Do we need 6 wide receivers?

[dhamz]

Moss, Welker, Edelman, Tate, and Price are all making it if healthy. The question really being asked is will Holt make it if there are no injuries. I think the answer on Holt comes down to if he wins a starting job in the 3 WR set. He isn't going to be playing anywhere on special teams and it is hard to carry a 4th/5th WR who doesn't contribute there. I'd lean towards him making it today.

 

[Rob0729]

We don't need six WRs, but if one guy is a pure special team like Aiken who cares? Izzo was a special teamer only listed as LB for years.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

A better question might be whether we need 3 TE's. If we have an LB that can play FB, maybe we can scratch the third Tight End.

I'd root for Aiken over Slater, personally. We're not in a return-guy crisis by ANY stretch of the imagination.

You can't plan to run two TE sets effectively with only two TE on the roster...

I also think we will see a new look ST, because the old look wasn't exactly a strength over the last couple of seasons. A lot of this years rookies and last years rookies on both sides of the ball will be playing ST as well.

 

[WhiZa]

I look at it as 5 WRs and 1 ST opening. Moss, Welker, Edelman are locks. That leaves 2 positions open for Tate, Price, and Holt. None of those 3 are suited for ST captain so it looks like Holt is the odd man out baring an injury or utter failure by the other 2 young men. Sucks for Holt, but we're not having another Galloway-like experience on this team.

On the ST side Aiken will most likely keep the job. Woods could take over, but he will probably be taking on more positional duties with the lack of depth at OLB.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I look at it as 5 WRs and 1 ST opening. Moss, Welker, Edelman are locks. That leaves 2 positions open for Tate, Price, and Holt. None of those 3 are suited for ST captain so it looks like Holt is the odd man out baring an injury or utter failure by the other 2 young men. Sucks for Holt, but we're not having another Galloway-like experience on this team.

On the ST side Aiken will most likely keep the job. Woods could take over, but he will probably be taking on more positional duties with the lack of depth at OLB.

Why does any of the WR have to replace Aiken as ST captain... And who's to say Welker won't... I personally wouldn't have him returning punts this season, but then Bill doesn't tend to take my conservative advice on playing time matters...he plays the football players he believes will give him the best result on ST.

Welker actually has to be a captain this season, and short of hurting Randy's feelings by handing Welker his captaincy...

 

[mgteich]

BOTTOM LINE (25)
I see us with 24 position players on offense, with a couple of returners coming out of the group of position players. This is about the norm. This year we are likely to have a third tight end instead of the 5th running back, and only two quarterbacks. That's all fine with me.

This leaves one position to be "allocated" to a special teamer. I think that this is also fine. We could have two, with one fewer wide receiver, but I think that for this year only, we need the additional position wide receiver instead. So, both Aiken (my choice) and Slater are competing for the special teams spots.

The total number of special teams only spots depends on how the defense shakes out. In any case, it seem likely to me that ONE of Aiken and Slater will make the team. Bot could make the team; neither could make the team. I see no reason for the 2009 special team captain not to continue as one of our key special teamers.

TIGHT ENDS (3)
We NEED three tight ends! As was noted, if we are going to run more 2 TE sets, then we need three tight ends. Tight end production has been down for the last few years. It is time to get it back to more "normal" production. We are all excited about the rookies. I would also be fine with Crumpler in a major role. After all, one the rookies might not be ready for prime time; if they both are, then that would be great.

QUARTERBACK (2)
We need two; nuff said.

RUNNING BACK (4)
We NEED four. Green-Ellis or a free agent might take Taylor's spot, or not. A free agent is certainly a possibility, especially if he is a short yardage back, or is a top blocker.

OFFENSIVE LINEMAN (9)
We NEED 9. Not only is that the "normal" number, but the OL is in transition and we need to develop interior linemen.

WIDE RECEIVERS (6)
We NEED six real receivers. It is NOT because we run 4 wide receiver sets. A TE and/or a RB can be one of the four. Edelman, Welker and Tate are all coming off injuries. We would like to develop young wide receivers. Wide receivers are more of a risk than most positions.

