OK, we officially need 5 receivers

[patchick]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

I dont see edelman as a slot reciever, I think that has been a misconception because he keeps getting compared to welker. The Patriots in the past have used multiple undersized recievers at the same time or "smurfs" if you would and truth be told Edelman isnt a big huge target but he is taller than welker and has blazing speed. Im sure with a year under his belt the Pats will start to line him up on the corners and take advantage of his blazing straight line speed.

Julian Edelman, "blazing straight line speed?" His straight-line speed is barely average for a WR of any size, and downright slow for a guy who's 5'10" 195. He ran the 30th-fastest 40 of the WRs in last year's draft.

Maybe you're thinking of Edelman's short area/change of direction footspeed? That really is blazing, which is a great asset...for a slot receiver.

 

[DefenseRules]

Letting Anquan Boldin get away is really looking like a brilliant move

Good job FO. You guys are an inspiration to the league

LMAO.
I'm having a lousy day and this post cheered me up. Thanks man, and I agree with you.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Edelman ran a 4.51 40 yard dash, which is one of the fastest ever for a QB. But for a WR that's merely a good time. Although it IS faster than Welker's 40 time/straight line speed.

Getting to know super sleeper Julian Edelman - Mocking The Draft

Where Edelman excels is his change of direction/quickness. He ran a 3.91 short shuttle. That 20 yard shuttle time would have beat EVERY SINGLE COMBINE INVITEE in this year's 2010 combine. The fastest short shuttle time in this year's combine was turned in by A.J. Jefferson with a 4.00 flat.

NFL Events: Combine Top Performers

 

[Feep50]

Why stop at 5? I say sign any FA WR and use all our draft picks on the position...........

Corner the market

 

[Metaphors]

To say that the 5th receiver on our team MUST be someone who can contribute in the kicking game - excluding returns - seems to be a very hard rule to follow for a team that a) uses 3 wideouts the majority of the time b) their best wideout is in a contract year and could leave c) their best wideout is aging and fought off injuries d) their slot receiver is recovering from an ACL injury e) their two young talents at the position are unknowns in some extent (one a conversion project, one with injury history). To summarize - there is a lot of unknown at the WR position in the short term and in the long term. When you do not know for sure how Tate/Edelman/Welker will contribute next season - and when you don't know where Moss will be in 2011, you have to build in contingencies. And those contingencies will take up roster spots. I strongly believe we can afford 5 out of the 53 to pure wide receivers (meaning, not Aiken), particularly since many of our wideouts contribute as returnmen. (I know that doesn't fill out the ST units, but its still a necessary role.)

Totally agree on there not being a hard-n-fast rule. For this team though, it makes the most sense. While nothing is for certain, you have to make plans on your evaluations of what you have. The Pats evaluation could be:

1) Moss is still a legit #1 in 2010 and will be gone in 2011
2) Welker should be back at near 100% around week 10
3) Tate is healthy and has the potential to run opposite Moss in 2010
4) Edelman is an ideal #4 and can fill Welker's role until he is back
5) Aiken is a ST captain and has enough experience with Brady to take WR snaps when needed

Those are all pretty reasonable conclusions. I don't personally know if any of them are true...but Belichick should have all the information he needs to draw his own conclusions. Since I don't have access to Belichick's brain, let's go with my points above. So short term, I have:

1) Moss
2) <Welker on PUP>
3) Tate
4) Edelman
5) Aiken

So immediately I have to replace Welker. It is reasonable to put Edelman there, but that means I have a hole at #4. In addition, Tate could prove to be made of glass or a washout, so I have to cover that possibility...but I don't want to assume that is likely. So this situation calls for a cheap veteran option (maybe Patten) that I don't mind cutting later and/or a lower round draft pick that can end up inactive or on the practice squad.

