Carolina Panther's Steve Smith can be had for...

[Off The Grid]

Who was our deep threats on those super bowl teams again?

My memory says David Patten and Dieon Branch.

Not exactly huge physical recievers.

The difference between those offenses and the one the past few years has been the running game. Say what you will about Antwan Smith but come playoff times he would miraculously turn into a different rb. You don't need an amazing wr when safety's bite on the play action. Our play action has been a joke the last few years.

Fortunately I think that's all about to change.

THANK you. I've been saying this for YEARS.

We won 3 Super Bowls without a Glamor Wide Out.

Give us Coach B, General Tom, a strong Running Game, and a decent D...and we'll rack up the Rings.

Yes, it is that simple.

 

[Deus Irae]

Who was our deep threats on those super bowl teams again. My memory says David Patten and Dieon Branch. Not exactly huge physical recievers. The difference between those offenses and the one the past few years has been the running game. Say what you will about Antwan Smith but come playoff times he would miraculously turn into a different rb. You don't need an amazing wr when safety's bite on the play action. Our play action has been a joke the last few years.

Fortunately I think that's all about to change.

1.) The defense was much better

2.) The rules were different

3.) You forgot David Givens, who'd be there more than Branch, I'd imagine

4.)

Points scored from 2001-2003

371
381
348

Points scored from 2007-2010
589
410
427
518

The bigger, more consistent, downfield option clearly made a huge difference in scoring, although there were certainly other factors (illegal contact, for example). Only 2004 can compare, and that team had a borderline HOFer at RB along with a WR corps that was at the top of its game. That was still only good enough for 437 points, though, which would be a distant 3rd in points scored in the 'dynasty' era.

 

[ausbacker]

THANK you. I've been saying this for YEARS.

We won 3 Super Bowls without a Glamor Wide Out.

Give us Coach B, General Tom, a strong Running Game, and a decent D...and we'll rack up the Rings.

Yes, it is that simple.

Defensive backs were also able to mug receivers at that legislated stage of the game without fear of pass interference.. but that goes consistently overlooked as a point of discussion when bringing up the merits of a sizable wideout in today's game.

People need to get over using bygone eras as a comparative point in building a Superbowl winning team. The rules of the game have changed monumentally since the Patriots won 3/4 Superbowls.. a feat not matched since.

* Damn you Deus for getting in 1 minute ahead of me .

 

[Observer]

BB will get a proper wide receiver, he is not done throwing the kitchen sink at the Jets yet. And to have the best QB in the business without a single quality downfield receiver is a colossal waste of talent.

 

[ay-yo]

1.) The defense was much better

2.) The rules were different

3.) You forgot David Givens, who'd be there more than Branch, I'd imagine

4.)

Points scored from 2001-2003

371
381
348

Points scored from 2007-2010
589
410
427
518

The bigger, more consistent, downfield option clearly made a huge difference in scoring, although there were certainly other factors (illegal contact, for example). Only 2004 can compare, and that team had a borderline HOFer at RB along with a WR corps that was at the top of its game. That was still only good enough for 437 points, though, which would be a distant 3rd in points scored in the 'dynasty' era.

Except that the 518 figure came without the bigger, more consistent, downfield option. Perhaps the higher point totals reflect Brady's improvement as well as the talent around him. To pretend that Brady does not work to improve his game every off season would be foolish.

And before anybody points to the Jets game as an example of how you can shut down our current offense I'll have to unfortunately point to the Giants super bowl. 1 game is 1 game. Lets not over react. For all the posts about needing help at wr you would think we didn't score 400 points last season.

 

[Observer]

A big part of the reason for the giants superbowl loss was actually the same part as in the Jets loss - pass protection.

 

[ay-yo]

Out of curiosity if you throw a jump ball to a 5'9 receiver or a 6'4 receiver against a 5'11 corner who would you back in to win the contest?

What about a 6-6 265lb guy who is already on the roster?:rocker:

The thought just occurred to me tho. Everybody wants a physical receiver to go down field. What if those guys are already on the roster in the form of Gronk and Hernandez. Gronk should win almost any jump ball 1 on 1. If play action gives him time to get down field I could see that being a very successful play with any one of our receivers running a route 15ish yards deep.

