Who Will Brady Throw To?

[tanked_as_usual]

If the FO cannot successfully address this issue, I don't think improving the running game and the defense will help much. After all there is a team NOT in the Super Bowl that was #1 in total defense and #1 in rushing offense.

yes, but there was a team #1 in rushing offense and #1 in defense in the AFCC and was still in the game in the 4th quarter

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Why is it that people discount Brandon Tate? Not a single person or reporter has been able to confirm why he was put on the IR. There is no reason to believe he won't be ready for the spring drills, let alone camp. In fact, the most recent interview alluded to the fact that he hadn't had another surgery since the ACL repair on the knee he injured in college.

As for players, while we all might hope for a Domenik Hixon or Lance Moore or Leon Washington, most of the guys people are mentioning are going to be RFAs. Meaning that the Pats would have to give up at least a 2nd round pick for them. I'll be honest. The only one I'd have given up a pick for was Leon Washington. But that was before the serious knee injury he suffered. If I was BB, I wouldn't be willing to give up a 2nd rounder for either Moore or Hixon. Moore because he was injured so much this season. And Hixon because he's only been a one year wonder..

Kevin Walter would definitely be on the short list to bring in if I felt he could run the routes the way Brady likes them run. In fact, I'd have Brady there and tell him the routes and see how they do on pitch and catch.. If they do well, then sign him. If not, thank him for his time and move on...

Osgood I would bring in to be an upgrade over Aiken. But only if he could run the routes the way Brady wants them run. If not, then there is no real reason unless Osgood is that much of an upgrade on special teams.

for the same reason people discount crable, mckenzie.......how many who miss their rookie seasons ever amount to much?

 

[BritPat]

for the same reason people discount crable, mckenzie.......how many who miss their rookie seasons ever amount to much?

In Crable's case, people are writing him off because he's missed two years. Anyone writing off McKenzie flat out doesn't know what they're talking about. Plenty of players have missed their rookie year and then been a success. One such player will be starting on Sunday night.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

In Crable's case, people are writing him off because he's missed two years. Anyone writing off McKenzie flat out doesn't know what they're talking about. Plenty of players have missed their rookie year and then been a success. One such player will be starting on Sunday night.

so....gimme some examples of success stories after missing their rookie season

 

[cstjohn17]

Vernon David, Michael Crabtree, Josh Morgan and Frank Gore.

 

[DaBruinz]

Willis McGahee. Ben Watson. Lance Moore. Dhani Jones.

 

[BritPat]

so....gimme some examples of success stories after missing their rookie season

Robert Meachem, Keith Rivers, Felix Jones, Rashard Mendenhall....that's just from the last year or two.
There's plenty more if you look through the anals of history.

 

[MaineMan]

Talking Point: We need at least 2 new experienced WRs.

Reality: Nobody has a WR that is 4th or worse on their depth chart that makes much of an impact. Why do the Pats need an experienced vet to either a) be their #4 receiver or b) push Edelman or Tate to #4?

Counterpoint: Reggie Wayne, Anthony Gonzalez, Pierre Garcon, Austin Collie, Dallas Clark (a TE in name only). Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, James Jones, Jordy Nelson. Henderson, Colston, Meachem, Moore. The point is NOT whether or not the guy actually "makes an impact", but whether or not he's capable of making an impact when called upon.

Talking Point: Can't count on either Welker or Tate in 2010.

Reality: Why not? Welker won't be around for the first 6 games but week #7 will be around Halloween, which is 9 months from now. That is within the timeframe of a normal ACL recovery. Why would Welker (a notorious hard worker) be on a longer recovery timeline? For all we know, Tate may be ready to go now...so assuming he won't be ready in 3 months or 5 months or 7 months seems kind of fatalistic.

Counterpoint: Nine months is a best-case-scenario for Welker. Even then, what do the Pats do for the first six or seven weeks? "For all we know" Tate may have been a bust even if he'd been completely healthy. There have been way, way more guys who accomplished more in their college careers, who looked really good going into the draft, who were completely healthy and who completely failed in the NFL. It's simply foolish to assume that both Welker and Tate will be just fine and make no contingency plan.

Talking Point: Can't even count on a healthy Tate since he hasn't done anything yet.

Reality: Teams count on untested receivers all the time. The Texans had the most passing yards with David Anderson as their #3. The Colts had Collie (drafted lower than Tate) as their #3 with Garcon (drafted lower than Tate) as the backup when Gonzalez went down. The Chargers don't even run 3-wide as a base and when they do, Legedu Naanee trots on the field. Where is the team that goes 4-5 deep with experienced, prolific WRs?

