- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 15,532
- Reaction score
- 27,569
The Steelers have another 8 hours to ponder their decision to keep or let go of Sanders. So that leaves us with nothing to do but to continue to go over the usual, well worn discussions. So much like Vladimir and Estragon, I have nothing to do but to sit under a tree and wait and discuss the "events of the day". 
1. I don't think Pittburgh will match the offer. Given the state of their roster and cap situation, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to keep Sanders. By keeping him they limit their FA options until 6/1 when they get some cap relief. By keeping him, they get another lame duck WR who can leave after the season. So even if he blossoms into a true starting WR, this could end up being another Mike Wallace 2.0 situation.
The Pats on the other hand, given their roster and cap situation can afford the risk that Sanders won't continue to develop. So if the Pats get him, they'll be happy to add a WR who has improved every year, and has the potential to be a true starter for a very modest price. It's a move that is not without risk,but given where the team is right now, it is a reasonable one.
I think we'll have our decision by the evening news cycle.
2. There seems to be 2 hot buttons here this off season. Issues that cause the most angst and discussion from the membership concerning our team. They are the need to improve our WR corps, and our pass rush. They have taken up the bulk of our time and effort thus far. While I recognize the need, I don't don't share the urgency, and would like to spend some time to explain why....and not for the first time.
WR-
A. Of all the skill positions, WR is the one that has the greatest number of potential prospects. As hard as it is to find a true franchise QB or a truly effective interior pass rusher, that's how easy it is to find professional quaiity WR's. If anything 2006 proved that if you have a "franchise QB", even with sub par WR's you can have a
very capable passing offense. The fact is that we don't need "all pro" WR types to have a passing offense capable of helping us win a Lombardi.
B. Someone wrote a great post where he documented the success rate of WR's in the draft. IIRC, first round was just under 50% and by the 3rd round you were down to 20%. Now the poster made it clear that you didn't have to be a 1000yd
receiver to be considered a "success". You just had to be a "solid" contributor. Its stats like these that make me understand why BB nevers drafts a WR in the first round. He needs better than a fifty-fifty shot at success from a first rounder
BTW- if anyone can find that post and repost it, I'd apprecieate it, if only to give credit to the poster. It is worth repeating. I tried, but couldn't find it, and I don't remember the thread where I read it. Please tell me I wasn't just dreaming it.
C. I think we shouldn't assign strict roles to the receiver group. Position designations like TE's/WR's/SR's have become less relevant in today's offense in general, and especially with the Pats. If we focus just on the receiving skills we have on the roster, the picture is a lot less bleak than some would have us believe.
In Gronk we have an impact receiver, as well as a top blocker. His hands, body control, and physicality make him a potential threat in EVERY area of the field, including deep. In Hernandez we have another impact receiver who has proven he can make all the plays in the intermediate areas of the field, as well as line up as an inline TE. There are dozen's of teams in the NFL who don't start off with that kind of RECEIVER foundation.
Edelman and Amendola's issues are NOT a matter of skill. Both have proven they can get open and run with ball after the catch. Their's is an issue of staying on the field. That's something no one can predict
Jones is an interesting prospect who has shown well vs the Pats in the past. Who knows what he'll become playing in a very dynamic offense with a top QB. But if Sanders can be equated to a Slighgtly taller, faster Deion Branch, then Jones could be equated to a slightly bigger and faster David Givens. Could it be that BB is trying to get the old band' back together.
And in Jenkins we have a potential "physical receiver" would would be an additional red zone threat.
D. This is real early, but depending on needs elsewhere, there is a real possibility that the Pats might only keep 4 true WR's this season. Its going to be hard to keep 5 if we keep 4 TE's and Slater is designated a WR. For this and other reason's, if Sanders ends up with the Pats, there is no chance in hell that we draft a WR with one of those top 2 picks.
