idle thoughts - the WR conundrum.....

[supafly]

All true... Any one thing breaks in favor of the Pats in that game and they're champions.

But i don't think anyone disputes that the lack of a deep threat allows defenses to more readily collapse, put pressure on the short to mid range receivers whether it's Lloyd, Branch, Welker, Gronk or Hernandez, can clog the running lanes, make the OL's job that much more difficult and ultimately allows Defenses to put more pressure directly on Brady.

Addressing that weak link in the offense can have some very positive impact in all other realms of the offense, and I'm no more comfortable going into this season with a question mark at the deep spot than I was last year when I had some major doubts that Ocho or anyone else could be effective enough to keep defenses honest.

I think everyone can admit that having Wallace on the field is going to require Defenses to take his deep talents very very seriously, and they won't be so apt to collapse their defense from Day One that he's out there. You certainly can't say that with a rookie or even another clone of Welker.

All great thoughts Joe, but I think we have to be very prepared for the fact that the player that needs to do these things probably won't be Mike Wallace.

I certainly agree that it is a significant offensive weakness that needs to be upgraded and addressed, but when you factor in what it would take to actually get Wallace, you must feel that the odds are probably not too good.

I just can't see BB giving up a 1st rd draft pick. Not only that, but I just can't see him attempting to set the market for him either.

We all know that there's multiple options in trying to address this. Most of them (actually all of them) do not require giving up a 1st rd draft pick AND giving a somewhat unproven player an absolute ton of money. I think if it would happen, we'd probably see it on defense first.

I think that Wallace would be an exciting option to have, and I agree with what you're saying in terms of what he could possibly do for the team, but in the end I just don't see BB pulling the trigger.

It's an extremely costly situation in terms of compensation and financial committment, especially with the Welker situation.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Defenses can be spread horizontally as well as vertically. Deep threats are self limiting because the opportunities to hit them are low percentage throws and unless you hit them consistently defense won't respect them they way you hoped they would. Here in order to be on the field a high percentage of the time you have to be a high percentage target and that means someone who can run all the routes and make all the correct reads and adjustments as well as do all the little things that help your teamates succeed. Otherwise you're seeing spot duty at best and you're not on the field in the hurry up or when the chips are down. And you can't step up and fill a void when a teamate goes down.

Wallace has no experience in this offense or one anything like it. He disappeared down the stretch in Pittsburgh last season. They aren't looking to sign him long term for big money. They're somewhere between hoping they can retain him inexpensively for another season and hoping someone else signs him to an offer sheet so they get a second first rounder...

We all know that teams CAN overcome a weakness at the deep spot... It's just a weakness that you would NEVER want to go into a season with if you can possibly help it.

Numerous fans were certain that we were fine at WR with Reche Caldwell as our #1 after the Patriots were just a few plays short of the Super Bowl in the 2006 season.

Belichick however understood that no matter how much the team had over achieved, he was going to address that glaring weakness, bringing in Stallworth and Moss and giving us the uber offense that went 16-0 in 2007 despite numerous fans who could statistically prove that we were all set at WR and did not need a deep threat.

I have a feeling we will see Belichick take some signficant steps to address the deep threat this off season as well.

 

[Ian]

We all know that teams CAN overcome a weakness at the deep spot... It's just a weakness that you would NEVER want to go into a season with if you can possibly help it.

Numerous fans were certain that we were fine at WR with Reche Caldwell as our #1 after the Patriots were just a few plays short of the Super Bowl in the 2006 season.

Belichick however understood that no matter how much the team had over achieved, he was going to address that glaring weakness, bringing in Stallworth and Moss and giving us the uber offense that went 16-0 in 2007 despite numerous fans who could statistically prove that we were all set at WR and did not need a deep threat.

I have a feeling we will see Belichick take some signficant steps to address the deep threat this off season as well.

I hope you're right. For some reason I'm fixated on this positional group this offseason after looking at the WR tandems throughout the league and seeing how bad the Patriots is by comparison on the depth chart after Welker.

Obviously that's taking out Gronk and Hernandez - but when you look at just the WR's there are a lot of other teams out there that just have 2-3 solid mid tier guys that manage to get a lot of production from them. Branch is essentially a #4-#5, which is what I consider Edelman to be. As I've said I'm also not keen about Slater in the offense, although I do appreciate what he does on special teams.