For the stretch run if everything works out well, the depth chart would be:

1) Moss
2) Welker
3) Tate
4) Edelman
5) Aiken
6) Draft Pick (occasionally active or on practice squad)

Worst case (not including new injuries), it would be:

1) Moss
2) Edelman
3) Vet WR
4) Aiken
5) Draft Pick

Certainly not optimal, but not bad considering I amputated Welker's leg and flushed a promising 23 yo WR. Long term, I have bigger fish to fry when I have to replace Moss. Luckily, the Pats have multiple 1st round picks in a draft that should have at least 4 stud WRs coming out. None of them will be Moss in their 1st year...or their 2nd year...or their 10th year. But the potential is there for them to contribute in an offense where there isn't a true #1 WR (isn't that what everyone is yelping about recently?):

Flanker - 2011 #1 pick
Split End - Tate
Slot - Welker
#4 - Edelman
#5 - Aiken
with a 2010 pick looking to displace any of the above, fill in for injury or earn a spot on ST

So without spending for a big time FA or devoting a top 50 pick in 2010 on a WR, I ended up with a reasonable WR depth chart in the short, medium and long term. If Belichick is more pessimistic about Welker's recovery or Tate's potential, he probably won't go this route. But I don't have any evidence that either of those things are true.

Getting a "top" WR (FA or top 50 pick) this year will absolutely help in the short term but will box out the development of Tate and Edelman this year. So IMO, the Pats are positioned pretty well to deal with the WR depth chart without making a huge move in the short term. If an opportunity in FA or the draft, I'm sure they will jump at it. My point is that they don't have to.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I'm not too worried about our wide receivers. Moss and Edelman are good. Welker will be back. We sign a vet and draft a rookie and we're set.

Also I think there's really been too much hand wringing about the 'we don't use our TE' enough in this offense. I think the reason Watson was mediocre in our offense is that he was simply a mediocre tight end. Athleticism yes,but route running, reading the defense, getting open? Apparently he wasn't doing it consistently enough. Thus no big loss. We'll draft another one and add some free agent vets as well. Again no big deal.

Having 0 tight ends from last year on the roster is a little weird, but I'm sure BB will fix that up pretty soon. We've still got a few months left before TC even starts. I'm looking forward to the draft in April, a lot will be answered then. And don't rule out a draft day trade for a proven veteran player either. That's how we got guys like Dillon, Moss, and Welker.

 

[Deus Irae]

Getting a "top" WR (FA or top 50 pick) this year will absolutely help in the short term but will box out the development of Tate and Edelman this year. So IMO, the Pats are positioned pretty well to deal with the WR depth chart without making a huge move in the short term. If an opportunity in FA or the draft, I'm sure they will jump at it. My point is that they don't have to.

How does a "top" WR box out the development of either Tate or Edelman? New England runs 3 and 4 receiver plays as a standard, so your assertion seems to run counter to that.

 

[mgteich]

You are fine with VOLUNTARILY going into the season with Moss, Edelman, Tate and Patten as our wide receivers< and with Aiken and Stanback as our emergency backups. And this is against the backdrop of using the tight ends as blockers.

If this is indeed our attitude, then I agree that we need major upgrades at running back.

To voluntarily go with the four you mention is simply hoping for a miracle and no injuries, and hope is NOT a plan.
================

For me, if the front office is fine with Moss, Edelman, Tate, and Patten, then we should get new folks to be in charge of personnel decisions.

Tate is going to surprise just about everyone here, except me I think - seems everyone is very high on Mckenzie as a LB at Patsfans ( I am as well), yet there is no love at all for Tate.

I see them both in the same light - both injured in their rookie seasons and both have a year under their belt in the system from a preparation, playbook learning, and training standpoint. While Mckensie was a #3 - Tate woudl have been a number ! had he not been inured in his senior year.

Both have great potential.

So, in my mind, we are looking goos at the receiver position, all things considered.

We have Moss, Edleman, Tate & Patten. We have Aiken & Stanback as last resorts. We will hopefully see Welker by game 6 or so and hopefully he rounds into shape down the stretch.

So, we can look for draft packs and free agents to round out the WR group and bring us a couple of TE's.

Just doesn't seem that bad to me....

 

[mgteich]

If we sign Josh Reed, we would still be looking for another WR to complete the mix.

 

[Deus Irae]

If we sign Josh Reed, we would still be looking for another WR to complete the mix.

Indeed. If he wasn't good enough as Buffalo's WR3 for them to keep him, that should raise a caution flag for Patriots fans, at the very least.

 

[supafly]

You are fine with VOLUNTARILY going into the season with Moss, Edelman, Tate and Patten as our wide receivers< and with Aiken and Stanback as our emergency backups. And this is against the backdrop of using the tight ends as blockers.

If this is indeed our attitude, then I agree that we need major upgrades at running back.

To voluntarily go with the four you mention is simply hoping for a miracle and no injuries, and hope is NOT a plan.
================

For me, if the front office is fine with Moss, Edelman, Tate, and Patten, then we should get new folks to be in charge of personnel decisions.

