are we making too big of a deal at WR...

[Sean Pa Patriot]

I mean we got 3 to 4 solid TE, and Jackson and Cawldwell are unknown, plus Gabrial will be the replacement for Givens.. Not to mention Faulk in the passing guys, I dont know about this Smith guy, maybee its just a special teams guy...who knows, I do think Brady will spread the ball around , balanced offense, and will play ball control.. Branch would be a help , if he wants to , but that wont be the case.. I am concerned a little bit, but not saying we wont make the playoffs if we dont have great WR..

 

[Remix 6]

im more concerned about corner actually..

 

[AzPatsFan]

Prior to the Branch imbroglio, the diagnosed weaknesses for the Patriots was a #2 WR. And depth at LB.

One was a concern about a starting position; the Second was a concern about a reserve position.

Caldwell, Jackson, and Gabriel have replaced Givens and to a degree Branch. Is it an optimal solution probably not but it COULD be an actual UPGRADE by the time the playoffs roll around. And who is to say the Branch situation may not yet be resolved?

What about the reserve LB position? It has had four or five improvements and a couple of steps back, (losing Gardner for the year and Bruschi for a game or two).

TBC looks ready to assume a position in the OLB rotation. Seau MAY be suitable as a run down reserve at ILB. Woods and Alexander are bonuses, Eric is better than he was last season. So is TBC. Woods is better than what they had at OLB reserve last season. Chad Brown sits on the shadow roster waiting to return.

IMHO the LB situation is fine for this year.

So the only question is WR. Is it optimal? NO but is it OK? and/or stronger than 2001 Definitely yes.

 

[PonyExpress]

With Branch we have a realistic possibility of 19-0. Without him, we'll have to tragically settle for 13-3 or 14-2. It's a tough pill to swallow and our disappointment would be understandable.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Who is to say the Branch deal is finished. BB/SP don't make grudges or keep them. Perhaps Branch does, but in his only public interview. he did not appear to harbour them either. Both have been careful to let Chayut get the grief; and he is paid to take it. It goes with his job definition.

But even if Branch is gone, I don't understand the caterwauling about Childress. I like him but as the fourth or fifth WR, he wasn't going to play except in an emergency. Until a few WRs go down with injuries it makes no difference, it seems to me.

Meanwhile Smith and Andrews (when healthy) have likely cured our PR and KOR problems. One great return will likely do more for the Patriots record than the minimal impact that Bam mihgt have had; and who knows, stiill might.

 

[RAWKY]

IN my oppinion i do think we have been overly concerned about the WR position.

One of the things we should really look at is the statement by Brady that Watson will be FEATURED this year in the offense.

To me this word FEATURED means that Watson and other thight ends will be primary recievers and not the check down oppition on a lot of the offensive plays this year.

This is something BB has been working toward since he arrived in NE and i think there are two driving forces behind it.

First most NFL defenses have a smaller faster secondary which means that big atheletic tightends have a real physical advantage right off the line.

Secondly the tight end position brings more to the party then the WR position for tightends can not only catch a pass they can also block for running plays and screens much more effectivly then WRs.

An additional benifit is that tight ends have a linemans mentality rather the the prima donna mentality of WRs.

Do not underestimate this last point in view of the current circumstance.

 

[patsox23]

Setting the Branch issue aside for a moment, let's compare the WR depth chart from last season and this upcoming season:

WRs #2-#4 in 2005 - Givens, Troy, Davis/Dwight

WRs #2-#4 in 2006 - Gabriel, Troy, Caldwell

That's fairly even, in my book, with the possibility that 2006 could surpass 2005

 

[oldrover]

C'mon... we have no proven #1 or #2 WR. It's a big deal.

 

[JoeSixPat]

C'mon... we have no proven #1 or #2 WR. It's a big deal.

Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

I'm with oldrover - our TEs will make a ton of catches no doubt, and the team will find a way to win but one needs to ask themselves, how much more effective would the TEs be if we had a proven #1 and #2?

Quite simply, if you can possibly help it, you do not go into a season with major gaps at those positions.

Going into the season without a proven #1 & #2 WR was NOT part of the Patriots offseason plan. They will adapt better than any team, without question, as the injury bug can decimate WR corps of teams just as well as contract holdouts do - but this is NOT something where we can delude ourselves we're better off without actual WR deep threats.

I'm glad they picked up Gabriel - they needed to.

You can't say Jackson and Caldwell have replaced ANYBODY at this stage, with Caldwell doing nothing to shirk the reputation he brought with him from SD and Jackson not yet making a pre-season appearance.

The rest of the WR corps are all #3s at this stage - which is fine, except for the fact that the #1 and #2 WR account for the vast majority of receptions.

So expect the team to adapt like they always do and hope defenses aren't able to figure out how to attack a consistent 4 TE - but don't delude yourself into thinking this is all part of the BB gameplan - its not.