 

[ay-yo]

A big part of the reason for the giants superbowl loss was actually the same part as in the Jets loss - pass protection.

While I agree I would say part of that had to do with the run being a non-threat leading to the D-line pinning their ears abck and not worrying about running lanes.

 

[Observer]

While I agree I would say part of that had to do with the run being a non-threat leading to the D-line pinning their ears abck and not worrying about running lanes.

You are speaking my mind now, and hence the first part of the kitchen sink - two offensive linemen and two running backs. They will supply both improved pass protection and improved running/run blocking so that the Jets defense cannot spend all their manpower protecting against the short pass while hurrying Brady at the same time.

The other reason they were able to stifle our short pass game was because they could afford to cheat the safeties up and drop the linebackers back when not blitzing. Brady had the right idea with Tate but he wasn't good enough and our receivers dropping balls left and right doesn't help either. Having a respectable wide receiver would open up the field faster and allow much more breathing room in the middle for our short game. I truly believe that is the missing piece and BB will address it next.

I am using Jets in particular because they basically wrote the book on how to beat us last year and they are a prime example of what kind of defense we need to beat in order to be a better offense.

 

[Joker]

what was the name of the Jets "book" that came out the Monday after they got disintegrated 45-3?..does this "book" also contain a chapter on leaving the TE wide open in the end zone so he'll DROP the easy baby catch? how about the chapter on Sanchez getting 7 and 8 seconds to survey the field and wait for the entire offense to get open? They gameplanned THAT? Pure genius...I just wonder why they couldn't gain a yard from the one against Pitt and burned two TO's with Sanchez running to the sideline with his hands up begging for help and the entire Jet coaching staff in a state of frozen helplessness trying to figure out what play to run to gain ONE yard? I mean, if you're going to use "the Jets showed how to!!!!!!", then obviously YOU think the Jets have a decided edge and the Pats need to learn from Rex Ryan...I just don't think I want the team I follow to copycat running around like a chicken with its head cut off and FAIL to gain a yard in FOUR TRIES, just because the inherent flaws of a young Patriots team surfaced in a playoff game.

 

[Frick]

Hugh Hefner can be had for... do not want him either.

 

[37Harrison]

Out of curiosity if you throw a jump ball to a 5'9 receiver or a 6'4 receiver against a 5'11 corner who would you back in to win the contest?

I'm guessing you never saw SS play? I would take SS to win that almost every time due to the way that guy plays. I'm thinking too that Brady would be able to put the ball where only the 5'9" guy could get it *cough*deionbranch*cough*

 

[Observer]

what was the name of the Jets "book" that came out the Monday after they got disintegrated 45-3?..does this "book" also contain a chapter on leaving the TE wide open in the end zone so he'll DROP the easy baby catch? how about the chapter on Sanchez getting 7 and 8 seconds to survey the filed and wait for the entire offense to get open? They gameplanned THAT? Pure genius...I just wonder why they couldn't gain a yard from the one against Pitt and burned two TO's with Sanchez running to the sideline with his hands up begging for help and the entire Jet coaching staff in a state of frozen helplessness trying to figure out what play to run to gain ONE yard? I mean, if you're going to use "the Jets showed how to!!!!!!", then obviously YOU think the Jets have a decided edge and the Pats need to learn from Rex Ryan...I just don't think I want the team I follow to copycat running around like a chicken with its head cut off and FAIL to gain a yard in FOUR TRIES, just because the inherent flaws of a young Patriots team surfaced in a playoff game.

That is not what I said at all! I did not say they were a good offense; I said they showed what was lacking in our offense and therefore gave us a clear path of improvement. Did you know that our two lowest scores the entire season came against the Jets? If we are so arrogant as to think that we have no lessons to take and nothing to improve on, then we will end up exactly where we were last season. I hope BB does not think that way.