Counterpoint: See above, plus . . . Collie had accomplished a lot more at WR in college than Tate, IMHO. I would have drafted Collie for the Pats over Tate anytime. But the Colts weren't "counting on him" or on Garcon until Gonzalez got hurt. And they had their contingencies already in place when Gonzlaez went down and it all worked out pretty nicely for them, eh? "Where is the team that goes 4-5 deep with experienced, prolific WRs?" That's a strawman. I'm not saying the Pats need to attempt to accomplish that kind of ridiculous perfection. I'm saying the Pats need to have some good "contingency guys" - like Collie, Garcon, Naanee - in place to cover their a**es.

Talking Point: Without 4-5 solid WRs for Brady to throw to, the Pats won't sniff the Super Bowl and may miss the playoffs.

Reality: Nonsense. You need 2 top-shelf WRs, a reliable 3rd guy and 2 others that are competent when called upon. However, replace the "WRs" with "targets" and now you're cooking. A WR corps of Moss, Edelman, Tate, draft pick, Aiken is fine for 6 weeks (the NFL won't schedule the Colt, Charger or Steeler games until the 2nd half) and a WR corps of Moss, Welker, Edelman, Tate, draft pick is certainly capable of winning a title. The trick is going to be upgrading Watson and Faulk this offseason. Given 4-5 seconds, Watson could be dynamic down the field. Problem is that the ball was out of Brady's hands in 3-4 seconds. Faulk is still Mr. Reliable, but he just doesn't change field position on a consistent basis anymore. Address these 2 positions and the WRs will be just fine.

Counterpoint: "A WR corps of Moss, Edelman, Tate, draft pick, Aiken is fine for 6 weeks." Sez you - of a team whose passing game consistently struggled even with a better lineup that included a healthy Welker. If 2009 proved anything, it proved that the Pats need more than just "one guy" at the #3 who they think might be reliable.

Part of the problem is exactly that concept of the offense using multiple "targets" whether or not they were actually WRs. That is the way it was before 2007 (all three TEs had better receiving stats in '06 than the #2 WR), but it hasn't been much like that since (and I don't think it's merely because Watson came to be seen as "unreliable.") While I completely concur about Faulk, this is an offense that is now configured to rely almost entirely on WR capabilities. If we don't have a solid WR corps, including replacements (#4 & #5), it's pretty much been demonstrated in 2009 that this current scheme fails. Until I see solid evidence that the offensive scheme is changing to return to being more inclusive of alternate "targets", I have to recommend that the Pats pick up at least one good vet and a couple of good prospects in the draft.

 

[MaineMan]

How many third round draft picks become starters in the NFL? 30%? 40%?

From 2000-2007, there were 35 WRs drafted in Round-3. Seven of those 35 (20%) became solid, regular contributors (even being generous) at the #3 spot at least and for a minimum of three seasons. Three of those 35 (<10%) became high-value #1 or #2 guys.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

Vernon David, Michael Crabtree, Josh Morgan and Frank Gore.

*chuckles*

I hope we avoid FA this year and instead draft a couple WRs, one fairly early (2nd/3rd) and one in the latter stages of the draft. Moss had back issues and a separated shoulder and still tied the NFL for touchdown receptions (Larry Fitzgerald is pretty darn good company, eh?). He was remarkably productive for someone who was injured and "dogging" it. I think he gets healthy and regains something of his 2007 form with Brady also a year further removed from his injury. Edelman isn't a Welker clone, but he can do many of the same things in our offense, and has more speed to stretch the field. He'll also be in his second year of playing WR, and seems like the consummate competitor. I have pretty high hopes for Tate. Both times Brady threw in his direction, he was completely wide open. Of course, Brady struggled with the long ball all year, so I am assuming they tighten up their timing. According to a recent article, he didn't require surgery this offseason, so his knee obviously wasn't as badly injured as we assumed.

I'm ignoring Aikens, Stanback and Slater. This is about real WRs, not special teamers.

I'd like to see us add a speedster/shifty guy, as well as a physical/YAC big-bodied possession receiver. Here are a few suggested pairings, ranked by my own personal preference.

#1: Golden Tate (early 2nd) and Demaryius Thomas (3rd/4th).

#2: Andre Roberts (late 2nd/early 3rd) and Marcus Easley (5th - 7th).

#3: Jacoby Ford (late 2nd - early 4th) and Seyi Ajirotutu (late 4th - 6th).

#4: Dexter MxCluster (2nd/3rd) and Eric Decker (4th).

#5: Carlton Mitchell (3rd/4th) and Antonio Brown (5th - 7th).

