The WR Conundrum

[DocHoliday]

A couple of comments:

1. I would stay away from statements like CANNOT and WILL NOT. I don't think BB deals in absolutes. It's all relative. He went into the draft 3 years ago with nothing at TE, knowing it was a deep draft, and loaded with draft picks. He apparently explored at least one pre-draft trade. But I don't think that BB will "panic" or make a desperation move.

2. You say "We CANNOT, and will not, go into this year with Lloyd as our top receiver and no number t[w]o". But in fact, Lloyd in that scenario would be our #3 receiver after Gronk and Hernandez. It's not like he would be our true #1 receiving option. Even without Welker and with injuries this year he would have been at most the #2 option at any time.

3. You say that we can "afford Welker for one year only". But can we? To get him for one year would mean to re-tag him, which would mean an $11.4M cap hit on top of the $11+M cap hit for Lloyd, Gronk and Hernandez, which would make almost $23M of cap space tied up in 4 receivers. I don't think that's tenable. It would preclude signing Edelman or any other long term option, and would leave us in the same place a year from now. So why go that route?

The alternative is to re-sign Edelman to a long term deal and move on with Lloyd and Edelman at WR, plus possibly an outside FA, plus the draft.

4. You say "we are not likely to be pinning our season on rookie receivers". But why would we be, more than any other team that drafts rookie receivers? We would have Gronk, Hernandez, Lloyd, Edelman, Vereen, possibly Woodhead and Demps. That's a lot of options. Possibly a low-cost FA WR. Maybe one of our current guys like Ebert or Holmes steps up, though I'm not counting on it.

The FO was willing to go into 2006 with nothing at WR, and to go into 2011 with nothing at DB. Neither situation was pretty. But they've shown repeatedly that they won't break the bank or break the team's cap structure, and that they are willing to take a short term hit for what they view as long term success. Why should we expect the WR situation in 2013 to be any different?

I don't think the team is wedded to any one scenario. But I think the most likely one probably involves re-signing Edelman and Woodhead, maybe using one of the RBs as a WR or a hybrid RB/WR, maybe signing a low cost FA (NOT a big name signee), and adding one or more rookies through the draft, but probably NOT in the 1st round. That's just my guess. I'm sure the team will explore a lot of options, but I doubt they'll break the bank for any one.

If any team has demonstrated that labels like WR/RB/TE are somewhat arbitrary it's the Patriots. Should Welker leave, you essentially have a squadron of multi-talented skills players with only two players with single roles - Lloyd and Ridley.

Here's a possible scenario illustrating this idea, with the traditional labels scrapped:

Physical reciever/Power blocking: Gronkowski

Power blocking/Backup Physical threat: Ballard

(somewhat) physical receiver/gadget rusher/backup blocker: Hernandez

Goal line blocker + rusher/receiving backup: Hoomanawanui/Larsen/Whoever the fullback is

Short yardage elusive receiver/screen/outside runner/backup inside the tackles: Vereen

Outside runner/KR: Demps

Elusive inside the tackles rusher/screen/short yardage receiver: Woodhead

Elusive short yardage (inside+outside) receiver/PR: Edelman

Receiver: Lloyd
Rushing: Ridley

 

[borg]

Hard to imagine either Danny Woodhead or Jeff Demps would make us slower at WR.

You got me there. Didn't know Woodhead ran a 4.33 on his pro day. Amazing

 

[Deus Irae]

3. You say that we can "afford Welker for one year only". But can we? To get him for one year would mean to re-tag him, which would mean an $11.4M cap hit on top of the $11+M cap hit for Lloyd, Gronk and Hernandez, which would make almost $23M of cap space tied up in 4 receivers. I don't think that's tenable.

