Peter King: "Patriots have concerns"

[Deus Irae]

TEs..receivers...what's the difference?

Pretty much ended things right there.

 

[BradyToAmendola]

Pretty much ended things right there.

Obviously WRs and TEs aren't exactly alike. TEs have to chip a tackle sometimes, have a bigger role in the run blocking or pass protection, have different types of bodies than receivers, and don't have cornerbacks covering them most of the time...but I think you know what I meant. They both are important to the passing game, and I think you would agree the Patriots lacked at the TE department last year with Watson and Baker manning the position. An upgrade at the TE spot means an upgrade to the passing game, does it not? It's in that respect that I meant TEs and WRs are "basically" the same.

 

[Deus Irae]

Obviously WRs and TEs aren't exactly alike. TEs have to chip a tackle sometimes, have a bigger role in the run blocking or pass protection, have different types of bodies than receivers, and don't have cornerbacks covering them most of the time...but I think you know what I meant.

No, I really don't. He discussed the tight ends separately in the interview, and noted that he liked what's been done there:

...obviously they did focus on the tight end. I would be very, very excited if I were them about the tight end position.

That's part of my point on this thread, really. People are banging on King for posting an opinion that is absolutely reasonable. This team, for better or worse, is now relying on Tate/Price at the WR3 spot, because they went after 2 players that had clearly seen their better days in Holt and Patten. It's one thing to opine that Tate will get the job done. I have no problem with that opinion, and I am personally fine with the kid getting the chance, but to denigrate King's opinion as stupid is just silly.

They both are important to the passing game, and I think you would agree the Patriots lacked at the TE department last year with Watson and Baker manning the position. An upgrade at the TE spot means an upgrade to the passing game, does it not?

Baker was useless outside of endzone passing, and I posted about that last year. I've got no problem with the TE moves, and I certainly hope they make a difference. I'm very happy, so far, with Crumpler, in particular, and I had a lot of worries about him when he was signed. He seems to have gotten into better shape for this season, and he's looking a bit faster in his route running. His best days are obviously behind him but, unless he fades over the course of the season, he can be a nice safety valve for Brady.

But that's not what King was being called out for. King was singing the praises of the TEs.

 

[JackBauer]

1.) WR was clearly an area of concern moving into the offseason.

2.) WR was clearly an area of concern post-draft.

3.) Until Tate can prove he's a viable WR3, Welker can prove he's healthy enough for the regular season, Edelman can show that he can play without getting hurt and Price can show that he's able to play in the NFL, WR will still be an area of concern.

Calling that a non-issue is stupid. Sorry.

None of what you stated matters, in spite of your ridiculous qualifiers regarding the current WR situation.

The fact is, the Patriots have Moss, Welker, Edelman, and two third round picks in the rotation at WR. If that isn't "addressing the WR position", I don't know what is. Unfortunately you seem to be confused in your assumption that the WR's need to have proven themselves in order for the criticism to be invalid. Which isn't true; this is about intent, and the actions which derive from said intent. The Patriots have clearly identified WR as a position of weakness and addressed it as such. Whether they'll be successful in their remediation remains to be seen. But for someone to criticize the Patriots for not having paid sufficient attention to the WR position is sloppy and ludicrous.

But I'll leave it to you to nitpick this apart and defend the guy who criticizes the Patriots for not paying enough attention to one of the deepest positions on the team. Err, good luck with that.

 

[BradyMossWelker]

The Patriots did enough concerning the WR position. First of all, they knew Brandon Tate would be ready for this upcoming season, and were/are really excited about his development. Second, they signed Holt who, like it or not, caught 800 yards from David Garrard last season, they had no fault in him getting injuried. They drafted the best WR available in the 3rd round, where the Pats were picking. They knew of the development of Edelman, who will be much better after his first off season as a true WR. They still drafted Aaron Hernandez, who, is a Wide Reciever in a Tight End body. He can perfectly play as a WR, he's just a better mismatch at TE.
And, last AND least, they tried to get something from Patten

 

[efin98]

None of what you stated matters, in spite of your ridiculous qualifiers regarding the current WR situation.

