Can the Pats do right for Brady at this critical juncture?

Deus Irae · Oct 22, 2014

203Pat said:
People keep saying Jackson is a deep threat. When I think deep threat I think of a burner who can get behind the corners and/or safeties, but maybe that's just me. Jackson is by no means a burner, he's a good possession guy (although he does have questionable hands sometimes) and a big body you can lob it up to. I wouldn't mind it if we traded for him I guess but he's basically Brandon Lafell and I think we have far bigger needs than receiver right now.

Vincent Jackson, in 140 career games, has 30 career catches of 40+ yards and 124 career catches of 20+ yards.
Brandon Lafell, in 67 games, has 8 career catches of 40+ yards and 41 catches of 20+ yards

Vincent Jackson is not basically Brandon Lafell. Unless this year is a steep decline and not just a dropoff because of the Bucs situation, he is a significantly greater middle-deep threat.

203Pat · Oct 22, 2014

Deus Irae said:
Vincent Jackson, in 140 career games, has 30 career catches of 40+ yards and 124 career catches of 20+ yards.
Brandon Lafell, in 67 games, has 8 career catches of 40+ yards and 41 catches of 20+ yards

Vincent Jackson is not basically Brandon Lafell. Unless this year is a steep decline and not just a dropoff because of the Bucs situation, he is a significantly greater middle-deep threat.

Living down here I see a lot of him. They lob up bombs to him a decent amount (which I guess you could call that a deep threat) but he is no threat to blow by anyone. I remember a couple years ago he caught a 90 yard pass against the Saints. The corner sold out to make a play and missed and he was wide open running down the field only to be reeled in by Malcolm Jenkins (who I'm pretty sure ran a 4.6 coming out of college). VJax is a solid receiver and a big body but he's also one slip up away from a multiple game/year suspension as well.

EDIT: Found the play

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-...-Jackson-runs-out-of-gas-after-incredible-run

moejr · Oct 22, 2014

Froob said:
Defense did only give up 17 and 19 pts in those Super Bowls. Offense was the primary reason they lost those games.

More on our OC's. We gave up 17 and 21 pts. Absolutely no reason for us to lose 07 other than poor offensive coaching.

sb1 · Oct 22, 2014

moejr said:
More on our OC's. We gave up 17 and 21 pts. Absolutely no reason for us to lose 07 other than poor offensive coaching.

IMO there's a good reason why teams with ordinary offenses and great defenses have won championships and not the other way around.

And I care a lot more about the Patriots doing right for the Patriots team than "doing right for Brady".

chasa · Oct 22, 2014

are you joking? are you kidding me right now? seriously? SERIOUSLY?

"guys we lost a couple of defensive players, lets uhh lets get another wide reliever."

Tom has plently of weapons, he needs to utilize them.

WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE WIDE RECEIVERS

Oline, dline, and LB.

if they do not play one of those three positions, they do not need to be traded for.

chasa · Oct 22, 2014

7New England Patriots726.7

The patriots are 7th in the league in points per game.

They have played against 4 teams in the top half of the league in points allowed the the chiefs(6th in points allowed) the bills(8th in points allowed) the vikings (14th in points allowed) the dolphins(15th in points allowed) and 2 two teams in the bottom half(jets 26/raiders 25)

The patriots are starting to roll on offense and its only going to get better with the pieces we CURRENTLY have.

Offense is NOT going to be the problem, unless the o line falls apart.

mgteich · Oct 22, 2014

pctronics0072 said:
This is such an overuse and USELESS argument.

In order to improve a team, the basic premise is you take the weakest part and then improve. That gives the "biggest bang for the buck." Everyone that has ever served on a leadership position or had any experience whatsoever knows this. Coach BB knows this and has been working in order to improve the worst position which was/is defense with trust and faith in Brady that he will maintain the level of the offense regardless of talent. Remember with less talent we were the #3 offense last year and we are already seeing glimpses of this this year. Also, due to the talent (coaching and player) he treats the first 6-8 games of the season as a preseason. Be honest, when is the last time in the second half of the year that the offense is the reason we lost a game?