Of course it's tenable. There is no question that the team can find the money to keep Welker as the Franchise player for another year, if that's the route they chose. The numbers are there. You're confusing your version of optimal with tenable.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

WR is obviously a position of great uncertainty and lack of depth for 2013, and one that is very charged right now in terms of people's opinions, especially regarding Wes Welker. The intent of this thread isn't to debate Welker's value or abilities, but to discuss some possible implications of the WR position from both a cap and a long term roster perspective, and how these might affect the possible short term direction of the team.

1. The cap situation.

I think it's important to consider the WR and TE positions as interrelated, since Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez are likely to be 2 of Brady's top targets for the foreseeable future. Last year the Pats chose to sign Brandon Lloyd as a FA, and used the franchise tag on Wes Welker. Following their inability to come to a long term deal with Welker, the team subsequently signed Rob Gronkowski (July) and Aaron Hernandez (August) to lucrative long term deals, with both players ironically being hurt during the season, and Welker stepping up to take over some of their load as the focal point of the offense.

The 2012 NFL salary cap was $120.6M. The Pats spent $17.415M of that (14.4%) on those 4 players:

- $9.515 M Welker
- $2 M Lloyd
- $2.61 M Gronk
- $3.29 M Hernandez

New England Patriots Salary Cap 2012

The salary cap is projected to stay fairly flat for the next several years. It's estimated at $121M for 2013. While new TV revenues kick in for 2014, many predict that the cap will stay flat through 2014 and 2015, and perhaps longer. Robert Kraft has generally been very conservative regarding the cap - he was one of the most conservative owners regarding the rules for the uncapped year in 2010, and regarding predictions for the 2013 cap. My guess is that he will remain conservative regarding his planning for the salary cap and team spending, and will take a fairly tight line.

Because of the commitments to Lloyd, Hernandez and Gronk, the team already has substantial financial resources tied up in the TE/WR position for the foreseeable future:

- 2013: Gronk $2.7M, Hernandez $4.07M, Lloyd $4.5M = $11.27M
- 2014: Gronk $3.8M, Hernandez $4.2M, Lloyd $5.5M = $14.5M
- 2015: Gronk $8.6M, Hernandez $5.8M = $14.4M
- 2016: Gronk $6.6M, Hernandez $8.5M = $15.1M

Lloyd's deal would actually increase his cap hit by cutting or trading him this year, and would still accrue $2.5M in dead money if he were cut in 2014, so he may be here for 2 more years. So unless the cap goes up significantly, or unless some significantly restructuring of those deals can be done, the Pats don't have a lot of money to spend on the WR/TE position without chewing up an inordinate amount of their cap space.

My personal guess is that this means that it's unlikely that Welker or anyone else gets signed to a lucrative long term deal, so I wouldn't hold out much hope for Dwayne Bowe or Mike Wallace. Maybe they could squeeze someone like Brian Hartline in, but even that might be tricky.

Mo has argued that the Pats made a mistake by not paying Welker and by handing out big deals to Gronk and Hernandez too early. Given their injury history, it's possible that he's right. But regardless, those deals are done.

My guess is that the Pats need to come up with an economic long term approach to the WR position given their cap situation and the prospect of a flat cap.


3. The options for 2013 and beyond

Lloyd, Gronk and Hernandez are all here for 2013, and probably 2014. So are the RBs. The question is the rest of the WR position and how to best fill out the offense, from both a cap and an offensive scheme perspective. The options would seem to include:

- Re-sign or re-tag Welker, and possibly Edelman, and add either a FA WR or a rookie. With $11M already tied up in 3 receivers and a flat cap, this is going to probably cost upwards of $20M in cap hit for 2013 and beyond, which would seem prohibitive.

- Let Welker walk and sign a big name FA like Dwayne Bowe or Mike Wallace. Same problem.

- Re-sign Julian Edelman and sign a mid-range FA like Brian Hartline and draft 1 or more rookies. Maybe a feasible way to go, but still pretty expensive, as Edelman and Hartline would probably cost $7-8M to sign together.