The fact is, the Patriots have Moss, Welker, Edelman, and two third round picks in the rotation at WR. If that isn't "addressing the WR position", I don't know what is. Unfortunately you seem to be confused in your assumption that the WR's need to have proven themselves in order for the criticism to be invalid. Which isn't true; this is about intent, and the actions which derive from said intent. The Patriots have clearly identified WR as a position of weakness and addressed it as such. Whether they'll be successful in their remediation remains to be seen. But for someone to criticize the Patriots for not having paid sufficient attention to the WR position is sloppy and ludicrous.

But I'll leave it to you to nitpick this apart and defend the guy who criticizes the Patriots for not paying enough attention to one of the deepest positions on the team. Err, good luck with that.

That is before you factor in that they still have Faulk as their receiver threat on 3rd down and UPGRADED the TE corps that has been lacking for years with an actual receiving threat at TE and a much better blocking TE and backup blocking TE.

 

[Deus Irae]

None of what you stated matters, in spite of your ridiculous qualifiers regarding the current WR situation.

The fact is, the Patriots have Moss, Welker, Edelman, and two third round picks in the rotation at WR. If that isn't "addressing the WR position", I don't know what is. Unfortunately you seem to be confused in your assumption that the WR's need to have proven themselves in order for the criticism to be invalid. Which isn't true; this is about intent, and the actions which derive from said intent. The Patriots have clearly identified WR as a position of weakness and addressed it as such. Whether they'll be successful in their remediation remains to be seen. But for someone to criticize the Patriots for not having paid sufficient attention to the WR position is sloppy and ludicrous.

But I'll leave it to you to nitpick this apart and defend the guy who criticizes the Patriots for not paying enough attention to one of the deepest positions on the team. Err, good luck with that.

If you think that WR is a deep position, answer this....

Who plays WR3 if Tate, a guy with essentially no NFL track record, can't get the job done?

Oh, right..... a rookie who fell behind his teammates because of missed OTA time, who then missed a bunch of camp with injury, and who hasn't shown much of anything to date. Right now, Tate = Galloway and Price = Aiken, and that's the situation the Patriots are in, because the team brought in nothing more than Holt and Patten. This isn't rocket science, for crying out loud.

It's one thing to like what you see in Tate and to think he'll pan out better than the Galloway experiment, to think that Price will be able to step it up over time, or to think that Holt was enough of an alternative to render the patriots moves 'adequate' in addressing the position. It's another to be so willfully blind that you can't see that King's opinion has logic to it, even if you disagree with it. The team "addressed" a position that had no WR3 and a WR2 coming off of ACL surgery by bringing in David Patten, Torry Holt and a 3rd round draft pick. It's not as if it went out and signed a bunch of top free agents and took wideouts in the first round.

You're a homer whom I generally respect, because you usually think before you post rather than just going knee-jerk. You didn't this time. You thoughtlessly jumped in the "attack the media" line. You were the one who was sloppy and ludicrous, not King.

 

[BradyMossWelker]

If you think that WR is a deep position, answer this....

Who plays WR3 if Tate, a guy with essentially no NFL track record, can't get the job done?

Oh, right..... a rookie who fell behind his teammates because of missed OTA time, who then missed a bunch of camp with injury, and who hasn't shown much of anything to date. Right now, Tate = Galloway and Price = Aiken, and that's the situation the Patriots are in, because the team brought in nothing more than Holt and Patten. This isn't rocket science, for crying out loud.

It's one thing to like what you see in Tate and to think he'll pan out better than the Galloway experiment, to think that Price will be able to step it up over time, or to think that Holt was enough of an alternative to render the patriots moves 'adequate' in addressing the position. It's another to be so willfully blind that you can't see that King's opinion has logic to it, even if you disagree with it. The team "addressed" a position that had no WR3 and a WR2 coming off of ACL surgery by bringing in David Patten, Torry Holt and a 3rd round draft pick. It's not as if it went out and signed a bunch of top free agents and took wideouts in the first round.