I agree with your statement here. Although my opinion means nothing in the big picture of things, I've always felt that not having a true downfield threat on the other side of Moss really detracts from Randy's overall performance too. In my opinion, you need to have another solid option to really use Moss to his best abilities, and this is forgotten in a lot of people's minds. We all saw what can be achieved in 2007 with a solid 1-4, but without a true threat on the other side of Moss, it only takes away from his overall performance, and we don't even have a solid #1 at times. I believe Moss doesn't even become a true #1 UNTIL you have a true #2 on the other side, otherwise he cannot produce to his fullest abilities and gets shut down too often.

This is why I feel we need an established #2 (not including Welker in the slot of course) on the other side. It helps to bring out Moss' abilities, and takes away from simply focusing on Randy--thus taking him away often. The way it's set up now, we either need another stretch the field threat, or simply go back to 2006 and beyond, and just find the open man. When Moss was added to the mix, we ditched the open man routine, and went another route. That was fine as proved in 07, as long as there's another decent option on the other side.

It's possible Tate could be this person, but it's shouldn't be relied upon. To me, the addition of Tate to the passing game will simply be a bonus, such as when Welker returns. The same can be thought of via the draft, it'll be a nice added bonus, but I certainly don't think we should 'count' on it. It's been often noted that this offense has many variables, and isn't the easiest to learn. It can take a draft pick a yr or 2 to produce at all. We certainly didn't look at Chung or Meriweather to immediately produce their first year, I don't know why we'd expect the same from the other side of the ball. The way it is now takes away from Moss' game, allows other teams to simply focus in on him, and gives us very limited options. Considering Tom will now have his favorite target gone, along with Watson too, I tend to worry about the passing game greatly. It is after all, our greatest attribute on either side of the ball. We need to give our franchise QB as many weapons as possible, the passing game is supposed to be our 'given,' our bread and butter, etc.

Finding a solid #2 (again, putting Welker/Edelman as a slot or #3--depending on how you look at him) will give us 3 solid options. It'll let Moss play to his strengths adding to our #1, give TFB another solid option on the other side, and allow Welker/Edelman to do what they do best, which is play the slot. When you ask Welker/Edelman to be the actual #2 as slot receivers, it really limits things and makes us terribly predictable. This team had WR problems last year, and that was before the losses of Welker and Watson. It can be argued as to Watson's productivity, but I really think Brady still felt comfortable in some manner with him there. Now they have their backs against the wall, having the same WR problems as last year, only with the subtraction of Welker and Watson.

That's why having Moss/Boldin/Edelman would've been just fine, or Moss/Bryant/Edelman--etc. Hell, at this point I don't even think I'd mind T.O., just as long as another solid downfield threat is achieved. The other WR's can be fought between Tate, Patten, Aiken, and a draft pick, with Welker coming back for the stretch run and replacing Edelman of course. Until this team gets a solid #2, we'll be simply limiting ourselves with one of the greatest QB's ever to play the game.

 

[Snarf]

Actually, what we need is a damn RB who can catch the ball a la Chris Johnson / Reggie Bush.

Lining up receivers and running predictable plays is stupid. It killed us last season.

We need to spice things up with having RBs as receiving threats.

 

[emoney_33]

I believe Moss doesn't even become a true #1 UNTIL you have a true #2 on the other side, otherwise he cannot produce to his fullest abilities and gets shut down too often.

If Moss is not a "true #1" then there does not exist a "true #1".

Now yes the more options the better, but Moss, Edelman, Tate and Patten is -fine- depending on where they feel Tate is and the probabilities of an effective Welker at some point. There is still time to add Reed, another FA or a trade as well as the draft.

So if we end up with only Moss, Edelman, Tate and Patten then that will tell us that most likely the front office is confident in Tate and/or Welker's return. Some seem to think we NEED a 2007 offense. A 2009 offense with more depth and a full Brady offseason will be very successful

 

[Deus Irae]

Actually, what we need is a damn RB who can catch the ball a la Chris Johnson / Reggie Bush.

Lining up receivers and running predictable plays is stupid. It killed us last season.

We need to spice things up with having RBs as receiving threats.

2001, 2003, 2004 and 2007 were all accomplished without such a RB

 

[supafly]

If Moss is not a "true #1" then there does not exist a "true #1".