Put 2 decent mid-tier guys with Welker, and add in Gronk and Hernandez, and suddenly this team would look incredibly solid heading into next season. I'd love a splash to add another big threat, but again, I'd even just settle for two decent guys who can simply get open in key situations.

Needless to say hopefully we see some talent added this offseason.

 

[patsfaninpa]

I hope you're right. For some reason I'm fixated on this positional group this offseason after looking at the WR tandems throughout the league and seeing how bad the Patriots is by comparison on the depth chart after Welker.

Obviously that's taking out Gronk and Hernandez - but when you look at just the WR's there are a lot of other teams out there that just have 2-3 solid mid tier guys that manage to get a lot of production from them. Branch is essentially a #4-#5, which is what I consider Edelman to be. As I've said I'm also not keen about Slater in the offense, although I do appreciate what he does on special teams.

Put 2 decent mid-tier guys with Welker, and add in Gronk and Hernandez, and suddenly this team would look incredibly solid heading into next season. I'd love a splash to add another big threat, but again, I'd even just settle for two decent guys who can simply get open in key situations.

Needless to say hopefully we see some talent added this offseason.

There aren't any elite wr's in this draft like Julio Jones or AJ Green last year. But, I think there are about 25 decent prospects. My horizontal board looks something like this right now.

1st
Blackmon, Floyd, Jeffrey and K. Wright
2ND
S. Hill, M. Sanu, R. Randle and Marvin Jones - Cal
3RD
M. McNutt, T. Streeter, B. Quick, C. Givens, Dwight Jones and Jarius Wright
4TH
N. Toon, TY Hilton, J. Adams, J. Criner, AJ Jenkins and R. Broyles

Still have guys like;
Greg Childs - Arkansas
Davier Posey - OSU
Danny Coale - Va Tech
Junior Hemingway - Michigan
BJ Cunningham - Mich St
Chris Owusu - Stanford
Patrick Edwards - Houston

We could get a good prospect at 63 or 94 and another one in the 4th.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I hope you're right. For some reason I'm fixated on this positional group this offseason after looking at the WR tandems throughout the league and seeing how bad the Patriots is by comparison on the depth chart after Welker.

Obviously that's taking out Gronk and Hernandez - but when you look at just the WR's there are a lot of other teams out there that just have 2-3 solid mid tier guys that manage to get a lot of production from them. Branch is essentially a #4-#5, which is what I consider Edelman to be. As I've said I'm also not keen about Slater in the offense, although I do appreciate what he does on special teams.

Put 2 decent mid-tier guys with Welker, and add in Gronk and Hernandez, and suddenly this team would look incredibly solid heading into next season. I'd love a splash to add another big threat, but again, I'd even just settle for two decent guys who can simply get open in key situations.

Needless to say hopefully we see some talent added this offseason.

I keep going back to the supposed "blueprint" of how to beat Brady and the Patriots that teams employ. i.e. put pressure on Brady and force him to make mistakes.

Half of me looks at the "blueprint" as pure BS because it usually comes down to execution by Brady and the offense, but there is some truth to the fact that teams that beat the Patriots are usually effective putting pressure on him, and the lack of a deep threat has made that a lot easier for many teams.

Helping opponents out by going into a season without a deep threat to keep defenses honest and prevent them from pressuring is something to be avoided if possible. And since I have limited faith in a rookie being a credible deep threat from Game 1, I would prefer a veteran who is already established as a deep threat - and ideally a young one who has the potential to become even better and remain healthy

As of now, our TEs are our de facto deep threat, which is not ideal, though what those guys have accomplished in keeping defenses wary is actually impressive (and using Hernandez as a RB confused defenses even further!)

But my bottom line is that a deep threat is a priority and not something that should be relegated to dependence on a lesser veteran (like Ocho last year) or a rookie who likely will need a few years to develop if he ever does at all.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I guess for some here the fact that the blueprint ultimately defeated Brady in 2007 in possession of a deep threat and then again in 2009 didn't resonate. Some of that was Moss and his existing and ultimately increasing limitations and some of it was the concept. The initial Plan was Welker and Stallworth. Moss was an afterthought as far as actual targets go who landed here initially because no one else would even trade a 4th for him, much to Brett Favre's chagrin. Of course when they eventually hooked up in Minnesota, well, .... Now with Welker and the bookend TE's, spending on a deep threat would be foolish because that player won't see enough targets to be on the field for 60 snaps a game. Better to sign a WR who can run all the routes.