You're a homer whom I generally respect, because you usually think before you post rather than just going knee-jerk. You didn't this time. You thoughtlessly jumped in the "attack the media" line. You were the one who was sloppy and ludicrous, not King.

You're underrating the development of Tate and Edelman so much.

 

[Ring 6]

When you have the best 1 and 2 combo in the NFL catching 200 passes, #3 WR is less critical.
Edelman has shown he can fulfill what we need there.
Tate appears to have the confidence of the coaching staff.
Price is tbd.

Call them question marks if you wish. Every team relies on young players who havent proven themselves yet or guys who have had injuries. That certainly is a question mark, and every team has many.
Having them at WR when you have the best QB in the league, the best 3rd down recevieng RB in the league and the best 1 and 2 WRs in the league is hardly something to highlight as a negative of a team.

 

[Ring 6]

If you think that WR is a deep position, answer this....

Who plays WR3 if Tate, a guy with essentially no NFL track record, can't get the job done?

Edelman

Oh, right..... a rookie who fell behind his teammates because of missed OTA time, who then missed a bunch of camp with injury, and who hasn't shown much of anything to date

What team has a 5th WR clearly better than that?

Right now, Tate = Galloway

If you can't see they are totally different players this discussion is over your head.
Please link me to all of the articles that discuss Tate not fitting in with the system and being unable to get the same read as Brady on option routes.

and Price = Aiken,

ibid

and that's the situation the Patriots are in, because the team brought in nothing more than Holt and Patten. This isn't rocket science, for crying out loud.

And that is apparently the position the Patriots are very comfortable being in.

It's one thing to like what you see in Tate and to think he'll pan out better than the Galloway experiment, to think that Price will be able to step it up over time, or to think that Holt was enough of an alternative to render the patriots moves 'adequate' in addressing the position. It's another to be so willfully blind that you can't see that King's opinion has logic to it, even if you disagree with it. The team "addressed" a position that had no WR3 and a WR2 coming off of ACL surgery by bringing in David Patten, Torry Holt and a 3rd round draft pick. It's not as if it went out and signed a bunch of top free agents and took wideouts in the first round.

They felt no need to. It is reasonable to say they didnt do a lot to address the WR position, but not as reasonable to conclude there is something wrong about that. They addressed 2/3 of the backup WR positions in the prior years draft and the other 1/3 this year. With the best 1/2 in the NFL that is a very reasonable effort to fill out the spot.

You're a homer whom I generally respect, because you usually think before you post rather than just going knee-jerk. You didn't this time. You thoughtlessly jumped in the "attack the media" line. You were the one who was sloppy and ludicrous, not King.

There we go, Mr Narcicist. Can't debate the merits so you must attempt to diminish his argument with a label intended as an insult. We knew it would come to that soon.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're underrating the development of Tate and Edelman so much.

I'm not underrating them at all. Their development doesn't matter when it comes to King's point. King simply opined that the WR position wasn't adequately addressed. I've got no problem with people disagreeing with him. I can see the point of someone saying:

Edelman (assuming he doesn't shatter into a million shards) was developing over the course of last year, and he's an adequate substitute for Welker if given enough preparation time.

Tate impressed the team last year, and they felt he earned a shot at the WR3 spot coming into this season

Price is a development player who might be more this year, if the team gets lucky.

Holt was an aging vet, but he'd caught a pretty good number of passes last year, and it looked like he had something left.

Patten had taken a year off, and might have been recharged enough to give the team a year as the WR5 or WR6.

That's all fine. Hell, I'm fine with Tate getting a chance at WR3, myself. But let's not pretend that it was clearly an optimum solution, or that no other alternatives were available. Instead of the Buddy Farnhams of the world, the team could have brought in guys like Josh Reed, just as an example (I'm not saying that I wanted Reed, I'm just pointing out a player that was discussed in the offseason). If King looks at what was done and finds it to be insufficient in his eyes, that's not a baseless opinion.

I'd have no problem criticizing King's opinion if I thought it was stupid or baseless. Such labels just don't apply in this particular instance.