- Trade for someone like Percy Harvin or Jeremy Maclin. I think this is a bit of a fantasy, assuming that we could pry them loose, since both are in the last year of their deal, and would want a big contract. Even if we could get them cheap it would only be for one year.

- Draft a rookie WR in the 1st round and hope we get lucky. I personally don't hold a lot of hope in a rookie WR stepping in and making an immediate impact. It's hit or miss, and relatively few rookie WRs have hit right out of the gates, even ones who have gone on to be very good. Note that BB has never drafted a WR in the 1st round with the Pats, not that that necessarily precludes him from doing so.

- Copy the RB approach and adopt a "WRBC" approach. I personally like this. The Pats were successful early on spreading the ball around to a group of WRs none of whom was individually elite. Drafting 2 or even 3 rookies with different skill sets - maybe in combination with a low cost FA signing - might provide low cost depth for 3-4 years the way the Pats have been successful at the RB position with Ridley, Vereen, Woodhead and Bolden. Spread the ball around, don't target anyone as much as Welker has been targeted. Use the TEs and RBs as the focal points of the offense (assuming the TEs can stay on the field). Realistically, the Pats aren't going to replace Welker's productivity with one guy. This is cost effective, and the 2013 draft is very deep at the WR position. One problem with this approach is that the Pats don't have many draft picks this year. Another problem is that they haven't had a very successful track record with rookie WRs.

- Converting RBs to WRs. The Pats have a glut of RBs with movement and receiving skills (Vereen, Woodhead - if re-signed- and Demps) and a paucity of WRs. Why not move one of the RBs to WR, or make him a hybrid RB/WR in the Dexter McCluster mold? I personally wonder if the Pats may have been doing this with Demps when they chose to put him on OR for 2012, after seeing what he could do in the preseason. They may have decided that he had more value developing his skills and being used as a low-cost receiving option in 2013 than being used as just a return man in 2012. Just a guess.

Just some thoughts to kick around. I'm sure there will be a diversity of views on how the Pats ought to proceed.

They could still sign Welker for 4 years and manage their cap in a way that was team friendly pending the TV money filtering in between 2015-2016. It just made more sense to have done it sooner due to age and dead cap concerns on the backend. If they offered him a 4 year deal for $34M (average $8.5M) and gave him a $12M signing bonus and guaranteed his first year salary and half of his second year for a total of $18M (more than half the deal) his cap # in 2013 would be $6M... After 2014 he would be salary only with a $6M dead cap over the remaining 2 seasons and a cap savings of $10M if cut.Doesn't sound like such a bad deal when you look at it in the proper perspective. Certainly not anything that will cripple them...

Basically it's all about guaranteed money. They could part with a TE in the same time frame and face a minimal dead cap hit because neither got more guaranteed money than they will have already seen 3 years in and they didn't get huge signing bonuses. There would be cap savings in both cases and minimal dead cap. Not that I'm recommending that, just want you to grasp how cap and contracts work. Similarly they could sign Talib to a 5 year $40M deal with $20M guaranted and he could hit the cap at $4M in 2013 and a dead cap of $4M if they cut him in 2016.

I know it's tempting to try and establish what they can and can't afford to do, but they really can afford to do pretty much what they want to with the cap space they have provided they get Brady extended by mid March and they don't franchise tag anyone. Tags are just cap killers in a flat cap environment. If they tag anyone then they are going to have to make a couple of other moves to free up space (like restructuring Mankins and extending Wilfork).

If they retain Vollmer, along with Mankins and Solder they will be fielding a pretty expensive OL by 2015. That might prove more disconcerting than fielding a double digit receiving corps when combining 3 or more TE's with 4 or more WR's. Although by then Mankins will be all salary with just a $4M dead cap and $10M in cap savings.A lot of it is about layering and planning which is why cap flexibility is even more important than cap space. The cap is just an accounting tool.

PS you are using league wide cap figures. In fact each team has it's own adjusted cap annually which includes rollover. The Patscap for 2013 will be in excess of $125M. The pats cap last year was restricted somewhat by $20M in dead cap. Which is why they had to hit Tommy up for a restructure. Their dead cap for 2013 is currently less than $5M and unless they make some boneheaded signing mistakes it should remain in the mid single digits this season. Although something you need to remember is dead cap is sunk cost. The tradeoff is continuing to pay or overpay the player in cash, which is not yet a sunk cost or throwing bad money after worse.

They can sign anyone they want to although there will be some level of trade offs. Perhaps they don't get to keep a complete set of emergency Swiss Army knives...or teach one of them to long snap.

 

[mayoclinic]

They could still sign Welker for 4 years and manage their cap in a way that was team friendly pending the TV money filtering in between 2015-2016. It just made more sense to have done it sooner due to age and dead cap concerns on the backend. If they offered him a 4 year deal for $34M (average $8.5M) and gave him a $12M signing bonus and guaranteed his first year salary and half of his second year for a total of $18M (more than half the deal) his cap # in 2013 would be $6M... After 2014 he would be salary only with a $6M dead cap over the remaining 2 seasons and a cap savings of $10M if cut.Doesn't sound like such a bad deal when you look at it in the proper perspective. Certainly not anything that will cripple them...

Basically it's all about guaranteed money. They could part with a TE in the same time frame and face a minimal dead cap hit because neither got more guaranteed money than they will have already seen 3 years in and they didn't get huge signing bonuses. There would be cap savings in both cases and minimal dead cap. Not that I'm recommending that, just want you to grasp how cap and contracts work. Similarly they could sign Talib to a 5 year $40M deal with $20M guaranted and he could hit the cap at $4M in 2013 and a dead cap of $4M if they cut him in 2016.

I know it's tempting to try and establish what they can and can't afford to do, but they really can afford to do pretty much what they want to with the cap space they have provided they get Brady extended by mid March and they don't franchise tag anyone. Tags are just cap killers in a flat cap environment. If they tag anyone then they are going to have to make a couple of other moves to free up space (like restructuring Mankins and extending Wilfork).

If they retain Vollmer, along with Mankins and Solder they will be fielding a pretty expensive OL by 2015. That might prove more disconcerting than fielding a double digit receiving corps when combining 3 or more TE's with 4 or more WR's. Although by then Mankins will be all salary with just a $4M dead cap and $10M in cap savings.A lot of it is about layering and planning which is why cap flexibility is even more important than cap space. The cap is just an accounting tool.

PS you are using league wide cap figures. In fact each team has it's own adjusted cap annually which includes rollover. The Patscap for 2013 will be in excess of $125M. The pats cap last year was restricted somewhat by $20M in dead cap. Which is why they had to hit Tommy up for a restructure. Their dead cap for 2013 is currently less than $5M and unless they make some boneheaded signing mistakes it should remain in the mid single digits this season. Although something you need to remember is dead cap is sunk cost. The tradeoff is continuing to pay or overpay the player in cash, which is not yet a sunk cost or throwing bad money after worse.

They can sign anyone they want to although there will be some level of trade offs. Perhaps they don't get to keep a complete set of emergency Swiss Army knives...or teach one of them to long snap.

You make some good points. I'm not a capologist and have never claimed to be one. I think that the cap situation is going to be tight for some time, and the team will have to make some choices about who is going to get paid and who isn't, and that they will have to probably make some unpopular business decisions over the next few years. Not everyone can get paid - they may be able to "sign anyone they want to", but not everyone they want to. You mention the OL as one good example. At the TE/WR position the team has already committed to Gronk and Hernandez, and probably over-invested a bit in Lloyd (though that was considered a bargain deal a year ago); they'll have to decide how much of a priority Welker is and it remains to be seen whether a deal can be worked out that works for both sides. As I said earlier in this thread, I personally doubt that anything is written in stone at this point, and there's a lot of ways things could play out. The intent of the thread wasn't to advocate any particular direction or to take sides, but to discuss some of the options and issues.