Now yes the more options the better, but Moss, Edelman, Tate and Patten is -fine- depending on where they feel Tate is and the probabilities of an effective Welker at some point. There is still time to add Reed, another FA or a trade as well as the draft.

So if we end up with only Moss, Edelman, Tate and Patten then that will tell us that most likely the front office is confident in Tate and/or Welker's return. Some seem to think we NEED a 2007 offense. A 2009 offense with more depth and a full Brady offseason will be very successful

It's not that I am not recognizing Moss' talents, because they are always there. What I am criticizing is his ability to be consistent. He often disappears at times, leaving us with nothing but a slot man.

Whether it's his talents, or the lack of surrounding options, he isn't going to often carry us to wins on his shoulders. He doesn't often like to go over the middle, he isn't a good 'possession' WR. While you may find a big play or 2 from time to time, he hasn't even come close to putting up the kind of numbers that he did when we had Stallworth and Gaffney to compliment him.

Thinking Moss is going to carry us with Welker's absence is wishful thinking, as that is not using him to his best abilites. You will get a lot more from Moss by adding other viable options to move coverage off of him, and take pressure off of him.

While he still has a lot to offer, we'll see next year how the front office feels about him.

 

[supafly]

If Moss is not a "true #1" then there does not exist a "true #1".

Now yes the more options the better, but Moss, Edelman, Tate and Patten is -fine- depending on where they feel Tate is and the probabilities of an effective Welker at some point. There is still time to add Reed, another FA or a trade as well as the draft.

So if we end up with only Moss, Edelman, Tate and Patten then that will tell us that most likely the front office is confident in Tate and/or Welker's return. Some seem to think we NEED a 2007 offense. A 2009 offense with more depth and a full Brady offseason will be very successful

Considering we've yet to see anything from Brandon Tate at all, I have no idea why you'd feel as though he's going to be the answer. Anything from Tate will be an added bonus, as we're not even sure that he's mastered the playbook yet, something 2 second rd picks could not do, in an offense where an established veteran probowler such as Galloway couldn't do. Expecting Tate to contribute is fine, I agree there. Expecting him to lead our offense is an awfully optimistic thing. Again, we didn't expect Chung or Meriweather to lead our defense their first year, why would we suggest the same from Tate?
I don't think we should expect anything more but progress from him, that would be great.

As far as Welker's return goes, that is an unknown variable, but I think it's a lot safer to expect him there for the stretch run--games 10--17. Hoping he comes back earlier is fine, but what if he doesn't? Considering he had a major surgery about a month ago, and that he cuts and plants like a RB does, I couldn't imagine him coming back before November. Do you really think they'll 'rush' him back? He is their biggest weapon, they'll take their time with him, and even November will only be 9 months. Again, you're just wishing, the problem itself needs addressed.

Your choice of Reed, someone who couldn't work out in Buffalo, to add anything more than a decent #4 is again, very optimistic.

Look, many posters have referred to you as a 'homer,' etc, and I appreciate your optimism, I really do. But in some cases, reality sets in. You were the same person that suggested that we'd be 'fine' without Welker in the playoff game, that they'd simply spread the ball around. As much as I questioned that, I was still optimistic, yet cautiously realistic at the same time.

Thinking that a draft pick/basically including Tate is going to step into one of the most complicated offenses in the league is a bit of a stretch IMO, but I respect your opinion. Not everyone can agree. I think it'd make things a whole lot easier by taking advantage of our proven, HOF bound QB. We need weapons, plain and simple. Our big guns live on the offensive side of the ball now, we can't rebuild on both sides at the same time--which is what they'll be doing with no Welker + a double teamed Moss.

 

[emoney_33]

It's not that I am not recognizing Moss' talents, because they are always there. What I am criticizing is his ability to be consistent. He often disappears at times, leaving us with nothing but a slot man.

You realize you can say the same for just about every single receiver in the NFL? But then again your definition of "disappears" and "often" is confusing to me. He -always- is drawing attention (double/triple) even when he's not producing the stats. Even still I don't see how you can even say he "often disappears". You can point to a small stretch this past season where his stats took a dip but I'm pretty sure there were some extenuating circumstances as well.

Whether it's his talents, or the lack of surrounding options, he isn't going to often carry us to wins on his shoulders.

No one single player is going to carry any team to wins on their shoulders. Moss adds just as much if not more to a team than any other WR in the NFL.

He doesn't often like to go over the middle, he isn't a good 'possession' WR.