I've heard Brady speak glowingly about Moss as a teamate and friend. I've never heard him lament him as a weapon as I have Jabar Gaffney...or Deion Branch. Guys who could run all the routes and picked up the offense rapidly.

 

[patfanken]

Ian, I hope this allays your fear that the lack of a legitimate deep WR threat is the single thing holding this team back from winning a superbowl. It clearly is not, as Mo has pointed out in his latest posts.

I don't doubt that there are 20 or more teams who have better deep threats than the Pats. There might be even be 30. So what! Why, "so what"? Because there are only 2 other teams who can claim to have better offenses than the Pats, even with that deficiency. So what does that say about the importance of having a "deep threat". It would be nice, but definitely not NECESSARY

The issue is clear. I don't doubt that everyone here, including myself, would love to have that kind of threat on the field. It definitely IS something we would want to improve. The question I would have is how much of the team's limited resources are you willing to spend on solving the problem?

Are you willing to solve it in FA by bringing in someone who would require the team spending 16-20% of their cap on 2 WRs? Is it worth giving up a #1 pick in the draft, AND paying him a max contract for your 4th receiver option? Is it worth spending so much of those limited resources to improve a top 3 offense, when they could be used to improve a bottom 3 defense?

So Ian, if you were GM, who would you rather see on the field next season. Mike Wallace, or Mario Williams. Brandon Lloyd, or Cameron Wembley. You can only have one.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I guess for some here the fact that the blueprint ultimately defeated Brady in 2007 in possession of a deep threat and then again in 2009 didn't resonate. Some of that was Moss and his existing and ultimately increasing limitations and some of it was the concept. The initial Plan was Welker and Stallworth. Moss was an afterthought as far as actual targets go who landed here initially because no one else would even trade a 4th for him, much to Brett Favre's chagrin. Of course when they eventually hooked up in Minnesota, well, .... Now with Welker and the bookend TE's, spending on a deep threat would be foolish because that player won't see enough targets to be on the field for 60 snaps a game. Better to sign a WR who can run all the routes.

I've heard Brady speak glowingly about Moss as a teamate and friend. I've never heard him lament him as a weapon as I have Jabar Gaffney...or Deion Branch. Guys who could run all the routes and picked up the offense rapidly.

I think that's a very simplistic view of the Patriots offense that year. The lesson learned from 2007 was not that a deep threat was a liability - it was that the offense was overly focused on Moss and Welker often at the expense of other receivers. Stallworth for example was used significantly early in the season but hardly at all towards the end of the year.

Were defenses forced to "pay" for devoting too much attention to Moss and Welker? I'd say not very often.... They learned that double teaming one or both carried little risk of paying the consequences because Brady would often still try to force a pass into them more often than not (and in fairness, more often than not he was successful).

By the end of the season defenses were very clued into the tendency of the play calling and focused on those two players. The Giants did that well in Game 16 my concern was that theyd do an even better job in the Super Bowl, which they did.

Its the other extreme in some ways.. Just because you have someone with Moss' talent in 2007 doesn't mean you need to go to him every time. In fact you want to mix it up enough with all your receivers so that deep route player is available when you need that big play.

If Belichick decides to eschew having a deep threat on the team next year I'll be happy to admit I was wrong but I'd pure money on the notion that he will try to address WR in both free agency and the draft.

Lobbying to forgoe the option of a deep threat on the team makes no sense, though again, we saw many here assert that, statistically, the offense was fine in 2006 with Reche Caldwell's 10 yard average as our deep threat.

 

[supafly]

Lobbying to forgoe the option of a deep threat on the team makes no sense, though again, we saw many here assert that, statistically, the offense was fine in 2006 with Reche Caldwell's 10 yard average as our deep threat.

I think of several thoughts when reading this paragraph.