 

[mgteich]

And to think that just last year we were arguing whether we should keep 5 or 6 wide receivers. It now seems that we only need one. ???? After all, we have TE's and RB's who are receiving threats. I'm NOT buying.

If any team has demonstrated that labels like WR/RB/TE are somewhat arbitrary it's the Patriots. Should Welker leave, you essentially have a squadron of multi-talented skills players with only two players with single roles - Lloyd and Ridley.

Here's a possible scenario illustrating this idea, with the traditional labels scrapped:

Physical reciever/Power blocking: Gronkowski

Power blocking/Backup Physical threat: Ballard

(somewhat) physical receiver/gadget rusher/backup blocker: Hernandez

Goal line blocker + rusher/receiving backup: Hoomanawanui/Larsen/Whoever the fullback is

Short yardage elusive receiver/screen/outside runner/backup inside the tackles: Vereen

Outside runner/KR: Demps

Elusive inside the tackles rusher/screen/short yardage receiver: Woodhead

Elusive short yardage (inside+outside) receiver/PR: Edelman

Receiver: Lloyd
Rushing: Ridley

 

[Wilfork#75]

Since 2007 I have thought the Patriots have lacked weapons on offense. The last few years we may have had some elite players (Gronk, Welker and Hernandez), but we have lacked depth and versatility on offense. I think we need to add at least two WR's, if not 3 if Welker leaves. To be honest I would be shocked if Welker isn't re-signed. He offers far more value to the Patriots than any other team, and with some quality free agent WR's on the market with very little teams with cap room, I don't think his demands will be outrageous.

I think the ideal structure of our WR group is 3 legitimate outside WR's. Ideally 1 big playmaking outside WR and two possession WRs, ideally 1 of them being a physical presence. Then I think we need two legitimate slot WR's for depth and versatility. Hopefully we can keep Welker and Edelman as the slot WRs and we already have Lloyd as a possession WR. I would look to add two outside guys in the draft where there is good depth and value in the 2nd/3rd round.

My ideal WR structure

Outside Possession WR- Brandon Lloyd
Outside Physical WR- Draft (Da'Rick Rogers, Cordarelle Patterson, Terrence Williams, Quinton Patton)
Playmaking WR- Draft (Justin Hunter, DeAndre Hopkins, Markus Wheaton, Robert Woods, Tavon Austin)
Slot WR- Welker, Edelman

 

[Fencer]

If the top 3 receiving targets actually are on the field, I don't see why its inappropriate for them to get 73-74% of the targets.

 

[supafly]

If the top 3 receiving targets actually are on the field, I don't see why its inappropriate for them to get 73-74% of the targets.

I don't know the specifics of the percentage targets from 2011 when it came down to the following, but I'm assuming that it was close to that 3/4 rate:

1.Welker 122
2.Gronkowski 90
3.Hernandez 79

 

[supafly]

If the top 3 receiving targets actually are on the field, I don't see why its inappropriate for them to get 73-74% of the targets.

I would have to guess that Belichick's concerns about the 2009 offense being too heavy and predictable towards the top 2 targets of Moss/Welker have lessened significantly now.

The past 2 years have shown that in my opinion, and although this season was lost on some level due to the 2 TE injuries + Edelman, they rejuvenated the rushing attack and also went back to getting a RB the ball on passes again. Woodhead alone caught 40 balls this year, showing much more balance and less predictibility in my opinion.

I think that initially there was certainly a growth period when Hernandez went down early on, and once again when Gronk was lost in mid-Nov. During those periods I saw some problems with that 3rd target being able to produce consistently enough, probably mainly due to defensive scheming alone. We looked much better when Edelman became a viable threat, but that only lasted for a couple of games vs IND and the NYJ at the end of November. These 2 TE injury periods had a lot to do with any kind of unbalanced percentage regarding targets in my opinion, but the idea was certainly still there that opposing defenses had to choose their poison.