PASS RUSH -
A. For 5 seasons from 2003-2007 the Pats had defenses that ranked 6th or better in sacks for 4 of those years. During that time they only had ONE rusher who had double digit sacks (Mike Vrabel-12) during that time. It was the ONLY time Vrabel reached that number. The reason I point this out is because, while we ALL want to have the pass rush improve, it doesn't mean we need to find that "single individual" that will suddenly make it all happen. I
contend, that with our current talent, we could very well see a significant improvement to our pass rush for the following reasons:
B. So many of our key young defensive players are simply going to get better. That list includes, but isn't exclusive to, Jones, Hightower, Dennard, TWilson, Deadrick/Love.
C. The additions of Kelly, Armstead, AWilson, and Talib (for a full healthy season), add to the improvement of the overall talent pool on defense
D. That combination of improved talent and more experience alone will add up to a better pass rush. But there's more.
E. Over the past 4 years the Pats have had one of the LEAST aggressive pass rushes in the league, blitzing only an average of 15% of the time, compared to a league wide average of over 30%. Part of that is because of Bill's proven belief that "bend but don't break" works. (proven in that the Pats have always been successful in trading yds for points, even when the defense was at its worst.) However part of the reason was an overall lack of talent and experience on defense.
I honestly believe that we now have the overall talent and experience to take more chances and be more aggressive on defense. Just moving that blitz number from 15% to 25% will result in an improved pass rush, with more sacks, hurries, and QB hits, without radically changing our defensive philosophy
F. It should be noted that being more aggressive doesn't always mean having to send 5 or more rushers. Overloads, zone blitzes, and DL stunts are other strategies to create more pressure while still keep 7 defenders back in coverage. We've done VERY little of this the last 2 years
G. Please understand that if we eventually do sign a Abraham, Freeney or the like, I'm certainly not going to be upset.I'll be as thrilled as everyone else. But if we don't, I'm not going to think that Pats Superbowl chances are going to disappear either. During the heyday of the Pats defense, they managed to rush the passer well WITHOUT having to
rely on one or two individuals to create sacks. It was more of a TEAM effort.
H. Here's an example of what I mean. Take the addtion of AWilson. I have no illusions that he's still the all Pro Safety he was in his prime. I don't expect him to become an every down player here. What I DO expect him to be is a strong physical presence against the run, a stong physical presence against TE's in man coverage from inside the box
and finally, an accomplished DB blitzer. Something we haven't had since Rodney retired. A couple of additional sacks from him, a few more from Kelly, Jones and Hightower add 3 more each and things start to add up. The results of which will be an improved pass rush, WITHOUT the need to have one of the league's "dominant" pass rushers.
3. I just want to point out that it makes my head want to explode every time people want to throw out that the Pats only scored 13 points in the last playoff game and make it seem like if was because we had a serious flaw with our offense. Those people seem to forget the over 420 yds the offense racked up. The 5 trips into the red zone. The lack of any turnovers to help, and the 2 we gave the Ravens to hinder. Yeah, and losing 4 starters over the course of the game didn't help either (2 on offense)
Now the offense wasn't blameless. I only point this out to those who would like us to believe that nothing more than a complete makeover will save our future hopes. That there is an inherent flaw in our direction. No. That loss to the Ravens was more a function of a lack of execution at key moments, the loss of 2 key defensive players, and no Gronk,
than any endemic problems with the team. We lost that game because the other team made more key plays than we did.
4. Its fast becomeing one of my "pet peeves" when posters seem to try and look upon the last 8 years as a dismal failure. That we have "wasted" Brady's prime years because of some failure to add this player or that. This is simply madness. The results of either of the 2 Superbowl losses could have been changed by one play. In fact in both games there were SEVERAL plays of that ilk....and we all know them well enough that they don't need to be repeated.
Am I the only one who thinks how REMARKABLE this run is, even with its flaws and imperfections. How we've managed to be one of the elite teams EVERY year, despite watching most of league getting to draft far ahead of us for the last decade. Have we forgotten how hard it is to win a superbowl. How often teams competitive runs are so short lived Did we forget how much good fortune, a good bounce, a good call, and health play in ultimately deciding who hoists the trophy. Have we truly become the most spoiled fan base in the NFL? I'm not sure, but it would be hard to argue we're not.
1. I don't think Pittburgh will match the offer. Given the state of their roster and cap situation, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to keep Sanders. By keeping him they limit their FA options until 6/1 when they get some cap relief. By keeping him, they get another lame duck WR who can leave after the season. So even if he blossoms into a true starting WR, this could end up being another Mike Wallace 2.0 situation.
The Pats on the other hand, given their roster and cap situation can afford the risk that Sanders won't continue to develop. So if the Pats get him, they'll be happy to add a WR who has improved every year, and has the potential to be a true starter for a very modest price. It's a move that is not without risk,but given where the team is right now, it is a reasonable one.
I think we'll have our decision by the evening news cycle.
2. There seems to be 2 hot buttons here this off season. Issues that cause the most angst and discussion from the membership concerning our team. They are the need to improve our WR corps, and our pass rush. They have taken up the bulk of our time and effort thus far. While I recognize the need, I don't don't share the urgency, and would like to spend some time to explain why....and not for the first time.
WR-
A. Of all the skill positions, WR is the one that has the greatest number of potential prospects. As hard as it is to find a true franchise QB or a truly effective interior pass rusher, that's how easy it is to find professional quaiity WR's. If anything 2006 proved that if you have a "franchise QB", even with sub par WR's you can have a
very capable passing offense. The fact is that we don't need "all pro" WR types to have a passing offense capable of helping us win a Lombardi.
B. Someone wrote a great post where he documented the success rate of WR's in the draft. IIRC, first round was just under 50% and by the 3rd round you were down to 20%. Now the poster made it clear that you didn't have to be a 1000yd
receiver to be considered a "success". You just had to be a "solid" contributor. Its stats like these that make me understand why BB nevers drafts a WR in the first round. He needs better than a fifty-fifty shot at success from a first rounder
BTW- if anyone can find that post and repost it, I'd apprecieate it, if only to give credit to the poster. It is worth repeating. I tried, but couldn't find it, and I don't remember the thread where I read it. Please tell me I wasn't just dreaming it.
C. I think we shouldn't assign strict roles to the receiver group. Position designations like TE's/WR's/SR's have become less relevant in today's offense in general, and especially with the Pats. If we focus just on the receiving skills we have on the roster, the picture is a lot less bleak than some would have us believe.
In Gronk we have an impact receiver, as well as a top blocker. His hands, body control, and physicality make him a potential threat in EVERY area of the field, including deep. In Hernandez we have another impact receiver who has proven he can make all the plays in the intermediate areas of the field, as well as line up as an inline TE. There are dozen's of teams in the NFL who don't start off with that kind of RECEIVER foundation.
Edelman and Amendola's issues are NOT a matter of skill. Both have proven they can get open and run with ball after the catch. Their's is an issue of staying on the field. That's something no one can predict
Jones is an interesting prospect who has shown well vs the Pats in the past. Who knows what he'll become playing in a very dynamic offense with a top QB. But if Sanders can be equated to a Slighgtly taller, faster Deion Branch, then Jones could be equated to a slightly bigger and faster David Givens. Could it be that BB is trying to get the old band' back together.
And in Jenkins we have a potential "physical receiver" would would be an additional red zone threat.
D. This is real early, but depending on needs elsewhere, there is a real possibility that the Pats might only keep 4 true WR's this season. Its going to be hard to keep 5 if we keep 4 TE's and Slater is designated a WR. For this and other reason's, if Sanders ends up with the Pats, there is no chance in hell that we draft a WR with one of those top 2 picks.