 

[mgteich]

I agree that WR shouldn't be highlighted as a weakness or concern of the patriots.

However, we are making believe that it really doesn't matter if there is no one to stretch the field opposite Moss. There are those who think it was fine that Aiken filled that role last year.

The reality is that Edelmen has shown himself to be an excellent backup for Welker in the slot.

The team has confidence that either Tate or the oft-injured Edelman will step up to be the deep receiver opposite Moss. And if he can't cut it, then Edelman will do the job.

The team addressed the future with Price (and Hernandez). They also brought in insurance in case Tate and Edelman didn't look like they could handle the roles that the team had for them. Tate and Edelman were NOT found wanting. Holt and Patten were sent packing. Personally, I wouldn't have sent Hoit packing.

HOW GOOD ARE WE ARE WIDE RECEIVER
Consider that if Moss were injured, we'd have a very average WR group.

IS THE PASSING GAME A CONCERN?
I think that Crumpler and Grankowski are exactly what Brady needed. As long as Moss is healthy, we arguably have the best passing offense in the nfl.

When you have the best 1 and 2 combo in the NFL catching 200 passes, #3 WR is less critical.
Edelman has shown he can fulfill what we need there.
Tate appears to have the confidence of the coaching staff.
Price is tbd.

Call them question marks if you wish. Every team relies on young players who havent proven themselves yet or guys who have had injuries. That certainly is a question mark, and every team has many.
Having them at WR when you have the best QB in the league, the best 3rd down recevieng RB in the league and the best 1 and 2 WRs in the league is hardly something to highlight as a negative of a team.

 

[BradyMossWelker]

As long as Moss is healthy, we arguably have the best passing offense in the nfl.

That's what I needed to hear. 100% agreed if Brady is 100%, which he seems to be.

 

[SVN]

There are clearly more glaring concerns than WR.

Had King said the youth and lack of depth at all levels of defense was his source of concern, he'd be right on the money. Instead, he focused on offense - that just doesn't make sense.

i think he did mention youth on defense and even in his MMQB listed the ages of all the main defensive backfield. So he did do it
His concern for receiver wasnt the primary one. The gist was that there are questions.
Regarding receiver position ,my personal opinion - they didnt do anything which worked but they did shore up their tight end position which if used as it looked like in the preseason should help them.
But our 3rd WR with moss/welker/ is still not established. We assume edelman but his more like welker or tate who we need to see play in a full season. Again not a primary concern but still some questions to see how it works .do they use hernandez as a WR ?Remains to be seen .so if king meant to say this ,iam not that opposed to that view.

 

[SeymourTrophies]

Come on, Deus. You're arguing this for the sake of arguing.

If we're trying to construct a squad that scores 60 points per game, WR needs to be addressed. Teams have won rings with less...we have won rings with much less King ignores our biggest issue right now. That's not to say every other part of the depth chart is flawless, but I don't think an endless debate on Tate's DNA strand is entirely necessary.

Maybe an endless debate about who wins in a pie-eating contest between Brace, Wilfork, and Rex Ryan is more appropriate.

So, who's excited about Spikes and Chung?

 

[Ring 6]

I agree that WR shouldn't be highlighted as a weakness or concern of the patriots.

However, we are making believe that it really doesn't matter if there is no one to stretch the field opposite Moss. There are those who think it was fine that Aiken filled that role last year.

I dont know who would think Aiken was fine. After Galloway failed and Tate was injured, the 3rd choice for 3rd WR usually isnt a good one.
But that doesnt mean the 3rd WR on a team with the best 1 and 2 is an extremely important position.
When you say stretch the field opposite Moss I'm not sure what you mean. Unless we get a 3rd allpro the #3 WR isnt going to take attention away from Moss or Welker. They will be the guy who GETS the opportunity because of Moss and Welker not the one opening it up for them. Really, just having a fundamentally sound guy who can run the right route and catch the ball when both Moss and Welker are covered is enough. Sadly Aiken was not that guy. But it also needs to be noted the ball is going to Moss and Welker (and Faulk too) when they are open and they are open a lot. The role of a 3rd WR is smaller on this team than any passing offense in the league.