All in all, the ball is indeed being spread out nicely again to all players including RB, and we now have the benefit of the running game too. It's definitely pointing in a much, much better direction even with the injuries this year, so that problem has been addressed and taken care of.

 

[Off The Grid]

1 ~ In 2000, we had 2 ~ two ~ proven Receivers: Troy Brown and Terry Glenn.

2 ~ And then Mad Bill cut Terry Glenn.

3 ~ And we all know what a disaster that 2001 Season was.

4 ~ WideOuts are vastly overrated.

God, what I wouldn't pay to see this Board if it'd been up when Mad Bill ~ coming off a Rookie 5-11 Season, mind you!! ~ cut Mister Spectacular loose!!

 

[mayoclinic]

1 ~ In 2000, we had 2 ~ two ~ proven Receivers: Troy Brown and Terry Glenn.

2 ~ And then Mad Bill cut Terry Glenn.

3 ~ And we all know what a disaster that 2001 Season was.

4 ~ WideOuts are vastly overrated.

God, what I wouldn't pay to see this Board if it'd been up when Mad Bill ~ coming off a Rookie 5-11 Season, mind you!! ~ cut Mister Spectacular loose!!

I obviously don't have a crystal ball, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if BB has a different view of things from many on this board, who see gloom and doom if we don't keep Welker or sign a "replacement" big name WR.

BB has consistently shown a willingness to sail very close to the wind in terms of going without key players due to either contract or other issues, and that he never values individual(s) over the team. And for the most part he's gotten away with it. Some examples:

- Suspending Terry Glenn and then trading him. The Pats won the 2001 SB without him.

- Not giving in to Deion Branch in 2006 and then trading him. The Pats had nothing at WR, but went to the AFCCG and were within a hair's breadth of making the SB. The lack of WRs arguably was one of the factors that stopped us.

- Trading Randy Moss for a 4th round pick during the 2010 season, and re-vamping the offense around 2 rookie TEs.

- Letting Asante Samuel walk after the 2007 season and going with Ellis Hobbs and Deltha O'Neal at CB. The Pats still went 11-5 in 2008 and would have easily made the playoffs if Brady hadn't missed the season.

- Cutting both Brandon Meriweather and James Sanders in TC in 2011 and basically dumping most of the secondary. The Pats had one of the worst secondaries in history last year, but still were within one dropped catch and a Hail Mary of winning another SB.

- Letting Logan Mankins hold out in 2010 for the first 8 games. The Pats started Dan Connolly at L guard for 7 games, even though Connolly's total starting experience in 4 previous seasons was 4 games at RG subbing for Stephen Neal. The team still went 14-2 and got the #1 seed.

I'm not arguing whether these decisions were right or wrong. But a leapard doesn't generally change it's spots, and BB's spots have been pretty consistent. I'm guessing that he'll see keeping Welker as an option if things work out the way he wants, but by no means a necessity, and that he would have no trouble going with some combination of receivers that most people on this board would consider totally "unthinkable" or "unacceptable". And probably get away with it. And it wouldn't shock me if he tweaked the offense yet again.

 

[Froob]

You got me there. Didn't know Woodhead ran a 4.33 on his pro day. Amazing

Damn, Woody might be the fastest white guy to ever play in this league.

 

[Froob]

Hard to imagine either Danny Woodhead or Jeff Demps would make us slower at WR.

Isn't 5'7 kinda too short for WR? Rarely, if ever, see a guy shorter than 5'9 out there. Maybe I'm wrong I dunno, if you're gonna be short does 2 inches matter? Just a thought, would seem to be difficult to throw them the ball down the field without it going over their heads.

 

[Wilfork#75]

1 ~ In 2000, we had 2 ~ two ~ proven Receivers: Troy Brown and Terry Glenn.

2 ~ And then Mad Bill cut Terry Glenn.

3 ~ And we all know what a disaster that 2001 Season was.

4 ~ WideOuts are vastly overrated.

God, what I wouldn't pay to see this Board if it'd been up when Mad Bill ~ coming off a Rookie 5-11 Season, mind you!! ~ cut Mister Spectacular loose!!

If you give me the 2001 defense I will feel a whole lot better about our WRs. Unfortunately I think the game has changed since then and our inability to score points in the big game has cost us at least 2 Super Bowls.

 

[Nunchucks]

Damn, Woody might be the fastest white guy to ever play in this league.

Woodhead in shorts and a T-shirt is superfast, throw some pads on the guy and he runs a 4.7

 

[patsfan13]

Using the Rb's more in the passing game should be looked into, especially Vareen and Demps. Demps in motion out of the backfield would provide a threat that would stretch the field. I will be interested in preseason to see what sort of pass catching and route running skills he has.

Potentially he could stretch the field as well as anyone in the league, since he will be the fastest player in the league.


Given his injury history Edleman should be pretty cheap to sign. My guess is that even Hartline will be out of our price range.

 

[Off The Grid]

1 ~ In 2000, we had 2 ~ two ~ proven Receivers: Troy Brown and Terry Glenn.

2 ~ And then Mad Bill cut Terry Glenn.

3 ~ And we all know what a disaster that 2001 Season was.

4 ~ WideOuts are vastly overrated.

God, what I wouldn't pay to see this Board if it'd been up when Mad Bill ~ coming off a Rookie 5-11 Season, mind you!! ~ cut Mister Spectacular loose!!

If you give me the 2001 defense I will feel a whole lot better about our WRs.

Unfortunately I think the game has changed since then and our inability to score points in the big game has cost us at least 2 Super Bowls.

1 ~ The 2001 Defense was #6 in the League. The 2012 Defense was #9. 17 Points less and we were #6. No offense, Brother Wilfork, but The Legend of the 2001 Defense has far exceeded its Reality.

2 ~ Our inability to score Points? We scored 66 Points more than anyone. We scored the 3rd most of any team ever, if I recall correctly.

Brady, taken as an whole, is awesome...But he's become complacent and conservative.

He ~ and Mad Bill, himself ~ need to be shocked back into Using The Whole Pig.

That was our problem in 2007.

That was our problem in 2008.

That was our problem in 2009.

That was our problem in 2010.

That was our problem in 2011.

That was our problem in 2012.

We usually had the Capacity to run the Ball and keep the Defense off Balance.

...like we did in 2001, 2003, and 2004.

But it's almost as if Mad Bill and General Tom've never recovered from that Atrocity of a 2006 Championship Game...and've been trying to Manningize, ever since.

***

The Game hasn't changed that much: The Ravens & Miners are in the Super Bowl, after all.

They didn't get there by throwing 50 TouchDowns, did they?

Use The Whole Pig, Gentlemen.

It ain't complicated.

 

[MoneyFX]

Size, speed and depth is needed in the position. Whatever happens to Welker is keeping my attention at first.

 

[aluminum seats]

I'm not sure this fits perfectly within this thread, but I've been thinking it for awhile: I just wonder if Lloyd was misused this year.

When he was brought in, it was with the idea that he would be a "stretch the field" guy (really starting to hate that phrase). NOT because he was such a burner, but because he had the ability to catch the damn ball--make acrobatic catches, come down with the ball even in tight coverage.

In 2010, Lloyd caught 74 passes for 1448 yards--a 18.8 average. This year, he caught 3 more balls...for 500 yards LESS than 2010. A 12.3 average.

Now, there's been a lot of talk about Lloyd's lack of YAC/flopping tendencies, and I wasn't a close enough observer of him before he got here to say if that's become more pronounced or not. But it seems more likely to me he's always been sort of the same guy as far as that goes. So what changed? That would leave where he was catching the ball--his route running, the structure of the offense.

Simply put, I wonder if the Pats really do have the deep threat they need on the roster right now, if they just committed more to making that happen.