 

[Joker]

what is arrogant is YOU totally ignoring a 45-3 beatdown just mere weeks earlier and steadfastly adhering to this moronic "the Pats must learn from the Jets!!!!" idiocy. Enough of the revisionist crap.You so desperately want a clone of the Jets to root for then just switch teams...you're more than half way there already.

 

[Off The Grid]

Who was our deep threats on those super bowl teams again. My memory says David Patten and Dieon Branch. Not exactly huge physical recievers. The difference between those offenses and the one the past few years has been the running game. Say what you will about Antwan Smith but come playoff times he would miraculously turn into a different rb. You don't need an amazing wr when safety's bite on the play action. Our play action has been a joke the last few years.

Fortunately I think that's all about to change.

THANK you. I've been saying this for YEARS.

We won 3 Super Bowls without a Glamor Wide Out.

Give us Coach B, General Tom, a strong Running Game, and a decent D...and we'll rack up the Rings.

Yes, it is that simple.

Defensive backs were also able to mug receivers at that legislated stage of the game without fear of pass interference.. but that goes consistently overlooked as a point of discussion when bringing up the merits of a sizable wideout in today's game.

People need to get over using bygone eras as a comparative point in building a Superbowl winning team. The rules of the game have changed monumentally since the Patriots won 3/4 Superbowls.. a feat not matched since.

Instead of lazily assuming that others are overlooking things ~ I, for one, am not ~ you should perhaps display the moral integrity of asking if we've considered them. Then you wouldn't have to suffer the embarrassment of me pointing out that I have considered them, and that your assumption is lazy, pathetic, and wrong.

Clearly, it is you who don't wish to consider the other side of the Argument, and are attempting to disguise your laziness by accusing others of your own failings.

***

~ I have never denied that the rules have changed. That would be stupid.

~ I simply disagree with the notion ~ one many enjoy parroting ~ that it's, consequently, a game now dominated by the Pass.

~ It's beyond ridiculous to cite Point totals as a supportive Argument, suggesting that our Offense has become better, since we started scoring more points and wining ZERO Championships: 90 years of History make it overwhelmingly clear that teams that focus on Ball Control ~ in direct contrast to lighting up the scoreboard ~ have had FAR greater Championship success.

~ One would think that the utter dearth of fresh Championships in our last 6 years would make that painfully clear.

***

I remain persuaded that, should we continue on our present course ~ developing a rapidly improving young Defense, a potentially DOMINANT O Line, and a DEADLY combination of Tight Ends ~ we can win MULTIPLE Championships with Smurfs at Wide Out.

You can believe that the Game has changed "monumentally" all you want.

That doesn't mean that those, such as me, who have the unspeakable temerity to actually disagree with you are "overlooking" your Arguments.

Nor does it mean ~ just because we haven't chosen to guzzle the Kool Aid of "It's a Passing League" as you clearly have ~ that "People need to get over using bygone eras as a comparative point in building a Superbowl winning team."

It simply means that we haven't guzzled the Kool Aid.

Show me a Patriots team with great Tight Ends, a powerfull Running Game, and a fast, explosive Defense ~ which we haven't had since 2004, remember that year?? ~ that DOESN'T win Championships, regardless of their Smurf Wide Outs, and THEN I'll buy this "Passing League" business.

***

I'm not saying the "Passing League" business has no merit, though I don't buy it.

And I don't think you've been proven wrong, either: Like I said, the Pats haven't been locked and loaded for 6 years, now, so I'm not claiming that "Air Patriots" was proven to be a failure.

I just think that the dismissive attitude in posts such as yours, towards a philosophy that's been working pretty well for 90 years, is ridiculously unwarranted.

 

[ausbacker]

Instead of lazily assuming that others are overlooking things ~ I, for one, am not ~ you should perhaps display the moral integrity of asking if we've considered them. Then you wouldn't have to suffer the embarrassment of me pointing out that I have considered them, and that your assumption is lazy, pathetic, and wrong.

Clearly, it is you who don't wish to consider the other side of the Argument, and are attempting to disguise your laziness by accusing others of your own failings.

***

~ I have never denied that the rules have changed. That would be stupid.

