Available free agents not drafted - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

MaineMan · 05-10-2011, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DW Toys

If you and DeBruinz feel that Tate is a superb starting WR in the NFL or just even a starting receiver in the NFL, I respect that. You are not going to change my mind or many others. I am not wed to Maehl as you can see. I will take any upgrade. IMO Maehl runs better routes, has a great 10 yard burst and is more dependable as a receiver. I don't remember saying Tate was not the better athlete. And Tom did tell me he is not looking at Tate, because he didn't look at Tate until after he saw if Volmer was open or not. Tom looked at Tate an average of roughly two times per game according to the 46 looks. If you Cousins are satisfied that those numbers are good for a starting NFL WR, o.k. for you I guess.

I hope I am dead wrong about the kid, but remember he was a mediocre WR at N.C. His KR prowess helped his Draft status. Take away the one broken play TD and tell me what Tate's YPC was?

I still say he was not a rookie. Discount that as you feel necessary.

One more question, do you not agree we were more of a running Team back when those other WR you named played?

And as far as DeBruinz, please do your own homework. You prove it and get back to me.
DW Toys

Just to be clear, providing evidence to dispute your original claim that "Tate has done nothing" (and the common, clearly ridiculous comparison to Bethel Johnson) and to demonstrate that his performance in 2010 - his first year catching passes in the Pats offense - was comparable to the first year performances of other WRs who developed into very good starters, AND to point out that his KR contributions provided very good value (as expected from his college performance) ....

DOES NOT EQUAL

"Tate is a superb starting receiver."

And I really have no idea why you insist on portraying it this way.

Running play totals:
2001-2004 = 1865
2007-2010 = 1884 (19 MORE running plays over the 4-yr period)

Passing plays totals:
2001-2004 = 2109
2007-2010 = 2219 (110 more passing plays over 4 years, 1.7 more passes per game)

Running play percentages of total offensive plays:
2001-2004 = 47%
2007-2010 = 46%

***convertedpatsfan*** · 05-10-2011, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DW Toys

Take away the one broken play TD and tell me what Tate's YPC was?

Just for the record, minus the 65-yard broken play TD, Tate's average was 16 YPC. For comparison sake, that was higher than Steve Smith or Ochocinco the past few seasons. In fact, those two receivers combined have only posted a higher mark than that 3 times in 20 combined seasons. I bring those two guys up since you've advocated for them in the past.

MaineMan · 05-10-2011, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by convertedpatsfan

Just for the record, minus the 65-yard broken play TD, Tate's average was 16 YPC. For comparison sake, that was higher than Steve Smith or Ochocinco the past few seasons. In fact, those two receivers combined have only posted a higher mark than that 3 times in 20 combined seasons. I bring those two guys up since you've advocated for them in the past.

Take away any player's longest reception or run and his season average drops at least a bit.

OTOH, subtracting a long gain and then re-calculating the average can be a valid method for evaluating an individual game performance.

For example, let's say a team gains 233 yds on 52 runs, 4.5 yds/carry. Sounds like an all-day "dominating" rushing performance, right? However, if it turns out that 84 of those yards came from one run on the opening play, then the rest of the ground game that day produced 149 yds on 51 carries, 2.9 yds per carry. Seems less "dominating" than "clock-eating", doesn't it? Sounds like something a team would do while protecting a big early lead, perhaps? That conclusion might be reinforced if it turned out that the same team only threw the ball 10 times all day (at which point it might seem a bit unfair to blame the opposing defense's "lack of pass-rush" for the final outcome).

***DaBruinz*** · 05-10-2011, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DW Toys

If you and DeBruinz feel that Tate is a superb starting WR in the NFL or just even a starting receiver in the NFL, I respect that. You are not going to change my mind or many others. I am not wed to Maehl as you can see. I will take any upgrade. IMO Maehl runs better routes, has a great 10 yard burst and is more dependable as a receiver. I don't remember saying Tate was not the better athlete. And Tom did tell me he is not looking at Tate, because he didn't look at Tate until after he saw if Volmer was open or not. Tom looked at Tate an average of roughly two times per game according to the 46 looks. If you Cousins are satisfied that those numbers are good for a starting NFL WR, o.k. for you I guess.

I hope I am dead wrong about the kid, but remember he was a mediocre WR at N.C. His KR prowess helped his Draft status. Take away the one broken play TD and tell me what Tate's YPC was?

I still say he was not a rookie. Discount that as you feel necessary.

One more question, do you not agree we were more of a running Team back when those other WR you named played?

And as far as DeBruinz, please do your own homework. You prove it and get back to me.
DW Toys

As usual, DW, you read a rebuttal saying that your opinion is flawed and you take it as someone touting the player you are trashing. The reality is that neither Maine nor myself are claiming that Tate is a "superb starting WR."

Now, for a slight correction. 46 targets is almost 3 targets per game. (16x3 = 48). And targets = passed thrown to that receiver. That doesn't mean that Tom didn't look Tate's way more often. You have to remember that Tate was the 4th receiver last year. Behind Welker, Hernandez, Branch/Moss. And even Gronkowski. So 5th receiver. There are only so many passes to go around.

Again, you can ignore that Tate was basically in his first season last year, but that just means your opinion is flawed.

As for liking Maehl, he's got hardly any special teams experience. How would that help??

One last thing. What do I need to prove? That your opinion of Tate leaves a lot to be desired? Done that. That your opinion of Sanders is majorly flawed? Done that to.

I do my own homework, DW. I have shown that time and again. Just like I did in this thread to prove that your claims about Maehl and Tate were erroneous.

Off The Grid · 05-10-2011, 12:13 PM

You're not just gonna...TAKE that, Toys...ARE you???

This argument is HILARIOUS. PLEASE don't stop!!

dryheat44 · 05-10-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tombonneau

Maehl is going to make some teams 2011 roster and contribute right away. I just hope it's the Pats and not the Colts or Jets.

I agree. We should cut Welker and/or Edelman so that Maehl can play. Then maybe Welker and/or Edelman can help the Colts or Jets.

I have never, never, never understood this thinking. I'd hate to cut Player X and have the Jets or Colts get him! (I realize not apples-to-apples in this particular case). I, for one, will gladly stock the Jets and Colts with 53 players who aren't good enough to make the Patriots.

Back to the original question, my highest rated guys who went undrafted:

OT Bo Thran Oregon (Top 100)
OT Erik Mensik Oklahoma (4th rounder)
C Kris O'Dowd USC
C Tim Barnes Missouri
G Butch Lewis USC
LB Thomas Keiser Stanford
OT Rob McGill Louisiana Tech
OT Willie Smith East Carolina
S Mana Silva Hawai'i
WR Kerry Taylor Arizona St (5th rounders)

Of course, this assumes they all check out medically. There is definitely some offensive line talent to be had when things start up again.

Snake Eyes · 05-10-2011, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dryheat44

I agree. We should cut Welker and/or Edelman so that Maehl can play. Then maybe Welker and/or Edelman can help the Colts or Jets.

I have never, never, never understood this thinking. I'd hate to cut Player X and have the Jets or Colts get him! (I realize not apples-to-apples in this particular case). I, for one, will gladly stock the Jets and Colts with 53 players who aren't good enough to make the Patriots.

Back to the original question, my highest rated guys who went undrafted:

OT Bo Thran Oregon (Top 100)
OT Erik Mensik Oklahoma (4th rounder)
C Kris O'Dowd USC
C Tim Barnes Missouri
G Butch Lewis USC
LB Thomas Keiser Stanford
OT Rob McGill Louisiana Tech
OT Willie Smith East Carolina
S Mana Silva Hawai'i
WR Kerry Taylor Arizona St (5th rounders)

Of course, this assumes they all check out medically. There is definitely some offensive line talent to be had when things start up again.

What is the impact of taking a player that would benefit one of our rivals? If it causes us to not have another player on our roster who could do more for us then it's foolish, but if they can produce for us and also NOT produce for our opponents, that's some nice icing on the cake.

One of the benefits of taking Solder is that the Colts and also Giants didnt get him, I don't want either Manning to have a stud LT if I can help it.

dryheat44 · 05-10-2011, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Eyes

One of the benefits of taking Solder is that the Colts and also Giants didnt get him, I don't want either Manning to have a stud LT if I can help it.

Of course not, but it's purely co-incidental. I don't want the Colts to get a stud WR or CB either. But the fact is we have neither enough draft picks nor roster space to keep our rivals from getting good football players. If the best value for the Patriots at 17 was a defensive end, and Belichick drafted Solder to keep him away from the Colts, he's failed at his job, improving the New England Patriots. If any GM allows other teams to dictate his draft picks*, he should be relieved of his duties, and possibly shot.

* In the sense we're talking about here. If I'm GM of the Texans and have to play Indy twice a year, then I'd be sure to have a plan to do so.

Off The Grid · 05-10-2011, 01:41 PM

I'm still waiting for Brother Maine and Brother Bruinz to explain why they think Brandon Tate is an established stud Wide Out.

DW Toys · 05-10-2011, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Off The Grid

I'm still waiting for Brother Maine and Brother Bruinz to explain why they think Brandon Tate is an established stud Wide Out.

I think that is a fair statement.

I suspect that Cousin Da Bruinz will ask you to look up information and make a report to him to show where it says he is not a stud....... But that is just me.

I guess roughly 2.5 looks (not catches) a game is starting WR timber.

DW Toys