The reality is that Edelmen has shown himself to be an excellent backup for Welker in the slot.

I dont think he is limited to that at all, and Welker certainly isnt. Welker caught an awful lot of passes as an outside receiver in 2 WR sets, although no one seems to recognize that. He is the best slot guy, but he is an excellent non-slot WR too.

The team has confidence that either Tate or the oft-injured Edelman will step up to be the deep receiver opposite Moss. And if he can't cut it, then Edelman will do the job.

Again I dont think they need to be a deep threat but they will have opportunities to get one on one and get deep. Just being an effective true 3rd choice that runs reliable routes and holds the ball is plenty.

The team addressed the future with Price (and Hernandez). They also brought in insurance in case Tate and Edelman didn't look like they could handle the roles that the team had for them. Tate and Edelman were NOT found wanting. Holt and Patten were sent packing. Personally, I wouldn't have sent Hoit packing.

Holt probably would have made the team if he wasnt injured. We certainly would be better off wth a 6th WR inactive every game than a 5th RB inactive every game.

HOW GOOD ARE WE ARE WIDE RECEIVER
Consider that if Moss were injured, we'd have a very average WR group.

As would every single NFL team if their #1 was injured, and none would have a Welker.

IS THE PASSING GAME A CONCERN?
I think that Crumpler and Grankowski are exactly what Brady needed. As long as Moss is healthy, we arguably have the best passing offense in the nfl.

Agreed with that. I should have just read that line first and skipped the rest

 

[mgteich]

Yes, as long as Brady and Moss stay healthy, we are arguably the #1 passing offense in football. Personally, I don't see why we didn't keep a veteran on the roster as insurance against an injury to Moss or to one of the other top receivers. Perhaps that was the plan, but Patten didn't have anything left and Holt was injured.

In the end, the team believes in Tate. The fact that Tate and Edelman were both injured last year seems to have had little effect on the need for a veteran backup for Moss.

The reality is that we have Moss, Welker and the kids. We have rookie, a player who played one game last year, and a backup slot receiver who has been injured three times in the past two years. We can ridicule King for noting the concern as one among many. Somehow, it is not ridiculous to have a veteran backup on the squad in the year after we wqere counting on Aiken to be a contributer opposite Moss.

That's what I needed to hear. 100% agreed if Brady is 100%, which he seems to be.

 

[Ring 6]

Come on, Deus. You're arguing this for the sake of arguing.

If we're trying to construct a squad that scores 60 points per game, WR needs to be addressed. Teams have won rings with less...we have won rings with much less King ignores our biggest issue right now. That's not to say every other part of the depth chart is flawless, but I don't think an endless debate on Tate's DNA strand is entirely necessary.

Maybe an endless debate about who wins in a pie-eating contest between Brace, Wilfork, and Rex Ryan is more appropriate.

So, who's excited about Spikes and Chung?

Its arguable that every team that has won a ring had less.
When you consider that Moss and Welker catch 200 passes and we have the best 3rd down RB, its not that far from true.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes, as long as Brady and Moss stay healthy, we are arguably the #1 passing offense in football. Personally, I don't see why we didn't keep a veteran on the roster as insurance against an injury to Moss or to one of the other top receivers.

Well, according to the logic of those attacking King in this thread, that's a stupid point, regardless of whether or not you are technically correct.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, according to the logic of those attacking King in this thread, that's a stupid point, regardless of whether or not you are technically correct.

No one is attacking King.
They are disagreeing with his opinion. As you pointed out he said it is just his opinion.
You are attacking those who disagree with his opinion.
It is clear that you are in the minority and you and King tshare the opinion that their should be significant concern about what the Patriots have done with the WR position while it appears that by about a 10 to 1 margin the posters on the board disagree with the 2 of you.
Why is that an attack, and why do you insist on belittling and insulting people for voicing that their opinion is different than Kings?
You are doing to the posters just what you are saying they are wrong to do to King, disputing their opinion.
Of course, what else should we expect?