Issues on offense

[RayClay]

Who is better? Sam Aiken or David Patten? Julian Edelman or Troy Brown?

Shouldn't that be Troy Brown or Randy Moss, David Patten or Wes Welker?

 

[RayClay]

The problem has been painfully obvious to me all year. The Pats went from a team with 4-5 quality WR options (Branch, Patten, Brown, Givens, Gaffney, Stallworth, etc) to a team that only has two. Like I said in my previous post, the Pats old philosophy seemed to be that our 3rd, 4th and 5th WR options will be better than your 3rd, 4th and 5th DB options. With this philosophy, you don't need the top shelf WRs because the D cannot afford to double anyone since there are so many places for Brady to go with the ball. The current philosophy is to challenge the D with 2 top shelf guys and a bunch of below avg WR options. Any D can slow down an O if you only have 2 places to go with the ball. That is all the Pats have. I was a lot more confident when the Pats went spread with personnel consisting of Branch, Givens, Brown, Patten and TE than I am with Moss, Welker, Aiken, Edleman and Faulk or Watson. Nobody worries about options 3-5 anymore.

You forgot Brisby, Fryar and Colclough.

Watson, Faulk and Baker say high. They're out there with their hands up.

 

[BradyManny]

Shouldn't that be Troy Brown or Randy Moss, David Patten or Wes Welker?

No. And that's the point: Troy Brown wasn't our #1 and David Patten wasn't our #2.

2003 & 2004 WR group:

1) Branch
2) Givens
3) Patten
4) Brown
5) Johnson

This year:
1) Moss
2) Welker
3) Aiken
4) Edelman
5) Stanback

Obviously 1&2 are a landslide for 2009, but after that its a joke comparing the two groups. Patten & Brown have very good careers and played well for us (Patten had 800 yards in 2004). In 2003-04, it's legitimate wide receivers versus now, when our 3-5 consists of inexperienced guys who were here mostly for ST purposes in the first place.

 

[BradyManny]

That's an unfair comparison.

Patten was a starting WR for us, so was Brown and eventually Givens.

In 01 our starters were Brown and Patten, our third option was Bert Emanuel/Torrance Small/Charles Johnson.

In 03, our starters were Branch and Brown, Patten was injured for the most part, and Givens was a rookie and mainly played STs. Our third option was Dedric Ward.

In 04, our starters were Givens and Branch, with Troy our third option. This was a good group of receivers, but I'd still take Moss and Welker plus Edelman/Aiken simply for the fact that Moss and Welker both command double teams. Also take into the fact that Faulk has developed into a quasi-reciever out of the backfield (and a damn reliable one at that), plus Watson, so I can understand why the depth of our receivers shouldn't really be an issue, relative to those SB winning teams.

In terms of the injuries and guys moving up and down the depth chart in 2003 and 04 - its true, but thats the whole point, we had the depth to survive it. There were 4 guys who were quality wide receivers. They were interchangeable. So yes, I think it is a fair comparison, b/c that is exactly how the depth chart would be if you looked at those two seasons cumulatively, ignoring injuries. I've organized the players above by catches (Branch, Givens, Patten, Brown, Bethel).

As for Faulk/Watson - they aren't covered by CBs, so its not a fair comparison - nothing has changed for them between now & then. Their production is largely the same, but to expect it to be higher? Why would it be? The coverage on them hasn't changed in any way. They are still going up 1 on 1 versus LBs or safeties.

Someone is lining up opposite Moss being covered by a CB is facing one-on-one coverage. In prior years, that someone could've been any one of the five guys I listed, and all five of those guys, and four of them specifically blow our 3-5 away right now.

 

[Patstopia]

No. And that's the point: Troy Brown wasn't our #1 and David Patten wasn't our #2.

2003 & 2004 WR group:

1) Branch
2) Givens
3) Patten
4) Brown
5) Johnson

This year:
1) Moss
2) Welker
3) Aiken
4) Edelman
5) Stanback

Obviously 1&2 are a landslide for 2009, but after that its a joke comparing the two groups. Patten & Brown have very good careers and played well for us (Patten had 800 yards in 2004). In 2003-04, it's legitimate wide receivers versus now, when our 3-5 consists of inexperienced guys who were here mostly for ST purposes in the first place.

Its hard to predict what the future holds when you sign Galloway and Lewis and draft Tate injured. I am sure the last thing they thought was that both Galloway and Lewis were both dogs and Tate wouldnt come back and Edelman would break his arm. The fickle finger of fate has pointed at this WR group this year.