~ I simply disagree with the notion ~ one many enjoy parroting ~ that it's, consequently, a game now dominated by the Pass.

~ It's beyond ridiculous to cite Point totals as a supportive Argument, suggesting that our Offense has become better, since we started scoring more points and wining ZERO Championships: 90 years of History make it overwhelmingly clear that teams that focus on Ball Control ~ in direct contrast to lighting up the scoreboard ~ have had FAR greater Championship success.

~ One would think that the utter dearth of fresh Championships in our last 6 years would make that painfully clear.

***

I remain persuaded that, should we continue on our present course ~ developing a rapidly improving young Defense, a potentially DOMINANT O Line, and a DEADLY combination of Tight Ends ~ we can win MULTIPLE Championships with Smurfs at Wide Out.

You can believe that the Game has changed "monumentally" all you want.

That doesn't mean that those, such as me, who have the unspeakable temerity to actually disagree with you are "overlooking" your Arguments.

Nor does it mean ~ just because we haven't chosen to guzzle the Kool Aid of "It's a Passing League" as you clearly have ~ that "People need to get over using bygone eras as a comparative point in building a Superbowl winning team."

It simply means that we haven't guzzled the Kool Aid.

Show me a Patriots team with great Tight Ends, a powerfull Running Game, and a fast, explosive Defense ~ which we haven't had since 2004, remember that year?? ~ that DOESN'T win Championships, regardless of their Smurf Wide Outs, and THEN I'll buy this "Passing League" business.

***

I'm not saying the "Passing League" business has no merit, though I don't buy it.

And I don't think you've been proven wrong, either: Like I said, the Pats haven't been locked and loaded for 6 years, now, so I'm not claiming that "Air Patriots" was proven to be a failure.

I just think that the dismissive attitude in posts such as yours, towards a philosophy that's been working pretty well for 90 years, is ridiculously unwarranted.

That's a great big load of toss for something that could have been said in 1 paragraph.

 

[pherein]

Lance Moore is a guy I could see us having interest in. Relatively young at 27, solid production for the last few years, looks to be a Pats type wr (quick, solid routes) and comes from a well run Saints organization.

I completely agree, Smith has a lot of receptions because the panthers have never really had solid WR's, so smith is a common target, when things go bad.
Plus Lance can play cold or hot. He can have 5 plays a game or 40. He is a very consistent player. Take last year.

1: Wes Welker 112 recs/150 targets 74.67% completion rate
2: Anquan Boldin 89 recs/126 targets 70.63% completion rate
3: Eddie Royal 91 recs/129 targets 70.54% completion rate
4: Lance Moore 79 recs/113 targets 69.91% completion rate

Lance is basically just our welker. But more of a clutch player for us because we have a solid WR core. He has the best hands and route running on the Saints. NE with 2 welker types is very dangerious, because they both wont have a bad game. In 2008 when all off our WR's were hurt or on IR Lance became our #1 WR, so he can handle the pressure, if you loose some people.
2008
NFL Stats: by Team Category

2008 WR
NFL Stats: by Player Position

I hope we keep him, but wouldn't minded if he went to the patriots, because he is a very good guy , and needs to be in a good organization. Moore and welker on the same field is almost insane. 2 go too guys in 3rd downs and clutch situations, and Lance is not a trash talker.
Yeah, Moore waaay over smith.
Im still wondering if that deal was already made, and part of the draft mark ingram draft move. I think BB got more than what is in the press from us, and it might be Moore or one of our other 29 FA's

 

[part-timer]

I do not see any way BB gives up anything for a 32 year old reciever who has been a locker room cancer, and gives us nothing we don't already have. We gave up Moss who had the size and speed to fill a need on the team with only a hint of becomeing a locker room distraction. Plus the fact that Smiths stats are in the mist of a free fall, going from 1400 yds in 08, to 900 yds in 09, and 500 yds in 10. All not good signes for tradeing for a reciever at the end of his career. You wan't to fill a need, how about a 27 yr. old 6'3'' 218 lb reciever who is still in his prime, over 8000 yds in his 7 years in the league. Yes go after Larry Fitzsgerrald now. He is in his last contract year with a no franchise clause. If Arizona wants to get anything for him before he walks at the end of the season they will be willing to talk. That could be the final piece to an unstopable offence.