Can we PLEASE use our brains and think before being back-seat GMs?

As DI indicated, the needs are not mutually exclusive. It is not clear that any player can be signed who can significantly help the team.

Of course, we rather have a top DE or LB rather than a WR. HOWEVER, if Jackson would improve the team at a reasonable cost, then he should be secured.

BTW, are you making the argument that Jackson being one of the 3 WR's instead of Amendola would not significantly help the offense?

mgteich · Oct 22, 2014

ctpatsfan77 said:
It's an interesting but largely meaningless stat.

There's very little correlation between that number and making the playoffs.

I would check the teams with the most cap room available in each of the last 3 years. I think that you would find that there is indeed a correlation.

2013
jags
browns
bills
panthers
dolphins

Were these teams in the playoffs? What were their records?

Galeb · Oct 22, 2014

mgteich said:
BTW, are you making the argument that Jackson being one of the 3 WR's instead of Amendola would not significantly help the offense?

I suppose that would depend on whether Jackson could get on the same page as Brady. I think that my be why BB is loath to spend a lot on a WR who's never performed in the system.

chasa · Oct 22, 2014

mgteich said:
BTW, are you making the argument that Jackson being one of the 3 WR's instead of Amendola would not significantly help the offense?

I'll use the same arguement here that some others have used, Amendola is security for Edleman, so he would remain active, the person that would be deactivated to make room for jackson would be lafell or tyms.

Are you really ready to roll the dice by taking a player Brady has started to develop some chemistry with(Lafell) and make him inactive just because Vincent Jackson MIGHT be better here?

a 31 year old diva reciever with a big contract, and a couple of league strikes against him is not the ideal player to bring in imo.

Oswlek · Oct 22, 2014

Brady_to_Moss said:
To be fair...they were last in the NFL this year in spending this season up to the cap as IIRC Miguel the cap guru pointed out. Jets were last until the Harvin trade. Pats now last in that category. Have lots of $$ left over still.

They arn't cheap as just look..they are paying a CB 12 mill this year. But will they sign him long term when they prob should? I hope.

McCourty is due for a big deal..same as revis around 13 mil a year if he wants to stick around

According to Jonathan Kraft - not the squeakiest clean of sources, I recognize - NE had roughly $8mm of bonuses that are considered NLTBE (and thus aren't on this year's cap) that the team is expecting players to reach. So the team isn't being cheap, they are simply paying their debts with capital they currently have like any prudent business. The remaining $5mm was standard season buffer for injury/extension situations.

Some of those bonuses were Mayo's, so that changes the picture slightly. Not enough to even consider something like Jackson, I suspect.

Deus Irae · Oct 22, 2014

sb1 said:
IMO there's a good reason why teams with ordinary offenses and great defenses have won championships and not the other way around.

And I care a lot more about the Patriots doing right for the Patriots team than "doing right for Brady".

Just this century:

Peyton Manning's only SB win was with a team that was a great offense and ordinary defense (#2 offense, #23 defense)

The 2007 Giants were #14 in offense and #17 in defense

The 2011 Giants were #9 in offense and #25 in defense

The myth of "defense wins championships" is just that. It's a myth. Teams win championships, and not always the best teams. Lucky/hot teams sometimes beat the best teams.

Brady_to_Moss · Oct 22, 2014

ctpatsfan77 said:
It's an interesting but largely meaningless stat.

There's very little correlation between that number and making the playoffs.

I know..i was just pointing out that they didn't spend like the could have...that's all

Brady_to_Moss · Oct 22, 2014

i don't understand why the "pats have to do right" by giving brady a deep threat. Where were their deep threats in 01 03 and 04?

I am much more worried about the D with these injuries. They still give up the fewest amount of yards per game through the air.

