When will we see the Pats get another big time WR?

Ring 6 · Jul 25, 2015

patfanken said:
I would have hoped that by now Patriot fans would FINALLY understand how the WR position is easily one of the most "replaceable" positions on the field for the simple reason that there are more capable ones available than almost any other position.

One of the reasons the Pats have been able to maintain that thin sliver of advantage that has allowed them to attain their CONSTISTANT success has been the fact that they have never fallen for the long disproved myth that you have to pay big for a big name RB or WR.

Make no mistake, would I LIKE to have DThomas, or DBryant on the team? Absolutely. However would I be comfortable paying $14MM/yr for the privilege? I don't think so. WR's, ANY WR, just can't impact the game enough to justify that kind of salary and investment. It's been proven year after year When so often the BEST WR's aren't playing in January.

The Pats gave up the opportunity to draft Dez Bryant, who after a few years has become arguably the most impactful WR in the league. BUT Dallas never got beyond 8-8 despite his abilities, and having a great QB UNTIL they made the commitment to invest heavily in their OL

Again the simple reason WR's don't merit the hype they get, is that behind that limited group of elite WR's are dozens of guys who are ALMOST as good, and certainly good enough to run a good offensive scheme, led by a quality QB. That's why I'm constantly amazed with the national fascination, for all thing linked to WR's. To say they are a dime a dozen is an exaggeration, but it's not that far from the truth. An impact DT is worth more than an impact WR, simply because they are more rare.

There is another aspect to this and its Tom Brady.
While novice fans bang the drum of 'when will BB get Brady the weapons other QBs have' they seem to not realize that every player you add (at least the top ones) are done at the expense of a different player. We could draft WRs in the first round, but then we wouldn't be drafting LT, DL, LB, etc. We could sign a high profile WR, but that would be at the expense of a different player at a different position, or a number of them.

What is the best way to help Tom Brady win? Take the pieces of the team that Tom Brady has no impact on and invest heavily in them, and let Brady carry what he has influence on.
Brady will give us a tremendous offense with any teams weapons. Spending big just to make that easier for him would be done to the detriment of all the other units on the team.

In other words, we don't need to spend on weapons for Brady, BECAUSE he is Brady.
When he is through, we may need to reevaluate the WR position based upon who replaces him, and his capability to 'carry' the passing offense.

Tony2046 · Jul 25, 2015

Minute Man199 said:
I think Tyms has more upside at this point than Dobson does.

I'm not going to compare him to Dobson but Tyms is someone I will be interested in watching to see if he can provide some kind of deep threat.

TomPatriot · Jul 25, 2015

Someone may have said this already but the Pats offensive system really doesn't require an elite vertical receiver, at least not compared to other systems. Definitely nice to have but not necessary.

patfanken · Jul 25, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
There is another aspect to this and its Tom Brady.
While novice fans bang the drum of 'when will BB get Brady the weapons other QBs have' they seem to not realize that every player you add (at least the top ones) are done at the expense of a different player. We could draft WRs in the first round, but then we wouldn't be drafting LT, DL, LB, etc. We could sign a high profile WR, but that would be at the expense of a different player at a different position, or a number of them.

What is the best way to help Tom Brady win? Take the pieces of the team that Tom Brady has no impact on and invest heavily in them, and let Brady carry what he has influence on.
Brady will give us a tremendous offense with any teams weapons. Spending big just to make that easier for him would be done to the detriment of all the other units on the team.

In other words, we don't need to spend on weapons for Brady, BECAUSE he is Brady.
When he is through, we may need to reevaluate the WR position based upon who replaces him, and his capability to 'carry' the passing offense.

Of course Brady is a key element in any discussion about WR's. That's why I added the phrase "quality QB" to the post. Clearly Brady is more than JUST a "quality QB", and great receivers will improve a QB's stats, just a bad one will hurt them. There is simply no way to separate them. But they too aren't operating in a vacuum. The OL, RB's and TE's also greatly affect the success or failure of the entire offensive operation, as well as the defense and ST's. That is what is so beautiful about the game.

Maybe after Brady leaves the scene, BB will look at what he has at QB and decide that he will spend his resources and assets differently in a post Brady environment. I don't know. I'd like to think that he would still think having a OL would be more important to his QB's success than having great WR's. But that's just MHO

patfanken · Jul 25, 2015

TomPatriot said:
Someone may have said this already but the Pats offensive system really doesn't require an elite vertical receiver, at least not compared to other systems. Definitely nice to have but not necessary.