Everyone is very hot on Tate and Price. They have done well in camp. But then, so did a couple of other draftees in the past, and so did Childress.

Also, our receiver group also provides a couple of our returners. This in iteslf is worth an addition position

 

[JoeSixPat]

I think that we do indeed need to carry additional wideouts this year, in addition to the three tight ends.

Welker, Tate and Edelman all were injured last year. Moss and Holt may or may not have more than one year. Price will likely be inactive all year, absent two injuries to wide receivers, which is fine.

While I have no idea how the reps will turn out with so many targets, I do think that we need ALL of Moss, Welker, Edelman, Holt, Tate and Price.

Aiken and Slater are NOT wide receivers, even though they are list as such. Theya re competing for one of the ST-only positions. We usually have a couple.

I don't know if "need" is a term that comes into play when talking about a 6th WR

When you get down to the final decisions on the 53 man roster it's more a matter of who the better player is, as well as whether they can be snuck onto the practice squad or in the case of the older players, whether they can be "snuck" onto the Shadow Roster.

If we're lamenting not keeping 6 WRs months from now than I think the season has taken a major turn for the worse

 

[Sicilian]

Torry Holt has the experience, the savvy, and knows how to get open as a slot receiver, as well as still being a deep threat on post patterns. I would not ask him to be a fly pattern receiver.

Yes, the Pats have gotten stung in past years with experienced receivers that sucked once they came to Foxboro. I think Holt is the exception.

I can still remember seeing him take a lot of passes in from Warner in the middle and on crossing patterns.

Agreed. I the only high profile WR who came in here and failed was Galloway, which could be attributed to age, injury, and his style of play (speed speed and more speed... not so much about route running and brains).

Every other receiver who's come in here has either played to about what we expected (Gaffney, Caldwell, Stallworth), more than we expected (Moss his first year, Welker), or has failed but really wasn't that surprising (Hayes, Gabriel).

Other than Moss, no one has come in with the pedigree and reputation that Holt has. If he earns a roster spot, I have no doubt he'll be far better than Galloway was last year.

 

[mgteich]

If Belichick thought as little of Holt as many here, he would be cut. He is not going to be our #5 receiver.

 

[Ring 6]

Holt is a very smart, disciplined WR who has produced for many years.
Unless he has aged so much he can't keep up, which last year would indicate is far from true, I think he is one of our biggest off-season additions. Those traits + Tom Brady = perfect match

 

[Nathan]

I don't think we *need* 6 WRs this year with the new TEs but it wouldn't kill me to keep Moss, Welker, Edelman, Tate, Price and Holt.

Holt is an ok veteran pickup at this point who has a little to prove that he can still play but it's not like he's super familiar with the offense and is gonna be a great teacher etc. I'm still surprised he didn't sign with Chicago.

 

[ahmed]

Yes... because they are all very good. I am expecting a lot of good things from Holt. The guy is a pro and a gamer and smart as hell.

 

[mgteich]

I would keep Edelman on the roster, even if he were the #6 receiver, and even if he were inactive in most games. He is a reasonable future prospect, as well as a backup to Welker, and a returner.

I still do not believe that Edelman is a lock.

 

[The Dynasty]

I still do not believe that Edelman is a lock.

Is this a joke? Why would Edelman even be considered to be cut? He can be a valuable member on ST, and he showed signs of being the next Welker last season when it was only his first season ever as a WR. Seems like he has a tremendous upside. Edelman is a lock to make the team.

 

[Ring 6]

I completely and totally agree with you. Unless, as you said, that he has aged so much that he cant get out of his own way, I too believe that this was a very significant signing.

Just his presence on the field with Moss and Welker or even Tate is going t force opposing defenses to be very very wary of the passing attack, and in so doing it should open up the running game too if linebackers are concerned with Welker- Holt - Tate- Moss all running patterns on the many plays plays.

I for one would like to see the Pats approach this season with a pass first run second attitude.

You are correct sir, a perfect match for Brady and the Patriots offense.

I dont think his presence means anything. Teams are going to overcommit to the run or pass based upon our play calling tendencies (and because of Tom Brady) not because Tory Holt is on the field. If he is and we pass, they have a defense called where someone will be responsible to cover him, and that will be enough for them to not be worried.

What I think Holt brings is a guy who can quickly earn Bradys trust, and think at the same level as him on the run. I may not be explaining it well, but its kind of like some of the guys who fit in with Larry Bird.
He said DJ was the best player he ever played with. And that was because they thought the same way. If Bird saw something DJ did too, he didnt have to wait for him to catch on. (Tiny Archibald was another example of a guy who just got it, and meshed with Bird, Bill Walton, with 4% of his skill left, another)
I dont think you can understate how much that veteran thought process will help him meld with Brady.

 

[Nathan]

I still do not believe that Edelman is a lock.

This is crazy. Seriously? What more does the kid have to do in his rookie season to prove it to you (as a converted QB) and how much more does the coaching staff have to entrust to him for you to be convinced that they, at a minimum, are impressed with him?

You are nuts. Edelman is in. No question.

 

[Frezo]

I dont think his presence means anything. Teams are going to overcommit to the run or pass based upon our play calling tendencies (and because of Tom Brady) not because Tory Holt is on the field. If he is and we pass, they have a defense called where someone will be responsible to cover him, and that will be enough for them to not be worried.

What I think Holt brings is a guy who can quickly earn Bradys trust, and think at the same level as him on the run. I may not be explaining it well, but its kind of like some of the guys who fit in with Larry Bird.
He said DJ was the best player he ever played with. And that was because they thought the same way. If Bird saw something DJ did too, he didnt have to wait for him to catch on. (Tiny Archibald was another example of a guy who just got it, and meshed with Bird, Bill Walton, with 4% of his skill left, another)
I dont think you can understate how much that veteran thought process will help him meld with Brady.

What bothers me about the whole thing is when both Holt and Galloway were available last year, why did BB choose Galloway? How could have he been so wrong about Galloway last year when this year's wonder vet was available? I can't help but wonder what he saw in Galloway.

 

[Ring 6]

What bothers me about the whole thing is when both Holt and Galloway were available last year, why did BB choose Galloway? How could have he been so wrong about Galloway last year when this year's wonder vet was available? I can't help but wonder what he saw in Galloway.

Galloway was a very productive WR with blazing speed, and reportedly hadn't lost a step.
I think its not what he saw in Galloway, that was obvious (an extremely productive WR who's skill had seemed to not deteriorate...and a deep threat to complement Moss) its what he didn't see in him, which was the fact that his production came in much less complex offenses that never asked him to sight adjust, AND he couldn't figure it out even after all those years and all that production.
I think its a reasonable miss to expect that a guy who produced that much for that long had realized what was going on around him. Instead Galloways career was based on 'run x yards and cut in Y direction'.

 

[Frezo]

Instead Galloways career was based on 'run x yards and cut in Y direction'.

That's true, but his career was there to be judged. It seems that it could have been obvious before the realization of last year set in.

 

[Ring 6]

That's true, but his career was there to be judged. It seems that it could have been obvious before the realization of last year set in.

Yes, but the career was extremely productive. You can't not sign guys because they haven't played in your system, because that eliminates almost everyone (Holt too btw)
You have to take an educated guess whether they can pick it up.
I'd have to think BB was shocked that Galloway could have been that good for that long and not be capable of picking it up.
I would question whether it was work ethic (not being the glory WR who gets the deep ball could create that) but it just seemed obvious that he couldn't figure out how to read what he was seeing and adjust correctly.
Certainly a poor decision by BB, but not one that I find shocking that he didn't know better. I try to never criticize decisions that were the right one based on the available information but turn out to be wrong when unknown info comes out. Hell, 50/50 is probably a decent record on personell decisions in the NFL, so its hard for me to rail on the bad ones anyway.