First, there is actually a decent argument that Caldwell was good enough. All signs pointed to another SB win when we were up 21-6 at the half. Just like the past 2 SB losses, the game was turned on several things all going well for the opposing team. It was the biggest come-from-behind win in championship game history. By all accts, the team should've won that year, and an argument can certainly be made that Caldwell was good enough.

---we had the heat issue, and the issue with many sick players

---we had a couple of very key drops by WR's, and we were all screaming for Brady to look to his right during his cadence. If he had, he would have seen a completely uncovered WR that would have easily been a score

---the defense was the side who could not stop Manning in the 2nd half, as he put up 32 points in 2 quarters (ridiculous)

---the game came down to a couple of offensive series' where we could not muster a 1st down to wrap the game up

---the NFL apologized to Ellis Hobbs for an unruly and wrong PI call

So, just like many of our other close losses, there were a handful of things that happened that did not go our way. I wouldn't necessarily think that Caldwell (as much as I didn't like him) was the key factor, but I will agree that he was a factor. Unfortunately, we can't go back in time and know if he would have been 'THE' difference or not--an argument can be made for both sides.

Most importantly, remember that if Caldwell doesn't recover the fumble in the game before it (caused by T.Brown), we wouldn't have even been in that game to begin with. Caldwell actually was 2 yds away from being the leading WR for the team.

Belichick did address the lack of WR situation in the off-season; but he did it in a way where it was still not a huge cap burden. I think that we can expect the same thing this year, with hopefully a signing like Llyod or Wayne to at least bolster the group enough to add another element.

No matter what, I just can't see BB spending the kind of money that a lot of people are assuming for another WR when we just had one of the most potent offenses in NFL history last yr. I do think that a mid to low level improvement will be made, enough to do what's necessary to keep getting better.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I think of several thoughts when reading this paragraph.

First, there is actually a decent argument that Caldwell was good enough. All signs pointed to another SB win when we were up 21-6 at the half. Just like the past 2 SB losses, the game was turned on several things all going well for the opposing team. It was the biggest come-from-behind win in championship game history. By all accts, the team should've won that year, and an argument can certainly be made that Caldwell was good enough.

---we had the heat issue, and the issue with many sick players

---we had a couple of very key drops by WR's, and we were all screaming for Brady to look to his right during his cadence. If he had, he would have seen a completely uncovered WR that would have easily been a score

---the defense was the side who could not stop Manning in the 2nd half, as he put up 32 points in 2 quarters (ridiculous)

---the game came down to a couple of offensive series' where we could not muster a 1st down to wrap the game up

---the NFL apologized to Ellis Hobbs for an unruly and wrong PI call

So, just like many of our other close losses, there were a handful of things that happened that did not go our way. I wouldn't necessarily think that Caldwell (as much as I didn't like him) was the key factor, but I will agree that he was a factor. Unfortunately, we can't go back in time and know if he would have been 'THE' difference or not--an argument can be made for both sides.

Most importantly, remember that if Caldwell doesn't recover the fumble in the game before it (caused by T.Brown), we wouldn't have even been in that game to begin with. Caldwell actually was 2 yds away from being the leading WR for the team.

Belichick did address the lack of WR situation in the off-season; but he did it in a way where it was still not a huge cap burden. I think that we can expect the same thing this year, with hopefully a signing like Llyod or Wayne to at least bolster the group enough to add another element.

No matter what, I just can't see BB spending the kind of money that a lot of people are assuming for another WR when we just had one of the most potent offenses in NFL history last yr. I do think that a mid to low level improvement will be made, enough to do what's necessary to keep getting better.

Again it's not the question of whether you can or cannot overcome not having a true #1 WR (i.e. a WR who is also a deep threat).

You can - I think we've all seen this team overachieve and prove that time and time again - though they've also been just short because of any one play - one catch in some cases.

It's kindof tough to forget that Caldwell, our #1 WR that season, wasn't even good enough to make the team the next season - or just about any other team in the NFL either.

I guess one could also make the case that we really don't need any work on defense since we came so close to winning another ring. But we all know that's not the case, just as Belichick likely knows he can't leave the deep WR position a big question mark the way he did last season.

The point is that you don't enter into a season with glaring holes at key positions if you can possibly help it.

And you don't leave a hole at a deep WR position if you can possibly help it - especially when you have a QB as good as Brady and one who you want to protect as much as possible by keeping defenses honest and stretched.

