- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 28,161
- Reaction score
- 7,435
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Last year's top 5 Patriots receivers:
Welker - 118
Lloyd - 74
Gronk - 55
AH - 51
Woodhead - 40
The simple fact of the matter is that, if Gronk can't play week 1, the Patriots will start their season without their top 5 receivers from last season. Anyone who wants to pretend that they can easily find the missing 338 receptions among the current crop of receivers is welcome to do so. The fact of the matter is, though, that the career best seasons of Amendola/Jenkins/Jones combined get you to 179, which is less than what Gronk/AH/Lloyd had last year in a down season for the two TEs.
If I know the Patriots, like I think I do. With all this talk about their downfall and all the crap about the WR/TE..one thing is pretty much for sure, they will be going to the Superbowl this season.
Woodhead injured his thumb.
rule changes, Icy...predicate more offensive minded teams...that's one way to explain that
there's just too many variables involved though from year to year to draw any real, definitive conclusion...the Pats COULD throw less and run more and make the Super Bowl this season...and they could just as easily end up 8-8 and out of the playoffs.
I'm betting my entire pitcher of Kool Aid that McDaniels, with BB's approval,puts out an even more spectacular aerial show than 2012. It just feels like that to me, considering EVERYONE outside of Foxboro will be blabbing non stop about exactly what BB and the Pats need to do...and from the looks of it, the consensus is "he has to RUN MORE!! No more of these passing displays!!"....I don't know...I think it's fear of "what if they have success doing business as usual" that drives the majority of the media that has been predicting the decline and waiting for the decline of the Brady/Pats offense since the last second ticked off the clock in February 2008.
You really can't look at it like that. More like - if Brady threw to those guys 500 times, he's going to throw to 5 or 6 targets to make up those 500 attempts, right? So how will the new corps compare in terms of completion rate and YAC? That's the big question.
Also, one of the biggest reasons those guys got so many chances was because there was NOTHING after them. I love Branch but watching from the stands, it was obvious that he could never get open. They were so short in their receiver corps, those guys had to see 500 balls.
They've got a lot more potential depth this year, at least. Losing Welker and Hernandez certainly hurts, but a good QB with a good O line will make his throws, and I really don't think Woodhead or Lloyd were anything special on the other ends of the route - and I also expect Gronk to at leas tmatch last year's production.
Tom Brady completions
2001 - 264 - Super Bowl - lowest total but also partial year.
2002 - 373 -
2003 - 317 - Super Bowl - 3rd lowest
2004 - 288 - Super Bowl - 2nd lowest
2005 - 334
2006 - 319
2007 - 398
2009 - 371
2010 - 324
2011 - 401
2012 - 401
Well if we're going the semi scientific method here then
the imperfect science says less is more and overall team balance is better.
Passing completions not proven as a major factor in winning Super Bowl.
If the only issue differentiating all those years was completions, or even just the offense in general, you'd have a point. Since that's nowhere near the only difference, though, your argument fails.
Last year's top 5 Patriots receivers:
Welker - 118
Lloyd - 74
Gronk - 55
AH - 51
Woodhead - 40
The simple fact of the matter is that, if Gronk can't play week 1, the Patriots will start their season without their top 5 receivers from last season. Anyone who wants to pretend that they can easily find the missing 338 receptions among the current crop of receivers is welcome to do so. The fact of the matter is, though, that the career best seasons of Amendola/Jenkins/Jones combined get you to 179, which is less than what Gronk/AH/Lloyd had last year in a down season for the two TEs.
The data runs against your 338 point.I'm not sure why people who want to defend the team keep telling me how I can look at things when the data runs against them.
I don't see any conceivable way Tom Brady can perform at peak production given his age. I am sure it's possible but I don't think it's logical to expect it from a planning point of view. The man has only so many fastballs left in that arm and body.
I think they will design the offense around less passing but with a higher receiving yardage per catch for the WR's and I'm expecting more of the short range passes to be caught by the RB core with the team trying to exploit some YAC in that category.
I'm expecting great receiving production from Shane Vereen this year. That kid is a WR in a RB body and everything I saw from him at the games I went to excited me. The WR's we have this year will open up more production from the RB's IMO. Last years crop of receivers did little to keep teams from stacking the box.
Deus you're the one earlier who stated:
I simply pointed out that your argument was not logical in terms of winning a Super Bowl because all those catches have not equated to winning one. There are too many other factors of course. So why are you arguing we need to make up for those 338 receptions then?
You have just disproved your own point of needing 338.
The data runs against your 338 point.
Unlike you I don't see a potential problem with the offense but you with the who will make up the 338 obviously ... you do.Because the discussion was about problems with the offense, not reasons for failing to win Super Bowls in previous seasons.
And this is what is meant by naked assertions. Your argument here is patently untrue.
How dare we think the O will be fine....we will be lucky to win 2 games
How dare we think the O will be fine....we will be lucky to win 2 games