 

[Deus Irae]

In terms of the injuries and guys moving up and down the depth chart in 2003 and 04 - its true, but thats the whole point, we had the depth to survive it. There were 4 guys who were quality wide receivers. They were interchangeable. So yes, I think it is a fair comparison, b/c that is exactly how the depth chart would be if you looked at those two seasons cumulatively, ignoring injuries. I've organized the players above by catches (Branch, Givens, Patten, Brown, Bethel).

As for Faulk/Watson - they aren't covered by CBs, so its not a fair comparison - nothing has changed for them between now & then. Their production is largely the same, but to expect it to be higher? Why would it be? The coverage on them hasn't changed in any way.

Someone is lining up opposite Moss being covered by a CB is facing one-on-one coverage. In prior years, that someone could've been any one of the five guys I listed, and all five of those guys, and four of them specifically blow our 3-5 away right now.

Edelman and Aiken/Stanbach are adequate for the WR4 and WR5 slots. The problem the Patriots have is a problem you find in a lot of team sports. When you're missing a guy high up the ladder it impacts every rung below that. Edelman is fine as a backup to Welker, and he's shown that in limited play. Aiken is fine as a WR5 who comes on to give others a rest for a play or two, or comes in when a game's already decided.

Unfortunately, Edelman's been called upon to replace Welker in some games, and Aiken has been called upon to serve as the team's WR3, and neither of them are currently up to the task.

Getting rid of Galloway without finding an adequate replacement outside the organization has had a negative impact that's probably been beyond what this team's front office anticipated.

 

[RayClay]

No. And that's the point: Troy Brown wasn't our #1 and David Patten wasn't our #2.

2003 & 2004 WR group:

1) Branch
2) Givens
3) Patten
4) Brown
5) Johnson

This year:
1) Moss
2) Welker
3) Aiken
4) Edelman
5) Stanback

Obviously 1&2 are a landslide for 2009, but after that its a joke comparing the two groups. Patten & Brown have very good careers and played well for us (Patten had 800 yards in 2004). In 2003-04, it's legitimate wide receivers versus now, when our 3-5 consists of inexperienced guys who were here mostly for ST purposes in the first place.

2001 Troy Brown, David Patten, Fred Coleman, Charles Johnson.

You have a point, but you're overstating it since Patten had 9 catches in 2003, Brown 17 in 2004 etc.

Did we strike out on a third receiver,? Yes. Do we have a superior 1 and 2? sure do.

It's the time of year where you need to exploit what you have, not worry what you don't, and we have plenty of alternate receiving options if we use them, especially considering the overplay our top two draw.

 

[Deus Irae]

2001 Troy Brown, David Patten, Fred Coleman, Charles Johnson.

You have a point, but you're overstating it since Patten had 9 catches in 2003, Brown 17 in 2004 etc.

Did we strike out on a third receiver,? Yes. Do we have a superior 1 and 2? sure do.

It's the time of year where you need to exploit what you have, not worry what you don't, and we have plenty of alternate receiving options if we use them, especially considering the overplay our top two draw.

How is Aiken a viable #3 receiving option when Welker and Moss are supposedly getting 2 and 3 men covering them and Aiken still can't get open enough for Brady to throw him the ball?

This team might be better off putting Faulk in at WR3 and getting him out running patterns.

 

[Kontradiction]

How is Aiken a viable #3 receiving option when Welker and Moss are supposedly getting 2 and 3 men covering them and Aiken still can't get open enough for Brady to throw him the ball?

This team might be better off putting Faulk in at WR3 and getting him out running patterns.

This. With Moss and Welker drawing so much attention and the tight ends all but being taken out of the passing game to block, you'd think that Aiken would be hauling in a ton of passes. Whoops, he's not. This is because Aiken can rarely beat single coverage. When he does, Brady throws it to him and, luckily, he's been able to break a couple sometimes. However, he does not get open nearly enough for defenses to respect the WR3 option and take double coverage off of Welker. Personally, I'd like to see the team go with Edelman at the WR3 when he gets healthy enough. He's quick and stealthy and may be able to beat single coverage more than Aiken can. If they do that, they can move Aiken into the slot where he may be more of a viable threat.

 

[BradyManny]

2001 Troy Brown, David Patten, Fred Coleman, Charles Johnson.

You have a point, but you're overstating it since Patten had 9 catches in 2003, Brown 17 in 2004 etc.

Did we strike out on a third receiver,? Yes. Do we have a superior 1 and 2? sure do.

It's the time of year where you need to exploit what you have, not worry what you don't, and we have plenty of alternate receiving options if we use them, especially considering the overplay our top two draw.

Fair enough. I see your point - and I agree, maybe its time to cut our losses with the spread and use the 2WR, 2TE more, and let those TEs go out and run more routes than they are now. OTOH, that feels like the most efficient package we've had all year.