 

[supafly]

Again it's not the question of whether you can or cannot overcome not having a true #1 WR (i.e. a WR who is also a deep threat).

You can - I think we've all seen this team overachieve and prove that time and time again - though they've also been just short because of any one play - one catch in some cases.

It's kindof tough to forget that Caldwell, our #1 WR that season, wasn't even good enough to make the team the next season - or just about any other team in the NFL either.

I guess one could also make the case that we really don't need any work on defense since we came so close to winning another ring. But we all know that's not the case, just as Belichick likely knows he can't leave the deep WR position a big question mark the way he did last season.

The point is that you don't enter into a season with glaring holes at key positions if you can possibly help it.

And you don't leave a hole at a deep WR position if you can possibly help it - especially when you have a QB as good as Brady and one who you want to protect as much as possible by keeping defenses honest and stretched.

I agree with you entirely that the situation is a glaring weakness, and that Belichick surely will address it.

"How" he addresses it is where we are tending to have different viewpoints.

You are calling for a clear cut impact maker, who will most likely cost a lot of money. I am calling for some type of upgrade (whether it be via FA, the draft, or both) that is incredibly more cost-efficient/cap friendly.

Again, I tend to think that the Welker situation is at least causing 'some' unclarity with the spending situation, not only at WR but with the overall team. How much, if any the Welker situation is holding things back, will likely never be known. I could be way off base with that thinking. I just have a feeling that maybe Belichick would be a little bit more free with the possibilities if Welker were under an extension with a more cap friendly number.

However, even IF Welker were under a longer term pact, I still don't think that we'd be going after these 'big named WR's' that so many seem as realistic. I just think it goes against everything that BB stands for, and everything that we've ever seen in the patterns leading up to it.

That is just my humble opinion though, and you could be closer to right than I ever will be.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think that's a very simplistic view of the Patriots offense that year. The lesson learned from 2007 was not that a deep threat was a liability - it was that the offense was overly focused on Moss and Welker often at the expense of other receivers. Stallworth for example was used significantly early in the season but hardly at all towards the end of the year.

The lesson from 2007 was that the Patriots offense was a lot easier to stop when all the tight ends, plus the 3rd down RB, plus the starting RG, plus the QB were injured and/or not available.

The Stallworth argument is a red herring, as has been shown time and again, since Stallworth was replaced by Gaffney in the lineup over the course of the season and the two combined for 82 catches. Faulk had 47 catches and Watson had 36 and, in the end, Moss/Welker ended up with about 52% of the Patriots receptions (210 out of 403). That's not much different than what the Colts won with in 2006, when Harrison and Wayne combined for 181 out of 362 completions (50%).

 

[JoeSixPat]

The lesson from 2007 was that the Patriots offense was a lot easier to stop when all the tight ends, plus the 3rd down RB, plus the starting RG, plus the QB were injured and/or not available.

The Stallworth argument is a red herring, as has been shown time and again, since Stallworth was replaced by Gaffney in the lineup over the course of the season and the two combined for 82 catches. Faulk had 47 catches and Watson had 36 and, in the end, Moss/Welker ended up with about 52% of the Patriots receptions (210 out of 403). That's not much different than what the Colts won with in 2006, when Harrison and Wayne combined for 181 out of 362 completions (50%).

I think we can just leave that debate for other threads.

The real point is that having a deep WR was not and is not a liability - and the real comparison is with 2006, with Caldwell as our deep threat WR and what steps Belichick took to upgrade at WR - especially the #1 spot.

I think that's going to be the #1 priority on offense this offseason - but it will be interesting to see where Belichick comes down on this.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think we can just leave that debate for other threads.

There's not really a debate to be had, as the numbers demonstrate, so I'd rather not debate it at all.

The real point is that having a deep WR was not and is not a liability - and the real comparison is with 2006, with Caldwell as our deep threat WR and what steps Belichick took to upgrade at WR - especially the #1 spot.

I think that's going to be the #1 priority on offense this offseason - but it will be interesting to see where Belichick comes down on this.

I agree that having a middle-deep threat is not a liability. You and I have disagreed over what constitutes a "deep threat" over the years (You're still wrong ), but not over the desire to have someone that can force defenders to play the whole field.

