Receiver Arithmetic - Spreading It Out

[mgteich]

ASSUMPTION ONE (TE's 160 catches)
We get about the same production from TE's that we got in 2011 (the best ever by a pair of TE's). We now have Ballard in a addition to Graonk and Hernandez (and even Hooman/Fells).

ASSUMPTION TWO (RB's 60 catches)
We increase RB catches by a bit, even though our best receiver is gone.

ASSUMPTION THREE
The patriots are still a 55% pass 45% run team.

WIDE RECEIVERS (what is left or 180 catches)
We could have three 60 catch receivers. We have one on the team. I would note that when we are talking about the #3 receiver, we really mean #3/#4/#5. Together these players might account for 60 catches. This is especially true if we run fewer 3 WR sets. So, that leaves us with
Amendola 60
???????? 60
Others 60 (we have Jones and some scrubs)

CONCLUSION
IF the TE's can be healthy, and IF the RB's continue to improve in the passing game, then we need one "top" receiver and a #3. Jones is likely good enough to compete with the JAG's for the #4 spot.

 

[Nehalem]

If Amendola stays healthy I would expect more than 60 catches from him.

Although hopefully less than 110+ we would expect from welker.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'm not sure what the underlying assumptions are here with this being early April, the roster is far from complete.

So on the upside I'm not thinking BB is done tinkering with the roster yet. I expect another WR - probably a deep threat - to come from the draft, via trade, free agency or other team's cuts.

You also mention two TEs - but everyone seems to be forgetting about Ballard. If the season started today (and again it does not) I would not be surprised to see Hernandez line up at WR with Ballard and Gronk on the field as well. How many teams could defend sgainst that sort of a 3 TE set adequately? Belichick and McDaniels LOVE to create those types of mismatches when they can.

(though I can't help but wonder if Ballard could be used as valuable trade bait - Victor Cruz for Ballard anyone?;-)

Bringing back Lloyd and Edelman also remain possibilities.

On the downside, we have no idea whether Amendola and Ballard - or any other new receiver - would have any rapport with Brady. But I think in the past, having Welker as his binky may have hindered Brady's inclination to look to other receivers.

So the upside to losing him I believe may be that we will see much better ball distribution - and in the long run I think that may improve the team and lessen the predictability of play calling when the game hangs in the balance.

But overall I agree you will see the receiving stats show more distribution than in past years - don't be expecting that any receiver will have 110+ catches as Welker always did.

 

[signbabybrady]

ASSUMPTION ONE (TE's 160 catches)
We get about the same production from TE's that we got in 2011 (the best ever by a pair of TE's).

ASSUMPTION TWO (RB's 60 catches)
We increase RB catches by a bit, even though our best receiver is gone.

ASSUMPTION THREE
The patriots are still a 55% pass 45% run team.

WIDE RECEIVERS (what is left or 180 catches)
We could have three 60 catch receivers. We have one on the team. I would note that when we are talking about the #3 receiver, we really mean #3/#4/#5. Together these players might account for 60 catches. This is especially true if we run fewer 3 WR sets. So, that leaves us with
Amendola 60
???????? 60
Others 60 (we have Jones and some scrubs)

CONCLUSION
IF the TE's can be healthy, and IF the RB's continue to improve in the passing game, then we need one "top" receiver and a #3. Jones is likely good enough to compete with the JAG's for the #4 spot.

I like the the thinking but I would tweak your Math a little.

Starting with the TEs. Sure they are capable of replicating 2011 production they are both still really young and in theory could still be getting better but as you point out that was the best ever by a TE duo so assuming the same production is a touch a high but could be really close and sure there is possibility of equaling or even besting.

Also I dont think it is fair to assume that the RBs will catch more. Woody and Vareen had 60 catches give or take a few. With Woody accounting for 40+. Not sure how you can assume Vareen will replace that and even still you would be left with his 15 or so still. Ridley likely will have a few more catches with Woody gone.

however I think you can overcome this by adding 10 or so catches to each WR position and still have the same basic point you were trying to make.

Also I question why you put the ceiling on Buffalo's 2nd or 3rd best reciever as our fourth best receiver. I am actually a little excited about Jones. Jones had 41 receptions last year with Fitz throwing to him If your calling him 4 than the number 3 by your own combination of 3/4/5 only needs to come up with another 20.

Right now I kind of pencil Jones in as the number 3 and assume he will be able to produce similar for us from that spot as he has in the past. I assume for now DA is our number one WR. Which basically leaves the team with a large whole on the roster in a number 2 and needing to replace the difference in production from Wes to DA. I think the TEs being healthy will easily make up for what if any is lost from RBs.

up until now both of us have left out Ballard as he should have a few more receptions than Hooman and Fells gave us last year (especially if the TEs dont stay healthy).

