Do the Pats really need a traditional NFL #1 WR?

[tombonneau]

Re: Welker, I'm seeing a lot of the "Pats don't need another #2, they need a #1 WR" talk. Yet, a dynasty has been built on a fleet of #2 WRs. (Say what you want about Branch, he is not a traditional #1WR and never will be.)

Unless the Pats are going to adjust their offensive philosophy (the philosophy that has helped them become the most successful NFL franchise of the pats 6 years), don't expect them to make any sort of big investment in a #1WR.

Sure, you could argue that they drafted CJax to be that dominant #1 guy, but until it happens on the field and they start offensively game planning that way, it is what it is.

The Pats will trot out a bunch of Welkers, Caldwells, and Gaffneys and still move the ball.

And let's face it, stud #1WRs don't grow on trees. I'd say less than half the teams in the league have a strong #1 WR that defenses game plan about. So rather than try to manufacture that rare commodity, why not do what the Pats are doing?

 

[Warren94]

Nice post.

I see us taking McKnight from ND in the later rounds to have a WR corp of Gaffney, Caldwell, Welker, Jackson, McKnight, Childress

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

I think we could use another taller reciever, I know we played with smurfs for the last 5 yrs, but I just would like another weapon for Tom Brady...

 

[bradmahn]

But what about Brown?

 

[Ghost of Ben Dreith]

Besides just having a better player if you have a true #1, it also will make your #2 a better receiver just due to the defensive secondary having to rotate more to the #1 and leaving the #2 in single coverage more often. Guess who else would be better.....Brady.

Just because Brady gets it done without a #1, doesn't mean he wouldn't like to have a true #1.

Brady has been the epitome of the tired business bs bromides of "Do more with less" and "Work smarter, not harder".

People have posted for years asking "I wonder how Brady would do with Manning's receivers?". Brady would be better...easy answer.

 

[TB12]

I mean Brady has obviously gotten it done with the WRs hes been given, but thats not to say he wouldnt be even better with a top notch WR. Give Brady a WR corps of Harrison and Wayne and hes probaly the best player in the league.

 

[tombonneau]

Besides just having a better player if you have a true #1, it also will make your #2 a better receiver just due to the defensive secondary having to rotate more to the #1 and leaving the #2 in single coverage more often. Guess who else would be better.....Brady.

Just because Brady gets it done without a #1, doesn't mean he wouldn't like to have a true #1.

Brady has been the epitome of the tired business bs bromides of "Do more with less" and "Work smarter, not harder".

People have posted for years asking "I wonder how Brady would do with Manning's receivers?". Brady would be better...easy answer.

Agreed, that is an easy answer.

A harder answer is, at what position are you willing to sacrifice the salary cap space to afford this elite #1WR?

I think BB looks at the entire puzzle of his team, and determines he is only willing to allot so much money to WRs. He would rather have the highest paid DL & LB in the league than two pricey WRs.

 

[pats63]

Who is open will get the ball...

 

[patfanken]

Re: Welker, I'm seeing a lot of the "Pats don't need another #2, they need a #1 WR" talk. Yet, a dynasty has been built on a fleet of #2 WRs. (Say what you want about Branch, he is not a traditional #1WR and never will be.)

Unless the Pats are going to adjust their offensive philosophy (the philosophy that has helped them become the most successful NFL franchise of the pats 6 years), don't expect them to make any sort of big investment in a #1WR.

Sure, you could argue that they drafted CJax to be that dominant #1 guy, but until it happens on the field and they start offensively game planning that way, it is what it is.

The Pats will trot out a bunch of Welkers, Caldwells, and Gaffneys and still move the ball.

And let's face it, stud #1WRs don't grow on trees. I'd say less than half the teams in the league have a strong #1 WR that defenses game plan about. So rather than try to manufacture that rare commodity, why not do what the Pats are doing?

You must be reading my mind. I just finished posting on this topic in another thread. The #1 WR label was an invention of the media and has unfortunately become part of our everyday lexicon.

Part of the success of the Pats offense IS EXACTLY that we DON'T have a #1 WR. In some respects is actually HARDER to prepare a defense when you DON'T know who is going to be the focus of the passing game. With the Pats offense, who will be the primary target is determined by the coaches when they do their match up planning during the week. Depending to the personel of the defense they are facing, each week it can be a different guy.

That's why WRs don't put up great numbers here. You can't have huge numbers when the ball is being spread around to 8-10 guys EVERY weeks

 

[BradyManny]

I think we could use another taller reciever, I know we played with smurfs for the last 5 yrs, but I just would like another weapon for Tom Brady...

How about that sculpted 6'1 guy we got who runs a 4.4 and despite nagging injuries and limited playing time, still showed flashes of big-play ability?

 

[Ghost of Ben Dreith]

You must be reading my mind. I just finished posting on this topic in another thread. The #1 WR label was an invention of the media and has unfortunately become part of our everyday lexicon.

Part of the success of the Pats offense IS EXACTLY that we DON'T have a #1 WR. In some respects is actually HARDER to prepare a defense when you DON'T know who is going to be the focus of the passing game. With the Pats offense, who will be the primary target is determined by the coaches when they do their match up planning during the week. Depending to the personel of the defense they are facing, each week it can be a different guy.