THAT's the key point. Elite WR's are luxuries, NOT necessities in a well structured offensive scheme

Tony2046 · Jul 25, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
Because you like home runs or because you think we would be a better team by spending money on that instead of other needs?

I think these type threads have something to do with having a heart attack, a stroke and a few blood vessels pop during the last minute of a super Bowl. It's just wishful thinking based on a hope that the Pats can win a super bowl in a manner that won't force you to live through another near death experience.

Ring 6 · Jul 25, 2015

patfanken said:
Of course Brady is a key element in any discussion about WR's. That's why I added the phrase "quality QB" to the post. Clearly Brady is more than JUST a "quality QB", and great receivers will improve a QB's stats, just a bad one will hurt them. There is simply no way to separate them. But they too aren't operating in a vacuum. The OL, RB's and TE's also greatly affect the success or failure of the entire offensive operation, as well as the defense and ST's. That is what is so beautiful about the game.

Maybe after Brady leaves the scene, BB will look at what he has at QB and decide that he will spend his resources and assets differently in a post Brady environment. I don't know. I'd like to think that he would still think having a OL would be more important to his QB's success than having great WR's. But that's just MHO

Not saying it would be a dramatic change, but certainly without Brady you will be more concerned about the talent level at WR

Ring 6 · Jul 25, 2015

Tony2046 said:
I think these type threads have something to do with having a heart attack, a stroke and a few blood vessels pop during the last minute of a super Bowl. It's just wishful thinking based on a hope that the Pats can win a super bowl in a manner that won't force you to live through another near death experience.

Why would you take a winning team, that just won the SB and change the philosophy thinking that would make you win the SB easily?
Are you really saying winning a close SB is not as good as winning by a lot?

Tony2046 · Jul 25, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
Why would you take a winning team, that just won the SB and change the philosophy thinking that would make you win the SB easily?
Are you really saying winning a close SB is not as good as winning by a lot?

No Andy, I am not saying to change the philosophy. What I did say was that I think these type threads develop from wishful thinking based on the margin of victory or loss of previous super bowls.

I am also saying that winning a super bowl by a lot would be better for my health but I will gladly stock up on blood pressure meds before the next one.

That's what I'm saying

mgteich · Jul 25, 2015

We have one of best QB's of all time.

We have one of the best receivers of all time.

We continue to have one of the best offenses of all time.

And we continue to want to use $10-$15M a year to replace Edelman or LaFell with a "top receiver". I simply don't understand this position.

Ring 6 · Jul 25, 2015

Tony2046 said:
No Andy, I am not saying to change the philosophy. What I did say was that I think these type threads develop from wishful thinking based on the margin of victory or loss of previous super bowls.

I am also saying that winning a super bowl by a lot would be better for my health but I will gladly stock up on blood pressure meds before the next one.

That's what I'm saying

k

borg · Jul 25, 2015

For the price of a stud #1 WR ($14+ mill/year)........NE owns the greatest TE in the history of the NFL, the uncoverable Julian Edelman......with $1 million dollars left over for Krafty and his "niece" to spend on acting lessons.
Gronk & Edelman combined for 174 catches, 2000 yds, 16 TDs, and 109 1st downs.(3 games missed)

PS.....$14+ mill for a WR who plays decoy more than pass catcher off the LOS vs $9 mill for a TE who blocks, plays decoy, catches passes, scores thunderous TDs.
BB the economist figured out NFL value a long time ago.......and his value equation always includes a premium TE.
How many rings do Megatron, Dez, Green, Moss, Fizgerald, Julio Jones sport?
How many rings do BB's New England TE's sport in the past 15 years?
When will the fanboys separate fantasy football from winning football?

patfanken · Jul 25, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
Why would you take a winning team, that just won the SB and change the philosophy thinking that would make you win the SB easily?
Are you really saying winning a close SB is not as good as winning by a lot?