Basically right now I think we are anywhere from 90-120(lloyds prodcution plus some of Wes') catches shy of last year which I actually dont see as a huge problem as we had the most receptions in the league last year and that is not a requirement for success so we can offord less receptions plus whoever the number 2 WR winds up being will give us something. Not sure what the exact number to assign an unknown guy is and not sure how many receptions is fair to assume just wont be replaced before its a problem but I think its worth considering.

 

[mgteich]

We had the same number of receptions 2012 as in 2011. We are a passing team. I expect us to have the ball as much as last year (if not more) and to be as efficient. I think that 400 receptions is reasonable, although the percentage of passing COULD decrease from 55%.

I agree that Ballard will have some catches, making it more reasonable to reach the TE numbers.

I agree with you that we are 90-120 catches short as of now. That is a lot to ask for JAG's (who may never see the field) and of a rookie.

I have agreed with others that we are fine if we bring back Lloyd and Edelman, having replaced Branch with Jones. The reality is that Lloyd and Jones would likely produce as much as Lloyd, Branch and Edelman last year.

Basically right now I think we are anywhere from 90-120 catches shy of last year which I actually dont see as a huge problem as we had the most receptions in the league last year and that is not a requirement for success so we can offord less receptions plus whoever the number 2 WR winds up being will give us something. Not sure what the exact number to assign an unknown guy is and not sure how many receptions is fair to assume just wont be replaced before its a problem but I think its worth considering.

 

[mgteich]

Since I expect the same number of catches as 2011 and 2012, the point is to see what we are missing with the current rosters. We can then better understand our needs in the rest of free agency and in the draft.

I'm not sure what the underlying assumptions are here with this being early April, the roster is far from complete.

 

[signbabybrady]

We had the same number of receptions 2012 as in 2011. We are a passing team. I expect us to have the ball as much as last year (if not more) and to be as efficient. I think that 400 receptions is reasonable, although the percentage of passing COULD decrease from 55%.

I am not suggesting any major shift in philosophy I still think we will be a one of the better teams in the league on offense and I still think we will be a pass first team. And I dont see the abscence of 20 or so receptions throughout the course of the season to have any effect on this and I hope we lose another 20 or so receptions to a deep threat.
Basically I am saying about a reception a game just walks out the door with Wes and will not be repalced and that I hope this un-named number 2 can be a deep threat and for every deep catch we make this year that we did not make last year you can assume will take some receptions away as that is yardage gained that can not be gained by a combination of short passes.

 

[JoeSixPat]

We had the same number of receptions 2012 as in 2011. We are a passing team. I expect us to have the ball as much as last year (if not more) and to be as efficient. I think that 400 receptions is reasonable, although the percentage of passing COULD decrease from 55%.

I agree that Ballard will have some catches, making it more reasonable to reach the TE numbers.

I agree with you that we are 90-120 catches short as of now. That is a lot to ask for JAG's (who may never see the field) and of a rookie.

I have agreed with others that we are fine if we bring back Lloyd and Edelman, having replaced Branch with Jones. The reality is that Lloyd and Jones would likely produce as much as Lloyd, Branch and Edelman last year.

I'm pretty much on the same page as you - even given the potential for fewer catches and yards, I've never been overly focused on gross numbers like some stat-hounds. I focus on the quality and timing of key catches.

Brady had fewer receptions in 2010 than in 2009 or 2011.

If you focus on receptions and yards you'd be disspointed in the 2010 season.

If you focus on wins you'd be disappointed in the comparative outcome of the 2009 and 2011 seasons.

'nuff said.


I'm pretty much on the same page as you - and even in an "as of now" situation with a guestimate of seeing 120 less receptions I wouldn't be all that concerned. Brady will find receivers - and hopefully has someone to stretch and open up the field to make it easier to find those short to mid range receivers too.

It's the quality and timing of the catches - not the gross numbers that the stat-hounds always focus on that I key on.

Brady had 75 fewer catches in 2009 than in 2010. The end result was more wins in 2009 than 2010.

 

[Deus Irae]

...Brady had 75 fewer catches in 2009 than in 2010. The end result was more wins in 2009 than 2010.

You've got the years backwards, and you ignore a host of reasons beyond raw reception numbers.

 

[Sicilian]

I'm really not concerned with number of completions and where they're coming from. In 2006, when his top targets were Caldwell, Gaffney, and Watson, Brady managed to complete 319 passed. Compare that to his MVP season in 2010, he completed 324 passes.