 

[JoeSixPat]

There's not really a debate to be had, as the numbers demonstrate, so I'd rather not debate it at all.

I agree that having a middle-deep threat is not a liability. You and I have disagreed over what constitutes a "deep threat" over the years (You're still wrong ), but not over the desire to have someone that can force defenders to play the whole field.

Correct. Ultimately we just disagree about how much stock to put in "numbers" themselves.

More than a few fans confidently used statistics to "prove" that we were fine at WR with Reche Caldwell in 2006... Because after all we were still the #6 offense and were just a play or two away from going to and likely winning another Super Bowl.

Belichick disagreed.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Correct. Ultimately we just disagree about how much stock to put in "numbers" themselves.

More than a few fans confidently used statistics to "prove" that we were fine at WR with Reche Caldwell in 2006... Because after all we were still the #6 offense and were just a play or two away from going to and likely winning another Super Bowl.

Belichick disagreed.

Yes, he did, although I doubt he came to that conclusion until he was forced to since he constructed that team. They did after all make it to the AFCC and appeared to be in command until the second half...

Trouble with your contention is thereafter he tried that and it didn't work out very much better, and in fact it proved over time to be not nearly as good, as is often the case. So he chose to walk away from it and went in another direction, the tanden TE's and Welker and Branch and the mismatch theory. That too came up short, although it's again debatable as to why. One injury or one missed catch - the variability of the equation.

Most of us believe he still remains just one weapon short. Although it still nearly works as is absent variability. So the debate becomes or in your case remains spend a first and $10M on a potential one trick pony deep threat again or spend a lot less on another more versatile option who has already played in the system and can run all the routes...

 

[supafly]

Faulk had 47 catches

This got me thinking that some of the production could be expected to fall all Vereen's shoulders too. I know that we say this almost every yr, in regards to RB's taking on more receptions, but I would bet that Vereen will be used in that manner more than a lot of fans/posters are expecting at the current moment.

We obviously need an outside the numbers kind of guy that can take over Branch's job more effectively, and we all know the benefits of what that would do to the other areas of the offense/targets; but this post (in reference to Faulk's receptions in 2007) reminded me that there are many different approaches at targeting different options.

I just hope that I'm not using the Vereen argument as possible justification when the team announces next week that they added a 4th/5th option at shallow and intermediate routes 10 and 12 yds down the field

 

[roleplayer]

Greg Bedard was on D&C this morning and said that the Patriots should be in on Mike Wallace.

I stand by my opinion that this is the guy Belichick really wants.

Greg Bedard from the Boston Globe talks about Brandon Lloyd, Mike Wallace, and Peyton Manning

 

[JoeSixPat]

Greg Bedard was on D&C this morning and said that the Patriots should be in on Mike Wallace.

I stand by my opinion that this is the guy Belichick really wants.

Greg Bedard from the Boston Globe talks about Brandon Lloyd, Mike Wallace, and Peyton Manning

Honestly I like both Lloyd and Wallace, for different reasons. I view Wallace as far and away the better deep threat, and someone who at age 25 is getting better and can contribute here long term.

Lloyd may be the better all around WR, but is 31, has been somewhat inconsistent in his career and some teammates have questioned his character, and even his mental health.

So we're talking apples and oranges in some ways (though even as a limited deep threat Lloyd is better than our current deep threat, who is actually a TE).

I think it ultimately comes down to money and value, but it's more complex than that... While I have no problem seeing the Patriots give up what is nearly a 2nd round pick for Wallace, the fact is that the Steelers have one full week to decide whether to match the Patriots offer (if they even make one)

One week is a long time to tie up the amount of cap space that Wallace would demand - it'd be one thing if they knew the Steelers wouldn't be able to match (and given their cap situation, maybe there would be some assurance of that) but there are other teams to consider as well.

That could effectively freeze the Patriots from being as active in free agency as they'd like for a full week and could still lose out on Wallace. That complicates things greatly in my eyes, as much as I like Wallace's deep game.

If Lloyd is willing to play for a reasonable amount and limit the years given his age and question marks, he might make more sense, allowing the Patriots to upgrade at WR cheaply and address a defensive position early in free agency.

We will soon see.