PASS RUSH -
A. For 5 seasons from 2003-2007 the Pats had defenses that ranked 6th or better in sacks for 4 of those years. During that time they only had ONE rusher who had double digit sacks (Mike Vrabel-12) during that time. It was the ONLY time Vrabel reached that number. The reason I point this out is because, while we ALL want to have the pass rush improve, it doesn't mean we need to find that "single individual" that will suddenly make it all happen. I
contend, that with our current talent, we could very well see a significant improvement to our pass rush for the following reasons:
B. So many of our key young defensive players are simply going to get better. That list includes, but isn't exclusive to, Jones, Hightower, Dennard, TWilson, Deadrick/Love.
C. The additions of Kelly, Armstead, AWilson, and Talib (for a full healthy season), add to the improvement of the overall talent pool on defense
D. That combination of improved talent and more experience alone will add up to a better pass rush. But there's more.
E. Over the past 4 years the Pats have had one of the LEAST aggressive pass rushes in the league, blitzing only an average of 15% of the time, compared to a league wide average of over 30%. Part of that is because of Bill's proven belief that "bend but don't break" works. (proven in that the Pats have always been successful in trading yds for points, even when the defense was at its worst.) However part of the reason was an overall lack of talent and experience on defense.
I honestly believe that we now have the overall talent and experience to take more chances and be more aggressive on defense. Just moving that blitz number from 15% to 25% will result in an improved pass rush, with more sacks, hurries, and QB hits, without radically changing our defensive philosophy
F. It should be noted that being more aggressive doesn't always mean having to send 5 or more rushers. Overloads, zone blitzes, and DL stunts are other strategies to create more pressure while still keep 7 defenders back in coverage. We've done VERY little of this the last 2 years
G. Please understand that if we eventually do sign a Abraham, Freeney or the like, I'm certainly not going to be upset.I'll be as thrilled as everyone else. But if we don't, I'm not going to think that Pats Superbowl chances are going to disappear either. During the heyday of the Pats defense, they managed to rush the passer well WITHOUT having to
rely on one or two individuals to create sacks. It was more of a TEAM effort.
H. Here's an example of what I mean. Take the addtion of AWilson. I have no illusions that he's still the all Pro Safety he was in his prime. I don't expect him to become an every down player here. What I DO expect him to be is a strong physical presence against the run, a stong physical presence against TE's in man coverage from inside the box
and finally, an accomplished DB blitzer. Something we haven't had since Rodney retired. A couple of additional sacks from him, a few more from Kelly, Jones and Hightower add 3 more each and things start to add up. The results of which will be an improved pass rush, WITHOUT the need to have one of the league's "dominant" pass rushers.
3. I just want to point out that it makes my head want to explode every time people want to throw out that the Pats only scored 13 points in the last playoff game and make it seem like if was because we had a serious flaw with our offense. Those people seem to forget the over 420 yds the offense racked up. The 5 trips into the red zone. The lack of any turnovers to help, and the 2 we gave the Ravens to hinder. Yeah, and losing 4 starters over the course of the game didn't help either (2 on offense)
Now the offense wasn't blameless. I only point this out to those who would like us to believe that nothing more than a complete makeover will save our future hopes. That there is an inherent flaw in our direction. No. That loss to the Ravens was more a function of a lack of execution at key moments, the loss of 2 key defensive players, and no Gronk,
than any endemic problems with the team. We lost that game because the other team made more key plays than we did.
4. Its fast becomeing one of my "pet peeves" when posters seem to try and look upon the last 8 years as a dismal failure. That we have "wasted" Brady's prime years because of some failure to add this player or that. This is simply madness. The results of either of the 2 Superbowl losses could have been changed by one play. In fact in both games there were SEVERAL plays of that ilk....and we all know them well enough that they don't need to be repeated.
Am I the only one who thinks how REMARKABLE this run is, even with its flaws and imperfections. How we've managed to be one of the elite teams EVERY year, despite watching most of league getting to draft far ahead of us for the last decade. Have we forgotten how hard it is to win a superbowl. How often teams competitive runs are so short lived Did we forget how much good fortune, a good bounce, a good call, and health play in ultimately deciding who hoists the trophy. Have we truly become the most spoiled fan base in the NFL? I'm not sure, but it would be hard to argue we're not.