Marinlik · Oct 22, 2014

Oswlek said:
According to Jonathan Kraft - not the squeakiest clean of sources, I recognize - NE had roughly $8mm of bonuses that are considered NLTBE (and thus aren't on this year's cap) that the team is expecting players to reach. So the team isn't being cheap, they are simply paying their debts with capital they currently have like any prudent business. The remaining $5mm was standard season buffer for injury/extension situations.

Some of those bonuses were Mayo's, so that changes the picture slightly. Not enough to even consider something like Jackson, I suspect.

That's the problem with just looking at the available cap space. If you look at Miguels blog post you'll see that a lot of our available cap space will be used to cover for NLBTE salary that actually is very likely to be earned. I think that the NLBTE will be applied to next years cap. But if we don't keep cap to roll over we will have very little left next year to sign players. I'd rather have $5m extra in free agency next year than to use those $5m to pay a top WR like Vincent Jackson to play half a season now and probably release him next year because he's too expensive.

Deus Irae · Oct 22, 2014

Brady_to_Moss said:
i don't understand why the "pats have to do right" by giving brady a deep threat. Where were their deep threats in 01 03 and 04?

I am much more worried about the D with these injuries. They still give up the fewest amount of yards per game through the air.

Could this board please, pretty please, stop with the "But 01-04!" nonsense?

The game was different
The Patriots had an all-time level defense in 2 of those 3 years
Patten and Givens were guys who ran the middle-deep routes and served as viable deep threats, though people here forget that

Ivan · Oct 22, 2014

Oswlek said:
According to Jonathan Kraft - not the squeakiest clean of sources, I recognize - NE had roughly $8mm of bonuses that are considered NLTBE (and thus aren't on this year's cap) that the team is expecting players to reach. So the team isn't being cheap, they are simply paying their debts with capital they currently have like any prudent business. The remaining $5mm was standard season buffer for injury/extension situations.

Some of those bonuses were Mayo's, so that changes the picture slightly. Not enough to even consider something like Jackson, I suspect.

Right on the money, the cap considerations go far beyond the simple" we have 10 million to blow...." argument. Thanks to Miguel Patriot fans have a much better understanding of this than pretty much any other fanbase, but that doesn't mean everyone gets it. I get that it is frustrating to see the Patriots being conservative about how they utilize the cap space but that approach has worked exceptionally well for them and they have been the most successful franchise in the league using it. The Bonus considerations and impending deals for Revis and McCourty, as well as in season signings will use up all of it. I will, however, give far more credence to the argument that they f.cked it up if they don't get either of those deals done.

Ivan · Oct 22, 2014

Deus Irae said:
Could this board please, pretty please, stop with the "But 01-04!" nonsense?

The game was different

The Patriots had an all-time level defense in 2 of those 3 years

Patten and Givens were guys who ran the middle-deep routes and served as viable deep threats, though people here forget that

So different that the Giants and Seahawks have been winning Super Bowls.

Ivan · Oct 22, 2014

How many here would rather see them bring in Jackson over re-signing Revis?

I think Belichick's view is that if he can give Brady a top 5 defense they will get another Lombardi. They still have to do that but imo that's the overall goal.

Danger Zone · Oct 22, 2014

Ivan said:
How many here would rather see them bring in Jackson over re-signing Revis?

I think Belichick's view is that if he can give Brady a top 5 defense they will get another Lombardi. They still have to do that but imo that's the overall goal.

Thats a tough one.

I do know I never, ever, ever want to be without a true #1 CB again.

But god, the Moss years were just a thing of football beauty (to say nothing of what-if-Brady-had-an-elite-wr-too comeuppance gold)

Can the Pats do right for Brady at this critical juncture?

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Pro Bowl Player

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Veteran

PatsFans.com Veteran

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

28-3....

28-3....

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

In the Starting Line-Up

Similar threads