- -=- -

Next year, we draft one of Green, Jones, Baldwin, Floyd, Brown, etc, and we're set up well for the future. I'm actually very excited about our receiving corps, and I think that most of our issues will be resolved by people getting healthy and Brady regaining his form. Oh, yeah, the koolaid tastes good.

 

[DaBruinz]

Counterpoint: Nine months is a best-case-scenario for Welker. Even then, what do the Pats do for the first six or seven weeks? "For all we know" Tate may have been a bust even if he'd been completely healthy. There have been way, way more guys who accomplished more in their college careers, who looked really good going into the draft, who were completely healthy and who completely failed in the NFL. It's simply foolish to assume that both Welker and Tate will be just fine and make no contingency plan.

Actually 6 months is best case scenario for ACL. It's rare, but it does happen. Typical (meaning average) is 9 to 12 months to 100% health and 6 months for 100% confidence. However, every person is different.

Who is saying not to have a "contingency plan"?

Counterpoint: See above, plus . . . Collie had accomplished a lot more at WR in college than Tate, IMHO. I would have drafted Collie for the Pats over Tate anytime. But the Colts weren't "counting on him" or on Garcon until Gonzalez got hurt. And they had their contingencies already in place when Gonzlaez went down and it all worked out pretty nicely for them, eh? "Where is the team that goes 4-5 deep with experienced, prolific WRs?" That's a strawman. I'm not saying the Pats need to attempt to accomplish that kind of ridiculous perfection. I'm saying the Pats need to have some good "contingency guys" - like Collie, Garcon, Naanee - in place to cover their a**es.

Collie and Mike Wallace were both on my board for the Pats. I had taken Tate off because of character issues, but the Pats went with him.

As for Collie accomplishing more than Tate in College, Collie might be more accomplished as a receiver, but Tate was more accomplished as an all-around player having played on special teams as well. Tate was just short of 1000 punt return yards for his career and he set the NCAA record for overall return yards. And the Pats were clearly looking to add someone with that background. \


Now, one other thing. Collie could have been a bust as well. No one knows what will happen when a player is drafted. Some go to be stars. Some get cut in their 1st season and fade into oblivion. Using that as a reason to not believe that Tate will come in and do well is just ridiculous.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Robert Meachem, Keith Rivers, Felix Jones, Rashard Mendenhall....that's just from the last year or two.
There's plenty more if you look through the anals of history.

Please don't get tanked started on anals!

 

[ayjackson]

We need a poll of record....how many WR's will the Patriots add between now and XXX.....0-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4+....anybody wise in the ways of polls?

 

[Metaphors]

Actually 6 months is best case scenario for ACL. It's rare, but it does happen. Typical (meaning average) is 9 to 12 months to 100% health and 6 months for 100% confidence. However, every person is different.

That is my understanding as well. At 9 months (assuming no complications), the injury is about as healed as it is going to get. The rest of the battle is strength, flexibility and confidence. Anyone think that Welker won't be ahead of the curve when it comes to rehabbing these aspects?

Who is saying not to have a "contingency plan"?

I don't understand this either. Pats need a backup plan if adversity strikes anyone. Pats can't have a backup plan if adversity strikes everyone at the same time.

Moss is old and banged up. Need a contingency. Welker may be out for the year. Need a contingency. Edelman is young and a little banged up. Tate is seriously injured (I've heard his leg may need to be amputated ). Aiken isn't even good enough to be #6 on the depth chart. Anyone the Pats draft won't be a good option in 2010.

The Colts had two viable WRs, spend 2 later draft picks for the #3 and #4 spots, Gonzalez gets hurt...yet the Colts had a great contingency plan. If that is the gold standard for contingency planning, the Pats should have a boatload of Saturday picks to use on WR. Problem solved.

Now, one other thing. Collie could have been a bust as well. No one knows what will happen when a player is drafted. Some go to be stars. Some get cut in their 1st season and fade into oblivion. Using that as a reason to not believe that Tate will come in and do well is just ridiculous.

It is quite the coincidence that rookie WRs that go to good passing teams with a need on their WR depth chart tend to do well. Rookie WRs that go to running teams or teams with suckish QBs tend to struggle. Who woulda thunk it?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

We need a poll of record....how many WR's will the Patriots add between now and XXX.....0-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4+....anybody wise in the ways of polls?

If it's wisdom you want...do not try this at home:

Oh yes, 4+ gets my vote.

 

[BradyManny]

Talking Point: We need at least 2 new experienced WRs.

Reality: Nobody has a WR that is 4th or worse on their depth chart that makes much of an impact. Why do the Pats need an experienced vet to either a) be their #4 receiver or b) push Edelman or Tate to #4?

What about the 2004 & 2005 Patriots? Branch, Givens, Brown, Patten, Bethel - 5 deep. Even with injuries, this unit was always solid.

Talking Point: Can't count on either Welker or Tate in 2010.

Reality: Why not? Welker won't be around for the first 6 games but week #7 will be around Halloween, which is 9 months from now. That is within the timeframe of a normal ACL recovery. Why would Welker (a notorious hard worker) be on a longer recovery timeline? For all we know, Tate may be ready to go now...so assuming he won't be ready in 3 months or 5 months or 7 months seems kind of fatalistic.

Tate we can assume could be healthy - but what can we assume we'll get from him as a wide receiver next year....whoops, now I see that's your next Talking Point...

Talking Point: Can't even count on a healthy Tate since he hasn't done anything yet.

Reality: Teams count on untested receivers all the time. The Texans had the most passing yards with David Anderson as their #3. The Colts had Collie (drafted lower than Tate) as their #3 with Garcon (drafted lower than Tate) as the backup when Gonzalez went down. The Chargers don't even run 3-wide as a base and when they do, Legedu Naanee trots on the field. Where is the team that goes 4-5 deep with experienced, prolific WRs?

Right, the Colts had Collie and Garcon once Gonzalez went down - that's the key point there. Garcon and Collie were not intended to have this much PT. Granted, I must say, I was hoping we might draft Collie given him purportedly being the best route runner in last year's draft according to some.

Talking Point: Without 4-5 solid WRs for Brady to throw to, the Pats won't sniff the Super Bowl and may miss the playoffs.

Reality: Nonsense. You need 2 top-shelf WRs, a reliable 3rd guy and 2 others that are competent when called upon. However, replace the "WRs" with "targets" and now you're cooking. A WR corps of Moss, Edelman, Tate, draft pick, Aiken is fine for 6 weeks (the NFL won't schedule the Colt, Charger or Steeler games until the 2nd half) and a WR corps of Moss, Welker, Edelman, Tate, draft pick is certainly capable of winning a title. The trick is going to be upgrading Watson and Faulk this offseason. Given 4-5 seconds, Watson could be dynamic down the field. Problem is that the ball was out of Brady's hands in 3-4 seconds. Faulk is still Mr. Reliable, but he just doesn't change field position on a consistent basis anymore. Address these 2 positions and the WRs will be just fine.

Brady doesn't need two top-shelf WRs to get a SB ring, he's won 3 without ANY top-shelf WRs. We've found this past year, if anything, that the offense runs more efficiently and consistently with a depth of solid, but unspectacular, WRs than with a top-heavy group with 2 studs at the top.

If we just add two legitimate wide receivers to this group - I'd start with Deion Branch and then the other can come out of the Tate + 2010 draftees group - we'll be fine. But we've seen that good defenses can stop 2 good wide receivers, no matter how good they are. If you're #3 literally cannot get separation, and Sam Aiken struggled to do so all season, then you're in trouble. If we just trot out there Moss & Welker and a bunch of castoffs, we'll continue to dominate bad defenses, but be more likely to face problems against good defenses.

Honestly, I'd rather have the 5-deep 2005 group than the Moss-Welker led group of this past 2009, with the caveat that a healthy Edelman for the entire season would've made a difference.

 

[MaineMan]

Actually 6 months is best case scenario for ACL. It's rare, but it does happen. Typical (meaning average) is 9 to 12 months to 100% health and 6 months for 100% confidence. However, every person is different.

Who is saying not to have a "contingency plan"?





Collie and Mike Wallace were both on my board for the Pats. I had taken Tate off because of character issues, but the Pats went with him.

As for Collie accomplishing more than Tate in College, Collie might be more accomplished as a receiver, but Tate was more accomplished as an all-around player having played on special teams as well. Tate was just short of 1000 punt return yards for his career and he set the NCAA record for overall return yards. And the Pats were clearly looking to add someone with that background. \


Now, one other thing. Collie could have been a bust as well. No one knows what will happen when a player is drafted. Some go to be stars. Some get cut in their 1st season and fade into oblivion. Using that as a reason to not believe that Tate will come in and do well is just ridiculous.

"Who is saying not to have a 'contingency plan'?" "Why should we worry? seemed to be your whole point.

I stated that "Collie accomplished more at WR . . ." KR skills were not part of my discussion. Not discounting the added value, just limiting the discussion to "Who will Brady Throw to?" In that regard, KR/PR skills are less relevant to this discussion, IMHO.

I don't see where I stated or implied that Collie couldn't have been a bust or that Tate wouldn't do well somehow because (??) of Collie. From what I saw of both of them last year, pre-Draft, I though Collie had higher potential to step in and contribute immediately as a #3WR than Tate did. That's it. Doesn't preclude any other possibilities.

Sure, any prospect can bust. A higher percentage of 1st-round WRs flat-out bust than 2nd-round WRs (about 50% versus 35%). But a higher percentage of 1st rounders become "stars" (25% versus 10%). Anybody can bust. The point was that, if you don't draft anybody, there's not even a possibility of coming up with an Austin Collie. You can't lose or win the lottery of you don't play.

 

[captain stone]

Counterpoint: Reggie Wayne, Anthony Gonzalez, Pierre Garcon, Austin Collie, Dallas Clark (a TE in name only). Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, James Jones, Jordy Nelson. Henderson, Colston, Meachem, Moore. The point is NOT whether or not the guy actually "makes an impact", but whether or not he's capable of making an impact when called upon.



Counterpoint: Nine months is a best-case-scenario for Welker. Even then, what do the Pats do for the first six or seven weeks? "For all we know" Tate may have been a bust even if he'd been completely healthy. There have been way, way more guys who accomplished more in their college careers, who looked really good going into the draft, who were completely healthy and who completely failed in the NFL. It's simply foolish to assume that both Welker and Tate will be just fine and make no contingency plan.



Counterpoint: See above, plus . . . Collie had accomplished a lot more at WR in college than Tate, IMHO. I would have drafted Collie for the Pats over Tate anytime. But the Colts weren't "counting on him" or on Garcon until Gonzalez got hurt. And they had their contingencies already in place when Gonzlaez went down and it all worked out pretty nicely for them, eh? "Where is the team that goes 4-5 deep with experienced, prolific WRs?" That's a strawman. I'm not saying the Pats need to attempt to accomplish that kind of ridiculous perfection. I'm saying the Pats need to have some good "contingency guys" - like Collie, Garcon, Naanee - in place to cover their a**es.




Counterpoint: "A WR corps of Moss, Edelman, Tate, draft pick, Aiken is fine for 6 weeks." Sez you - of a team whose passing game consistently struggled even with a better lineup that included a healthy Welker. If 2009 proved anything, it proved that the Pats need more than just "one guy" at the #3 who they think might be reliable.

Part of the problem is exactly that concept of the offense using multiple "targets" whether or not they were actually WRs. That is the way it was before 2007 (all three TEs had better receiving stats in '06 than the #2 WR), but it hasn't been much like that since (and I don't think it's merely because Watson came to be seen as "unreliable.") While I completely concur about Faulk, this is an offense that is now configured to rely almost entirely on WR capabilities. If we don't have a solid WR corps, including replacements (#4 & #5), it's pretty much been demonstrated in 2009 that this current scheme fails. Until I see solid evidence that the offensive scheme is changing to return to being more inclusive of alternate "targets", I have to recommend that the Pats pick up at least one good vet and a couple of good prospects in the draft.

It is impossible for me to agree with the entirety of this post any more than I already do. Very, very well-said.

 

[sg14]

I've been to that bar, that was a fun nite

If it's wisdom you want...do not try this at home:

Oh yes, 4+ gets my vote.

 

[MaineMan]

We need a poll of record....how many WR's will the Patriots add between now and XXX.....0-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4+....anybody wise in the ways of polls?

If by "add", you mean, "bring into camp", I'd hope that the Pats pick up at least one mid-level vet (Bryant, Boldin, Branch, Walter, etc.), maybe two, PLUS a couple of draft picks (maybe the last in the 2nd and a 4th, or a 4th and a 7th), PLUS one or two UDFAs. So, that's 4-7 "new guys" in camp. Probably overkill, but better to have too many options than too few.

For the final roster, how many we "add" depends entirely on the status of the guys we've already got, as per how they perform in camp.

Best-case scenario:
Moss is completely healthy.
Welker is on track to return from the PUP List in at least "recovery" capacity in week 7 or 8.
Tate is healthy and looks like he can legitimately contribute more than the "newer" prospects.
Edelman appears to be at least as good as he was at the end of 2009.

We "add" two guys - probably the best vet (if more than one) and a draft pick (who can go to the P/S when Welker returns.

Worst case scenario:
Moss is marginally healthy.
Welker is questionable to return from PUP even by Week-9.
Tate also starts on the PUP List or doesn't appear to be anything more than a decent returner.
Edelman appears to have maxxed his potential in late 2009.

Maybe we "add" 2-3 new guys, at least one of whom is a vet.

In any case, it would probably good to clarify whether the "adding" is for Camp or for the final 53 in any poll question.