Glad you brought up the Superbowl. Here were CLEARLY he 2 best teams in the NFL in a knock down drag out deathmatch, and there wasn't a SINGLE so called #1 WR between them. In fact it could be argued that the Superbowl was probably the first time the entire season that the Pats WR's were considered better than their opponent's pre-game

How valuable can a WR be when in the biggest game of the year, Seattle's top WR was a guy who hadn't had a catch the entire regular season, yet he was good enough to go over 100 yds and score in the biggest game of the year. Now I'm not saying this refugee from the CFL is a great or even good WR, but he's still good ENOUGH to be a significant player in a superbowl.

patfanken · Jul 25, 2015

mgteich said:
We have one of best QB's of all time.

We have one of the best receivers of all time.

We continue to have one of the best offenses of all time.

And we continue to want to use $10-$15M a year to replace Edelman or LaFell with a "top receiver". I simply don't understand this position.

Yet, literally EVERY week we have to endure threads like this when, we as an intelligent, well schooled, fan base, should know better.

Deus Irae · Jul 25, 2015

Minute Man199 said:
Don't get me wrong, the guys they have now are very good and effective, but I would like to see another WR here with the big play impact of Terry Glenn or Randy Moss. Yes we have that big play ability in our TE with Gronk, but to me you can never have enough weapons in your arsenal, and would just love to see that kind of impact wide receiver here. Do you guys see that happening at all at any point in the near future?

When one takes a 'minimum' salary, or after Brady retires/declines significantly (or maybe longer, if JAG can serve as a poor man's Brady for a while). Until then, you'll hear the crazy "don't need WRs!" nonsense being spouted again and again, because the homers either don't know, or don't remember, life without Brady/BB.

RayClay · Jul 25, 2015

We could develop a deep threat receiver out of Dobson Tyms or elsewhere, but it's doubtful we employ a big time WR again, for various reasons.

One reason is, they are the most overpriced in relation to team success of any players. How many teams have to go into the playoffs with big numbers only to be shot sown [we've been on both sides].

They take a long time to get open. Brady is the best at using various quick receivers and TEs to destroy defenses. Get rid of the ball.

Randy Moss distorted our offense. As Brady took deeper drops, our quick timing offense suffered and that means vulnerability to the pass rush. Quick receivers, great tight ends, get rid of the ball. this formula has arguably led to the most unstoppable offenses ever.

manxman2601 · Jul 25, 2015

I wonder how many people here saying that it's wasteful to spend money at WR wouldn't take an Odell Beckham, Mike Evans or Julio Jones to replace Gronk if he decided to leave. WRs aren't everything but it should be noted that of the top 10 scoring offences, ALL save the 98 Vikings and '04 Colts got to the SB either the year before or the year of their record breaking offense. Having a quality WR is just one way to achieve it, and a quality QB is still essential, but having an explosive offense is certainly one way to get to a SB.

RayClay · Jul 25, 2015

Deus Irae said:
When one takes a 'minimum' salary, or after Brady retires/declines significantly (or maybe longer, if JAG can serve as a poor man's Brady for a while). Until then, you'll hear the crazy "don't need WRs!" nonsense being spouted again and again, because the homers either don't know, or don't remember, life without Brady/BB.

I remember Bledsoe with and without Coates. Fact is, our quarterback now is Brady.

RayClay · Jul 25, 2015

manxman2601 said:
I wonder how many people here saying that it's wasteful to spend money at WR wouldn't take an Odell Beckham, Mike Evans or Julio Jones to replace Gronk if he decided to leave. WRs aren't everything but it should be noted that of the top 10 scoring offences, ALL save the 98 Vikings and '04 Colts got to the SB either the year before or the year of their record breaking offense. Having a quality WR is just one way to achieve it, and a quality QB is still essential, but having an explosive offense is certainly one way to get to a SB.

None of those people could replace Gronk. How does that even make sense?

Ivan · Jul 25, 2015

Given the pressure the Patriots offense is going to be under this season Edelman is going to be more valuable than the big downfield threats would be. Just as in the Super Bowl the ability to get the ball out quickly and move the chains consistently will be far more important than big plays. Had the Patriots relied on big plays outside the hashes to win that game they simply would not have won. The game plan to attack the Seahawks defense by quick plays that nullified the Seahawks pressure was the only way they were going win that game, and this season is going to be much the same, especially in division. Everyone loves the big play WR but those plays take time to develop, and regardless of how well the Patriots OL plays that will be in short supply. They should be fine outside the hashes if LaFell has another good season and if Dobson can give them 45 plus with a 12-13 + ypc and good yac.

When will we see the Pats get another big time WR?

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Veteran

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

Similar threads