 

[supafly]

I completely agree, Smith has a lot of receptions because the panthers have never really had solid WR's, so smith is a common target, when things go bad.
Plus Lance can play cold or hot. He can have 5 plays a game or 40. He is a very consistent player. Take last year.

1: Wes Welker 112 recs/150 targets 74.67% completion rate
2: Anquan Boldin 89 recs/126 targets 70.63% completion rate
3: Eddie Royal 91 recs/129 targets 70.54% completion rate
4: Lance Moore 79 recs/113 targets 69.91% completion rate

Lance is basically just our welker. But more of a clutch player for us because we have a solid WR core. He has the best hands and route running on the Saints. NE with 2 welker types is very dangerious, because they both wont have a bad game. In 2008 when all off our WR's were hurt or on IR Lance became our #1 WR, so he can handle the pressure, if you loose some people.
2008
NFL Stats: by Team Category

2008 WR
NFL Stats: by Player Position

I hope we keep him, but wouldn't minded if he went to the patriots, because he is a very good guy , and needs to be in a good organization. Moore and welker on the same field is almost insane. 2 go too guys in 3rd downs and clutch situations, and Lance is not a trash talker.
Yeah, Moore waaay over smith.
Im still wondering if that deal was already made, and part of the draft mark ingram draft move. I think BB got more than what is in the press from us, and it might be Moore or one of our other 29 FA's

Wow, 29 free agents? I did not know that, Pherin.

I would love to see Moore in a Pats uni, and I think it's very interesting that you bring up the fact that a possible side deal was in place. I never really considered that to be honest. I do think we need a downfield weapon a lot more than a short to intermediate range guy though, someone like Moore provides a lot of what Welker does no? On top of that, we still have Edelman waiting in the wings, and on punt returns, as a slot guy. I'd be all about Moore, but I'd rather have a D.Henderson or someone like that. I don't know, I think this whole 'lack of a downfield threat' thing here is a bit played out and overrated. We still have Tate (18 yrds a catch ave), and Price (3rd rd pick) who are young, and need to develop. I'd actually be all about Steve Breaston at the right price, personally. I think he's young, fast, provides a downfield target, and would be a much cheaper option than a lot of the guys we are currently talking about.

Completely Off Topic: The one thing (selfishly) that I do not like about the Ingram pick for you, is that my Bush jersey will now be defunct, LOL. No way you guys are keeping him IMO. A great skillset who can offer big plays at times, but is EXTREMELY overpaid and overrated. (IMHO).

 

[supafly]

I do not see any way BB gives up anything for a 32 year old reciever who has been a locker room cancer, and gives us nothing we don't already have. We gave up Moss who had the size and speed to fill a need on the team with only a hint of becomeing a locker room distraction. Plus the fact that Smiths stats are in the mist of a free fall, going from 1400 yds in 08, to 900 yds in 09, and 500 yds in 10. All not good signes for tradeing for a reciever at the end of his career. You wan't to fill a need, how about a 27 yr. old 6'3'' 218 lb reciever who is still in his prime, over 8000 yds in his 7 years in the league. Yes go after Larry Fitzsgerrald now. He is in his last contract year with a no franchise clause. If Arizona wants to get anything for him before he walks at the end of the season they will be willing to talk. That could be the final piece to an unstopable offence.

Part-timer...time to wake up and go to work, buddy

If ARZ has half a brain, they will keep Fitzgerald, and try to build their team around him. If not, they will hold out for AT LEAST a first and a second, likely more. He is one of the elite WR in the entire game, and he won't come cheap, not in compensation, nor yearly salary.

I don't know how a team 2-3 yrs removed from a last minute drive from winning the SB could see trading away their best player as a move that needs to be made. They need a vet QB this yr, (and there's many out there), and they could easily be very competitive in a lackluster NFC West again.