That's why WRs don't put up great numbers here. You can't have huge numbers when the ball is being spread around to 8-10 guys EVERY weeks

I have to disagree with your analysis here on a single basic tenet. If you were to change the term "#1" receiver into the term "an extremely talented WR above what we have there now", would your comments still hold true? Would it be easier for the defense to prepare? The guy probably wouldn't put up great numbers due to the Pat's distrubution sytem, via Brady, but a team is always better with more talent at a position (assuming money, character are not involved). Who the coaches determine is the primary target week-to-week would not be disabled by having "an extremelely talented WR above what we have there now". Harder to prepare without one, nah....would the Colts be harder to prepare for if they had Gaffney instead of Harrison?

It is an area for improvement. Can and have we won in the past without "an extremely talented WR above what we have there now"? Yes, but it would help us out if we had one.

 

[tombonneau]

I have to disagree with your analysis here on a single basic tenet. If you were to change the term "#1" receiver into the term "an extremely talented WR above what we have there now", would your comments still hold true? Would it be easier for the defense to prepare? The guy probably wouldn't put up great numbers due to the Pat's distrubution sytem, via Brady, but a team is always better with more talent at a position (assuming money, character are not involved). Who the coaches determine is the primary target week-to-week would not be disabled by having "an extremelely talented WR above what we have there now". Harder to prepare without one, nah....would the Colts be harder to prepare for if they had Gaffney instead of Harrison?

It is an area for improvement. Can and have we won in the past without "an extremely talented WR above what we have there now"? Yes, but it would help us out if we had one.

And herein lies the inherent paradoxical problem with the Pats & an "extremely talented WR". They had that situation with Deion -- a WR who was much better than all the other WRs on the team.

That WR now wants to be paid like one of the best WRs in the league. But when you look at the Pats system, is a guy who is going to catch 70 passes worth that kind of money?

I don't think he is. And neither does the NE brass.

This is why with their system they will never be able to afford the "extremely talented WR." It is just not in the teams genetic makeup.

They could get one in the draft, but they would lose him in 4 years time (see Branch, Deion).

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

Re: Welker, I'm seeing a lot of the "Pats don't need another #2, they need a #1 WR" talk. Yet, a dynasty has been built on a fleet of #2 WRs. (Say what you want about Branch, he is not a traditional #1WR and never will be.)

The Pats also won SB titles with "inferior" talents at RB, CB, TE, safety and OL but have chosen to improve those positions nonetheless. I don't know why WR would be any different.

 

[tombonneau]

The Pats also won SB titles with "inferior" talents at RB, CB, TE, safety and OL but have chosen to improve those positions nonetheless. I don't know why WR would be any different.

I think my previous posts sums that up. Given the system, the production from the Pats top WR will not be commensurate with the salary they desire.

Their only chance is to develop a top wr via the draft for reasonable money, but then they will likely let him walk in FA.

That is what they did last year with CJax, and what they did a few years ago with Branch.

I simply don't see them shelling out any money for a "dominant" WR in FA.

Also, the singing up Welker is an improvement in the area of WR. It might not be a "sexy" signing like Stallworth with all of his "upside", but it is an improvement.

 

[Mainefan]

What we need is a receiver who will stretch the field. That will help both the short passing game and the running game. CJ may be that guy or perhaps someone else we draft.

He doesn't have to be a #1 receiver in the sense that he racks up 100 catches or 1200 yards in a season. But he should be a guy who averages better than 15 yards a catch, even if Brady only throws to him five times in a game.

The result of a downfield threat like this will be occasional long bombs, but more often marching down the field with a series of first downs, via screen passes, short passes and 5-6 yard runs.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

But when you look at the Pats system, is a guy who is going to catch 70 passes worth that kind of money?

If that WR is instrumental in this team winning a SB then the ansswer is a resounding yes!

If getting a bonafide stud WR makes Brady better, makes Maroney better, makes Watson better and everyone else on offense better then it doesn't matter how many recpetions that player makes ...... the TEAM is better off for it and that is what is most important, right?

 

[tombonneau]

I think we all agree that CJAx is supposed to be that guy who stretches the field, etc. With that said, I simply don't see NE making any FA moves for that type of player, considering the only one on the market is Stallworth, who is bother overvalued by himself and Drew Rosenhaus.

Again, of course NE would love a bona fide stud WR, but they don't grow on trees.

If the right person is available, they might make a move in the draft, but don't expect it to happen in FA.

 

[JDP111]

Sign Justin Gage. . . . .

 

[CT_Pats_Fan]

NE puts a lot more stock into the character, intelligence, and desire to become the best football player they can be than many other teams. Try fitting any of the league's bonafide #1's into that mold - not many stick.

Branch fits that mold, but they simply didn't feel that the production you get out of a receiver was worth the money. When you look at his production in Seattle and the fact we are sitting on a #1 pick, you can't really argue with that.

 

[GHOSTOFSAMGASH]

If that WR is instrumental in this team winning a SB then the ansswer is a resounding yes!

If getting a bonafide stud WR makes Brady better, makes Maroney better, makes Watson better and everyone else on offense better then it doesn't matter how many recpetions that player makes ...... the TEAM is better off for it and that is what is most important, right?

there is no "bonafide" stud in this free agency. they will probably not draft one because wrs usually take a couple years to develop into consistent threats.

stallworth gets a lot of attention but he has averaged 47 catches a year over his career, is constantly nagged by hamstring injuries, he also has rosenhaus who is going to try to get him at least 5 mill per.

the "bonafide" stud youre looking for is going to be someone who does not fit the typical stud mold but just like past years it is usually the most consistent so it could be any one of welker, gaffney, caldwell, or brown if hes still around

yes a stud wr does make the rb qb and everything better, but so does a consistent set or wrs that will always find a way to get open and keep getting first downs and tds :rocker: