Football Outsiders on Martellus Bennett

[TheBostonStraggler]

It's not, and that's pretty clear to see with even a cursory check at NFL history. People here on Patsfans.com like to ignore the reality that the Brady Patriots are the exception, not the rule.

I don't disagree that the Patriots' O philosophy, historically speaking, isn't the norm. Most teams do secure a potent Deep Threat (typically their #1 priority or #2 behind a capable TE). However, the Patriot way isn't the only abnormal Patriot method that works given the BB/TB Patriot history. IMHO the Patriot abnormal method (top shelf deep threat-less) is based in part on what works keenly for TB (based strictly on my own opinion -- not on a statistical analysis).

IMO if injuries lessen to some measurable degree versus last season (both Tackles must stay healthy!), I'm supremely confident the Patriots are going to the SB this season (and the offense will be among the top 8 historical leaders in points scored). Further if the football gods had smiled on us regarding injuries last season we would be looking at the chance to threepeat this season (just a healthy Lewis or a healthy Solder might have been enough to get us there last season). And we'll ultimately have done this/do this without a potent deep threat.
If that hypothetical is true then the argument of 'without that potent deep threat they'll just clog the middle' is DOA.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Well, he famously got confused about an RB's pass-catching eligibility ...

Did he?
See I had heard that he wasn't confused at all and he actually had a firm grasp of the entire situation for the entire time. It was reported widely that his justifiable anger and dismay was simply because the officials were not calling the game the right way, the Patriots were cheating, the game/clock wasn't stopped so he could explain everything to the officials and all of his defensive players, and that it wasn't better explained to him by the officials that this is what timeouts are for.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't disagree that the Patriots' O philosophy, historically speaking, isn't the norm. Most teams do secure a potent Deep Threat (typically their #1 priority or #2 behind a capable TE). However, the Patriot way isn't the only abnormal Patriot method that works given the BB/TB Patriot history. IMHO the Patriot abnormal method (top shelf deep threat-less) is based in part on what works keenly for TB (based strictly on my own opinion -- not on a statistical analysis).

There's a difference between saying "Brady and BB are so damned good that they can compensate for deficiencies that other QBs can't" and "Screw it. The Patriots don't need ______ ". That seems to be what gets lost around here. Football has shown that every kind of deficiency can be overcome. Bad coaches, ****ty owners, lousy QBs, middling RBs, average WRs, garbage defenses, etc.... they've all been overcome by SB winning teams.

Once one accepts that, and accepts that the idea of "need" isn't an absolute with regards to any NFL personnel, it becomes obvious that middle-deep threats are a 'need' in terms of winning NFL titles, just as elite QBs are a 'need' and great defenses are a 'need'.

IMO if injuries lessen to some measurable degree versus last season (both Tackles must stay healthy!), I'm supremely confident the Patriots are going to the SB this season (and the offense will be among the top 8 historical leaders in points scored). Further if the football gods had smiled on us regarding injuries last season we would be looking at the chance to threepeat this season (just a healthy Lewis or a healthy Solder might have been enough to get us there last season). And we'll ultimately have done this/do this without a potent deep threat.

With the exceptions of 2002, 2008 (depending upon how you frame the issue), 2009 and 2010, once can make the argument that the Patriots failed to win the SB because of injuries and/or bad calls. Of course, other teams that get to the playoffs and don't win the title can make the same argument, most years.

If that hypothetical is true then the argument of 'without that potent deep threat they'll just clog the middle' is DOA.

No, it's not. We've seen that basic concept used repeatedly, and effectively, against the Patriots.

 

[ViperGTS]

They had that before their #1 & #2 RB went down and half the OL got injured.

YPC last year

Blount 4.3
Lewis 4.8

Misleading. How many times did Blount get dropped for a loss or had zero chance? Plenty. I beg anyone to list a great game by Blount. There wasn't one. They couldn't effectively run against teams that were stout up front. Buffalo x2. Dallas. Denver. Lewis was a bit more effective but I don't count on him for next season at all. I act like he won't even be on the team. He's my Clay Buchholz of the Patriots. This way whatever you get is a bonus.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Misleading. How many times did Blount get dropped for a loss or had zero chance? Plenty. I beg anyone to list a great game by Blount. There wasn't one. They couldn't effectively run against teams that were stout up front. Buffalo x2. Dallas. Denver. Lewis was a bit more effective but I don't count on him for next season at all. I act like he won't even be on the team. He's my Clay Buchholz of the Patriots. This way whatever you get is a bonus.

Redskins

 

[VectorPrime]

The fact that the Pats have yet to resign Blount is a bit telling.

 

[Deus Irae]

The fact that the Pats have yet to resign Blount is a bit telling.

Given that he was injured, and ended up on IR, exactly what do you think it's telling you?

 

[JMC00]

Dallas.

19 rushes
108 yards
5.6 yards per carry

 

[SlowGettingUp]

There's a difference between saying "Brady and BB are so damned good that they can compensate for deficiencies that other QBs can't" and "Screw it. The Patriots don't need ______ ".

The issue is where you spend your bucks. Other teams absolutely need that deep threat receiver, and so those players are priced accordingly and are essentially out of our price range.

Brady by contrast needs a quick Welker/Edelman type player, a good tight end and a smart intermediate depth possession receiver, with Branch perhaps being the best example of the type (I just watched the win over the Eagles in an old Super Bowl replay).

The way to win in the NFL is not to compete for the high-priced players; it is to find the mid-priced quality players that best fit your own strengths. Those fancy high-priced receivers are simply worth more to other teams, and so (except for Moss) we will typically never have one. It's not crazy to keep looking at the bottom of the draft (like Boyce) in case you get lucky and strike gold. But it's always going to be a very long shot, so it's not too surprising that most (all?) of our attempts on this front have been for naught.

 

[Deus Irae]

The issue is where you spend your bucks. Other teams absolutely need that deep threat receiver, and so those players are priced accordingly and are essentially out of our price range.

Brady by contrast needs a quick Welker/Edelman type player, a good tight end and a smart intermediate depth possession receiver, with Branch perhaps being the best example of the type (I just watched the win over the Eagles in an old Super Bowl replay).

The way to win in the NFL is not to compete for the high-priced players; it is to find the mid-priced quality players that best fit your own strengths. Those fancy high-priced receivers are simply worth more to other teams, and so (except for Moss) we will typically never have one. It's not crazy to keep looking at the bottom of the draft (like Boyce) in case you get lucky and strike gold. But it's always going to be a very long shot, so it's not too surprising that most (all?) of our attempts on this front have been for naught.

I don't buy any of that, sorry.

 

[ViperGTS]

19 rushes
108 yards
5.6 yards per carry

That's listing both Blount and Lewis. Blount had 13 for 74 and if I recall correctly most of that was in the second half.

Actually I found it. 6:20 of the 4th quarter Blount ripped off a 34 yarder. That's almost half of his total for the day. They were up 20-3 by that point. The actual drive breakdown is quite underwhelming.

Watch New England Patriots vs. Dallas Cowboys [10/11/2015] - NFL.com

 

[JMC00]

That's listing both Blount and Lewis. Blount had 13 for 74 and if I recall correctly most of that was in the second half.

Actually I found it. 6:20 of the 4th quarter Blount ripped off a 34 yarder. That's almost half of his total for the day. They were up 20-3 by that point. The actual drive breakdown is quite underwhelming.

Watch New England Patriots vs. Dallas Cowboys [10/11/2015] - NFL.com

Eevery RB has a run that is a chunk of their total yardage.

adrian peterson had 81 yards on 16 carries against denver and 1 of them was for 48 yards, the other 15 carries he had 33 yards (2.2 ypc). That's just how it is with RBs.

 

[PatriotsReign]

I don't buy any of that, sorry.

I'm another that isn't concerned about acquiring a top deep threat. It's just not necessary with Brady and our offense

Although I'll take one if we can find one below market value

 

[AzPatsFan]

I don't buy any of that, sorry.

I think there is plenty of evidence that chasing great deep WRS does not contribute to winning many Super Bowls. Especially when your QB is no great shakes at throwing deep, but is fantastic at throwing and completing short and intermediate routes.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Honestly a team can just shut that down but flooding the middle of the field as usual. A team with a lot of good man 2 man players will be able to stop us if we have no outside downfield presence at WR.

Downfield throws have never been TB's long suit, which is not to say he hasn't made a few big ones in his day...we all remember the pass to Deion to open the second half of the AFCCG in Pittsburgh on a freezing winter's night.

But this lineup plays to his strengths, especially as he enters his 40th year...why use a lot of cap space on a guy that's effectively a decoy 99% of the time unless you can pick up someone who's "good enough" and willing to take a discount for the chance to play in an SB?

 

[aluminum seats]

It's not just Moss. Take a look at 2004, when Givens really established himself, along with Patten, as middle-deep threats, and Branch working the shorter stuff. Adding Dillon certainly didn't hurt, either, but the team went from scoring 371 points in 2001, 381 points in 2002, and 348 points in 2003 to scoring 437 points in 2004.

For that matter, take a look even at the impact that Brandon Lloyd had, despite his penchant for dropping to the ground immediately upon catching the ball, and his low overall YPC. 513 points in 2011 jumped up to 557 points in 2012, then dropped way down to 444 in 2013, and has not really rebounded since (468 and 465 points in 2014 and 2015).

I feel like the terms being discussed here are in some ways too vague to really be worth the effort. There's no question that having good receivers is a good thing. So, right, back in 2004 Givens and Patten, for example, played well and that helped (although I do think saying Dillon "didn't hurt" understates his impact a bit).

Where I think the need for " a guy who can stretch the field" is overstated is insisting it's a need, where the Pats will be thwarted without one. The beginning of last season before injuries decimated the team disproves that.

 

[Ivan]

Judging by last year Seattle doesn't have the best games against TEs

During the regular season, the Seahawks allowed 75 receptions by tight ends — an average of nearly five per game — for 873 yards and eight touchdowns.

The two best TEs they played last year killed them.

Eifert- 8 rec 90 yards 2 TD
Olsen- 7 rec 130 yards 1 TD & 6 rec 77 yards 1 TD

Thomas, Chancellor and Sherman all played...

That's been the Achilles for that defense since they became good. I don't think its their personel that's the issue I think it's the style. Every type of defense has strengths and weaknesses and Seattle takes away the run game effectively and really limits outside receivers but good TEs do serious damage to them.

 

[Ivan]

I think most would love to see a good deep threat on this team the question is how much to spend on the role. Other than Moss Belichick has never been willing to spend considerable money or cap space for a deep threat because they are a relatively minor part of this offense and will only see a small number of targets over the course of the season. It's really more of a decoy role in their offense and he would rather use a draft pick or older low cost receiver like Washington because he is going to use his cap money for other pieces he sees as more important. As far as this season goes I think they are in decent shape with Washington in the role, and maybe the light will come on for Dobson although I won't count on it. And although I wouldn't say it's a priority I would be fine with them using one of their top four picks on one.

 

[Deus Irae]

Need:

1Require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable:

need - definition of need in English from the Oxford dictionary

Where I think the need for " a guy who can stretch the field" is overstated is insisting it's a need, where the Pats will be thwarted without one. The beginning of last season before injuries decimated the team disproves that.

I already addressed this in a previous post, just a couple posts back:

Football Outsiders on Martellus Bennett

That being the case, there's no sense continuing this. You've got a position just for the sake of having the position. And the beginning of last season didn't prove what you're claiming it proved.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

They have to cover the deep route if you run it. Do you really think that against us they call a defense that says if Edelman or Amendola go deep just ignore them because they aren't a deep threat?

Agreed. And I know you are just using them as an example, but Lewis wasn't too shabby either. That was a big loss for us when he went down. If the oline can get back to early last seasons form and Lewis is back in rare form, that would be a huge plus. IMO