What I'm concerned with is having a variety of options available, that can run a variety of routes to fit different situations. So that when it comes down to it on a crucial 3rd down in January, we are in the best possible position to make a play.

 

[mgteich]

if you want a passing game with 325 receptions that's fine.

I'm NOT buying this change in the offense. I expect us to continue to lead the league is offensive plays. If we go down to 325 passes completed, that would translate to about a 50-50 pass-run ratio. I understand that many of you think that it would be good to use Brady that way. I do not.

 

[Sicilian]

if you want a passing game with 325 receptions that's fine.

I'm NOT buying this change in the offense. I expect us to continue to lead the league is offensive plays. If we go down to 325 passes completed, that would translate to about a 50-50 pass-run ratio. I understand that many of you think that it would be good to use Brady that way. I do not.

It's not that I WANT an offense with 325 receptions, it's that I'm not concerned with aggregate regular season numbers. We had over 400 receptions last year, and against the Ravens our struggles occurred in very specific situations. It's not that last year's offense COULDN'T convert those plays if given another chance, it just shows that replacing the potential total numbers has no bearing on our ultimate success in the playoffs.

So I'm less worried about finding another 60 catch guy, or 70 catch guy, or 80 catch guy, and more interested in bringing in talent where it is available and letting the roles shake out in camp. I don't think 2006 (or even 2010) is the best type of offense for success, but I sure don't think that our 2011 and 2012 offenses were the ONLY way to do it either.

 

[supafly]

If Amendola stays healthy I would expect more than 60 catches from him.

Although hopefully less than 110+ we would expect from welker.

I assume you meant "probably" less, and I would agree with you. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect less than 85 catches or so from Amendola considering that he's taking over the role full-time. He'll likely see a ton of targets, although it may not be as much as Welker did if Belichick feels that the production can be spread.

ASSUMPTION ONE (TE's 160 catches)
We get about the same production from TE's that we got in 2011 (the best ever by a pair of TE's). We now have Ballard in a addition to Graonk and Hernandez (and even Hooman/Fells).

ASSUMPTION TWO (RB's 60 catches)
We increase RB catches by a bit, even though our best receiver is gone.

ASSUMPTION THREE
The patriots are still a 55% pass 45% run team.

WIDE RECEIVERS (what is left or 180 catches)
We could have three 60 catch receivers. We have one on the team. I would note that when we are talking about the #3 receiver, we really mean #3/#4/#5. Together these players might account for 60 catches. This is especially true if we run fewer 3 WR sets. So, that leaves us with
Amendola 60
???????? 60
Others 60 (we have Jones and some scrubs)

CONCLUSION
IF the TE's can be healthy, and IF the RB's continue to improve in the passing game, then we need one "top" receiver and a #3. Jones is likely good enough to compete with the JAG's for the #4 spot.

I think that you are looking at all of the angles of the situation very nicely, mgteich. Sometimes the glaring weaknesses don't seem as bad when you factor everything in. That of course doesn't change the fact that we'll likely need someone as a draft pick to come in and grab 25-30 catches, and need a couple of reliable guys who can move the chains when needed. It also doesn't change the fact that we'd all like to see that bigger name/dependable "WR1," although that may not happen.

As far as the RB catches, Deus Irae posted a nice statistic last year regarding the number of RB grabs per season in the Belichick era. I believe that the numbers were always pretty consistent, somewhere around 50-55 total (the exception being the 2011 season with BJGE where it was in the low 30's). That being the case, I don't think the odds are too high to expect one particular RB to put up 60 backfield catches, but I think it may indeed be plenty reasonable to expect another 40 catch season like last year, probably from Vereen. Washington should also add another X amount of grabs too, depending on how much production you think he'll see.

I actually think we could go a long way by bringing one of Llyod/Edelman back, although I personally doubt it to be Llyod. Then again, that may not be in Belichick's master plan either. If you'd add one of those + a high draft pick, things would be more stable--although surely not "solved."

 

[supafly]

I'm NOT buying this change in the offense. I expect us to continue to lead the league is offensive plays. If we go down to 325 passes completed, that would translate to about a 50-50 pass-run ratio. I understand that many of you think that it would be good to use Brady that way. I do not.

I'm not buying the suspected "change" either. I think we'll continue with many aspects of the same stuff, only trying to make improvements with certain players' skillsets. The hurry-up will almost surely remain a part of the plan.

I do not feel that using Brady 50-50 would be wise either. He is our biggest weapon on the team. Anything less than 57/43--55/45 would be a waste of talent/resources in my opinion.

