i'd say lazy routes and sloppy routes are pretty darn close to the same thing...
No. Running lazy routes is what Moss did vs the Jets in the first game 2nd half in 2010 and vs the Fins in 2010. Few games in 2009.
Running sloppy routes is when a WR runs too wide off either the hashmarks or the sidelines, thus taking him a tad sec late in cutting in or out. It's like the (I think it was Mario Manningham in the SB on the right side) who ran a go route and instead of maintaining a 7 yard lateral depth from the sidelines, he ran a go route as a 40 yard fade route thus resulting in an in completion. If he had maintained proper lateral depth, that would have been a catch inside Pats territory.
It's also when you are suppose to stop (say 10 yard hitch) 10 yards on a 3rd and 10 but instead stops 8 yards. It destroys a QB to WR connection and can lead to a turnover or a knockdown.
Heck in the SB vs the Saints, Reggie Wayne, a great route runner, ran a sloppy quick in route and gave up inside leverage. Because of that, the ball got INT'd for pick 6.
Route running is a Major requirement for any Pats WR. Take a look at the Tiquann Underwood int vs the Redskins, He was suppose to run a deep in and gain inside leverage. He didn't and Brady for some reason decided to throw the ball and it got int'd.
Plus i was referring to DJax, someone you didnt mention, but made that assumption based on your critique of Wallace. But hey, not trying to get in an argument over two of the most dynamic WR in the game today...
DJAX is another sloppy route runner. A malcontent who really seem to be not the smartest tool in the box. I highly doubt he could learn how to run a coverage based offense.
Pass on him.
you wouldnt want Wallace on the Patriots, given the opportunity to redraft?
Hindsight is 20/20. I could do this all day.
Again, go back to the 2009 draft.
Tate was more polished coming out of UNC than Wallace. Wallace is still an only deep threat WR. He still runs sloppy routes. He still rarely runs inside routes. Tate played ST in college. Wallace did not.
Given the info at that time, I would still take Tate over Wallace.
WR taken before Wallace in '09:
Robiskie, Massaquoi, Williams, Tate... all busts
Heyward-Bey, Crabtree, Britt... fair to middling at this point in their careers.
Maclin, Nicks, Harvin... good to great
Aside from Nicks, there is not one receiver i would rather have on any team in any system before taking Wallace.
Hindsight being 20/20, I would take Nicks first (he runs inside routes while running deep routes) and then Maclin. Then Wallace.
But if we had taken Nicks or Maclin in the 1st round, you would have lost the 2nd round selection from the 2010 draft. A selection that later was Rob Gronk.
You could counter with "Oh we could have traded up that time". I'm not sure. If we had done that, We probably have to give up a future 2011 1st round pick (Solder or what became a 2012 1st round pick) or 2 2nd round picks in 2010. You lose Spikes and semi useless JC.
Pass.
And Tate was a 3rd round picks. 3rd round picks tend to be project players.