Yet he goes over the middle when needed as a Patriot. Now find me one receiver who never has a bad game, always goes over the middle, and single-handedly carries a team to victory without any supporting cast.

While you may find a big play or 2 from time to time, he hasn't even come close to putting up the kind of numbers that he did when we had Stallworth and Gaffney to compliment him.

Yet you realize that no receiver in the league puts up 2007 Moss numbers right? And you realize that 2009 Moss numbers were top 3 in the NFL right?

Thinking Moss is going to carry us with Welker's absence is wishful thinking, as that is not using him to his best abilites. You will get a lot more from Moss by adding other viable options to move coverage off of him, and take pressure off of him.

No one is thinking Moss is going to "carry us". And there's not a single WR, past or present, that would NOT benefit from viable options in the supporting cast.

While he still has a lot to offer, we'll see next year how the front office feels about him.

I'm pretty confident they'll offer him another 2 years, whether he wants to maximize his last contract or not will determine if he is here past 2010.

This of course has little to do with what he brings to the field at this stage in his career he is still an elite top flight receiver. Of course adding talent around him is not a bad thing but it's not a Moss-specific attribute to benefit from better supporting cast.

 

[supafly]

Again, as I said before, not everyone can agree all of the time.

As far as your not 'disappearing' theory goes, again--you're entitled to your own opinion. To say that for sure there were extenuating circimstances is false, since there is zero proof of that. Nor was there in the 2nd half of 2007 either. The bottom line is that this is not a pissing match about the talents of Randy Moss, we both agree he brings great talent.

What I am stating is that you can fully bring out his strengths by adding other weapons around him--plain and simple. Whether or not we agree, the team would've been a lot better off at the WR position by adding a solid downfield threat that can add more as a possession receiver.

This would take some coverage off of Moss, and add to his strengths. Your argument that he produced in top 3 numbers at his position in 2009 is a valid one, I am simply adding another view to make him even better.

The draft and Tate, even Patten are a bunch of unknowns. I would rather make safe and realistic assumptions, than count on something that doesn't happen too often. I am sure that many people here would want a solid #2 to improve the offense--Moss or not.

 

[emoney_33]

Considering we've yet to see anything from Brandon Tate at all, I have no idea why you'd feel as though he's going to be the answer. Anything from Tate will be an added bonus, as we're not even sure that he's mastered the playbook yet, something 2 second rd picks could not do, in an offense where an established veteran probowler such as Galloway couldn't do.

Did you even read what you bolded? I said those 4 receivers are fine depending on where they feel Tate is. I'm fairly certain the Patriots coaching staff has a FAR better idea of what is a valid expectation out of Tate than we do. I'm not saying I expect Tate to be anything because as a fan with limited information I simply CAN'T know.

Expecting Tate to contribute is fine, I agree there. Expecting him to lead our offense is an awfully optimistic thing. Again, we didn't expect Chung or Meriweather to lead our defense their first year, why would we suggest the same from Tate?
I don't think we should expect anything more but progress from him, that would be great.

Did anyone, anywhere even so much as HINT at expecting Tate to LEAD the offense? I know for certain I didn't and there's nothing in what you quoted that could be considered as such so this has me absolutely dumbfounded...

As far as Welker's return goes, that is an unknown variable, but I think it's a lot safer to expect him there for the stretch run--games 10--17. Hoping he comes back earlier is fine, but what if he doesn't? Considering he had a major surgery about a month ago, and that he cuts and plants like a RB does, I couldn't imagine him coming back before November. Do you really think they'll 'rush' him back? He is their biggest weapon, they'll take their time with him, and even November will only be 9 months. Again, you're just wishing, the problem itself needs addressed.

I do not know the "probabilities" of Welker returning. I do not have intimate knowledge of the situation. The Patriots coaching staff, again, probably has much more information on that. Hence why I said "IF" the WR stay as they are, then that would indicate the coaching staff felt a certain way about the probabilities of Tate and/or Welker's contributions/health. I'm not saying I expect anything nor am I saying the Patriots will make no further WR moves.

Your choice of Reed, someone who couldn't work out in Buffalo, to add anything more than a decent #4 is again, very optimistic.

Buffalo is just known for their amazing QBs and great passing game... Welker wasn't a 1000 yard receiver in Miami. But again, I'm sure the Patriots know what they are doing in that department considering they brought him in for a workout. If it's likely that he has abilities the Patriots could use I expect him to be offered a deal. Nothing with his time in Buffalo suggests that it's case closed impossible for him to be a viable #3 WR option.

Look, many posters have referred to you as a 'homer,' etc, and I appreciate your optimism, I really do. But in some cases, reality sets in.

This is the thing with your "I'm afraid to be called a homer" people. You think that the "unknown" or understanding and commenting on the absence of evidence is some sort of "blind faith optimism". The FACT of the matter is you have not a single ounce of credibility to be throwing our definitive statements about things like Tate and Welker's situations. I POINT OUT that I do NOT know their situations and that the Patriots have MUCH more information on it. It MAY indicate valid prognosis and probabilities if the Patriots staff in the end decides to go with the 4 I listed. I did not say that they SHOULD or that Tate and Welker should be relied upon. Except I am logical enough to understand that there is a LOT of facts that the people in the business have that us outsiders will NEVER come close to hearing about.

You were the same person that suggested that we'd be 'fine' without Welker in the playoff game, that they'd simply spread the ball around. As much as I questioned that, I was still optimistic, yet cautiously realistic at the same time.

What the heck, there's a distinct difference between making a quick comment as a fan about beating up the Ravens and arguing that we'd be "fine" without Welker. I also did not know at the time how hurt Moss was. We also would have seen a far different game if it wasn't 24-0 in the first quarter and we actually could have used our running game just a little bit. That being said, I never argued that we'd be fine and dandy without Welker.

Thinking that a draft pick/basically including Tate is going to step into one of the most complicated offenses in the league is a bit of a stretch IMO, but I respect your opinion. Not everyone can agree. I think it'd make things a whole lot easier by taking advantage of our proven, HOF bound QB. We need weapons, plain and simple. Our big guns live on the offensive side of the ball now, we can't rebuild on both sides at the same time--which is what they'll be doing with no Welker + a double teamed Moss.

First re-read my posts as I never said what I was "expecting" out of Tate. You also need to understand what the term "need" is. More WR depth/talent would be a good thing, as would more talent/depth at every position. But WR is only a real "need" if the coaching staff thinks it's highly unlikely Welker returns and that Tate has slim chances of contributing. Aside from that, 2006 was a group of very very medicre receivers and we survived pretty well. While I don't EVER want 2006 level receivers again, you have to put the word "need" in perspective. We NEED an OLB if AD is gone for example.

 

[emoney_33]

As far as your not 'disappearing' theory goes, again--you're entitled to your own opinion. To say that for sure there were extenuating circimstances is false, since there is zero proof of that.

He had a separated shoulder. A separated shoulder is an extenuating circumstance. This is a known fact.

Nor was there in the 2nd half of 2007 either. The bottom line is that this is not a pissing match about the talents of Randy Moss, we both agree he brings great talent.

No it's not a pissing match at all, but I have to use some facts to counter your mysterious assertion...

2nd half 2007:

42 receptions, 714 Yards, 13 TD.... say what now?

What I am stating is that you can fully bring out his strengths by adding other weapons around him--plain and simple. Whether or not we agree, the team would've been a lot better off at the WR position by adding a solid downfield threat that can add more as a possession receiver.

It's the same for every WR in the NFL. They will be better with another deep threat on the other side. I don't understand the usage of the obvious to make a specific case about maximizing Moss' specific abilities...

This would take some coverage off of Moss, and add to his strengths. Your argument that he produced in top 3 numbers at his position in 2009 is a valid one, I am simply adding another view to make him even better.

I agree, I've said it all along we need at the least a serviceable wideout opposite Moss. Whether that's a FA, trade, rookie or Tate who knows.

The draft and Tate, even Patten are a bunch of unknowns. I would rather make safe and realistic assumptions, than count on something that doesn't happen too often. I am sure that many people here would want a solid #2 to improve the offense--Moss or not.

A guaranteed solid #2 costs $$, of which we already have around $15M tied up in 2 receivers. A guaranteed #2 would cost $$ that could be used to fill an area of MORE need like OLB. Of course a guaranteed, proven player is always better than any unknown. The cold hard reality though is you can't put guaranteed proven outside players at every position. The Colts offense relied on Collie and Garcon, not a guaranteed #2 they went out and bought.

Now if a valuable #2 wideout can be had via trade then I'm all for it, but overpaying just to fill what amounts to a luxurious -want- is not best practice IMO.