 

[Sicilian]

For reference, here are all the super bowl winners from 2005 on, with number of completions in the regular season:

2012 Flacco 317
2011 Manning 359
2010 Rodgers 310
2009 Brees 363
2008 Roeth 281
2007 Manning 297
2006 Manning 362
2005 Roeth/Batch 225* Outlier, due to Roethlisberger injury.

No real pattern there. And most of these teams had what would be considered good to great WR groups. I don't think replacing catches is the right way to focus on how the WR corp will be restocked or improved.

 

[Nehalem]

I assume you meant "probably" less, and I would agree with you. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect less than 85 catches or so from Amendola considering that he's taking over the role full-time. He'll likely see a ton of targets, although it may not be as much as Welker did if Belichick feels that the production can be spread.

Well that as well as hopefully. Hopefully as in hopefully Brady spreads the ball around more instead of having 120 receptions come from receiver.

 

[Gumby]

I'm not buying the suspected "change" either. I think we'll continue with many aspects of the same stuff, only trying to make improvements with certain players' skillsets. The hurry-up will almost surely remain a part of the plan.

I do not feel that using Brady 50-50 would be wise either. He is our biggest weapon on the team. Anything less than 57/43--55/45 would be a waste of talent/resources in my opinion.

but you are IGNORING situational football and RISK-REWARD.

Situationally: If TB is beating up on a bunch of cellar-dwellars during 25-40% of the regular season (4-6 games); then I would rather see a 40-60 ratio in those games and run the ball down their darned throat; burn the clock and get out unscathed (if OL, RBs, TEs are laying the licks to block ... they arent getting hit so hard themselves).

Risk-reward: In every reward you usually have an associated HIGHER RISK. If he is our most valuable weapon; then please remember that every time he goes back to pass - he stands there with a BULLSEYE on his chest, arm and head (or knee if you are B. Pollard). If you get him hurt in wk 8 passing 55% of the time; maybe he isnt there in the PO?


Sure you want to MAXIMIZE your most dangerous weapon; but you also want to get the ball out of his hands as quickly as possible (or as Madden says 'get the ball into the hands of the playmaker') .... and let those YOUNG STUDS absorb the accompanying HARD HITS. TB isnt getting any younger, he is rapidly approaching nfl-senior citizen status (or at least AARP-discount status ).

 

[VJCPatriot]

I am not suggesting any major shift in philosophy I still think we will be a one of the better teams in the league on offense and I still think we will be a pass first team. And I dont see the abscence of 20 or so receptions throughout the course of the season to have any effect on this and I hope we lose another 20 or so receptions to a deep threat.
Basically I am saying about a reception a game just walks out the door with Wes and will not be repalced and that I hope this un-named number 2 can be a deep threat and for every deep catch we make this year that we did not make last year you can assume will take some receptions away as that is yardage gained that can not be gained by a combination of short passes.

Welker was a 110 reception per season receiver. Amendola is a 60 reception per season receiver. 60 catches/16 = 4 catches per game. Lloyd has also been cut. He had 74 receptions/16 = 5 catches per game. So the Pats actually have to replace 9 catches per game at the WR position.

Don't get me wrong, I think Amendola can improve on his 60 catches per season. Let's say he gets into the 90 catch range. 30/16= 2. That's still 7 catches per season that we need to get from somewhere.

Of course I'd love to get Cruz for Ballard. But the Giants would be stupid to make that trade. LOL. And the Pats would have to give a 10m per year contract for Cruz and that ain't happening either.

So where does that leave us? Pretty much the draft is where it's at. Vet receivers are too expensive. I expect us to draft WR in the draft. And add depth at pass rush and in the secondary.

 

[signbabybrady]

Welker was a 110 reception per season receiver. Amendola is a 60 reception per season receiver. 60 catches/16 = 4 catches per game. Lloyd has also been cut. He had 74 receptions/16 = 5 catches per game. So the Pats actually have to replace 9 catches per game at the WR position.

I dont think you follwed all the math that went into my postion there. I was starting with some of the assumptions that MG layed out which included WR 3 having better numbers than WR 3 did last year. Personally I assume DA will have more than 60. In other posts I noted that we do still need to completely replace LLoyds production but I assume that our 2 will put . I also noted that hopefully we have a deep threat who for every deep pass he catches will negate the need for some shorter passes. And then I was also basically conceding that on top of all that we still are likely looking at 20 or so less catches which I rounded down to one grab a game. Really I dont think what I was saying is too far off of your math above its just that you did a one out one in type correlation where as I explained off how some of that production will trickle elsewhere.

 

[Nunchucks]

I would prefer to see some of those short passes turned into running plays. Let Ridley and Vereen carry the ball a little bit more often. That initself would help the offense get more vertical with playaction.