots are full in the sense that there are two veteran starters and three young guys with a lot of upside. No point drafting another WR when you've got Edelman, Tate, and Price waiting to prove that they can play.

I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm guessing the 2007 team carried more than 5 WRs. That was a 5-wide, shotgun offense. In this 2TE offense, the 3rd receiver plays just under half of the snaps, and the 4th would have been closer to 12% or so if not for Welker and Branch getting week 17 off.

I'm all in favor of getting an upgrade, but adding more guys to the back end of the depth chart (in the form of rookies who need to learn the scheme) is overkill.

Increased roster size is a good point though. If we assume an extra 5 spots or so, I think in general we're looking at an extra offensive lineman, two defensive lineman, and a defensive back, since those are the guys who tend to get banged up a lot. In an 18-game season, that's what is going to dictate those extra spots. Might be room for another WR, but I think that's a position that is already overstocked by pretty much every team, since you can put 5 on the field at once, but very few teams ever do.

__________________

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

mgteich

We need to start listing Slater as a special teams specialist along with kicker, punter and long-snapper. We don't need more than 5 wide receivers, and Slater isn't a wide receiver.