 

[BradyManny]

Edelman and Aiken/Stanbach are adequate for the WR4 and WR5 slots. The problem the Patriots have is a problem you find in a lot of team sports. When you're missing a guy high up the ladder it impacts every rung below that. Edelman is fine as a backup to Welker, and he's shown that in limited play. Aiken is fine as a WR5 who comes on to give others a rest for a play or two, or comes in when a game's already decided.

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with Edelman & Aiken - they've both just been pushed up too high on the depth chart.

 

[BradyManny]

Its hard to predict what the future holds when you sign Galloway and Lewis and draft Tate injured. I am sure the last thing they thought was that both Galloway and Lewis were both dogs and Tate wouldnt come back and Edelman would break his arm. The fickle finger of fate has pointed at this WR group this year.

Right, thats why I'm personally willing to give them some slack - but at the same time, I see Deus' point that they probably could be held accountable, as a front office, for the mishap for a few aforementioned reasons.

 

[Deus Irae]

This. With Moss and Welker drawing so much attention and the tight ends all but being taken out of the passing game to block, you'd think that Aiken would be hauling in a ton of passes. Whoops, he's not. This is because Aiken can rarely beat single coverage. When he does, Brady throws it to him and, luckily, he's been able to break a couple sometimes. However, he does not get open nearly enough for defenses to respect the WR3 option and take double coverage off of Welker. Personally, I'd like to see the team go with Edelman at the WR3 when he gets healthy enough. He's quick and stealthy and may be able to beat single coverage more than Aiken can. If they do that, they can move Aiken into the slot where he may be more of a viable threat.

Tate interests me as a 'bonus' pick, and I'd love to see the team look for a receiver in round 2 of the upcoming draft. I'd imagine that

Moss
Welker
Tate
Edelman
Rookie 2nd round pick
Veteran free agent

would be a great starting point, with Aiken reverting back to special teams and bottom-of-the-barrel receiver.

Of course, they should be looking for incriminating photos of the Lions GM in order to 'facilitate' a trade for Calvin Johnson.

 

[condon84]

I think the main issue with our depth at WR is that our FO assumed that Edelman could be that 3rd WR. There's really no other explanation given that no one else was available when they released Galloway. Edelman did perform before his broken arm when given the opportunity. Granted, he had some miscues, as you'd expect a rookie to have, but for the most part, his performance suggested that he could be a viable backup to Welker, but as third wideout asked to stretch the field opposite Moss?

THe only other options were Aiken (career ST), Tate (coming off major knee surgery), and Stanbach. I don't think our FO is irresponsible enough to assume that any of these guys could take over as our 3rd WR given that our 3rd WR basically plays 70% of the time in the offense we run.

Even if Edelman didn't get hurt, I think it was a gross miscalculation on their part. Galloway should have been kept. Just him being on the field would have tied up another safety because of his speed. He's been in the league a long time, it's not like he just forgot how to catch a football. They should have been a bit more patient with him given the alternatives we had on the bench and the commitment we made to him when we released Lewis.

 

[mgteich]

Galloway was useless to the patriots and was well behind Aiken in the depth chart. There is no reason for us to have kept him. It is also noteworthy that no one else wanted him until this week.

Perhaps Lewis should not have been cut until the front office was sure that Galloway was worth keeping.

Belichick had both Tate and Edelman coming back from injuries to take reps from Aiken. They did not move ahead Aiken in the depth chart. If Galloway were here now, he would likely be inactive. After all, Galloway could ahve been re-signed instead of bringing in Stanback. Galloway just was NOT the answer for the patriots.

As far as next year, my expectation is that Edelman is the backup slot receiver, although he could be more. If he shows great skill as a slot receiver, then Welker and Moss can be the receivers going downfield and we would be in fine shape with Tate and Aiken and Stanback competing for the rest of the reps.

I do expect us to again bring in a veteran or two.

 

[TruthSeeker]

So he can sell Isotoner gloves.

Hey, I just bought 2 pair. I hope Dan appreciates it.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The last several weeks, Brady has brought up the one-dimensionality of the offense in either his press conference or in his EEI interviews. The idea that he, or Bill O'Brien, or Bill Belichick, would somehow not realize that defenses are taking out Wes Welker & Randy Moss yet folks on patsfans.com could diagnose the issue...that doesn't fly to me. He, like the rest of the offensive coaching staff, is very cognizant of the issue.

Which tells me that either the coaching staff or Brady doesn't have faith in the other options or they aren't getting open. Belichick and Brady both intimated it was the latter in their WEEI appearances this week.

And let's face it, when the 3rd wide receiver on a air-attack team is either a career special teamer or a 7th rounder rookie QB turned wideout [with a broken arm], you have a serious problem. We miss Stallworth & Gaffney in this offense. There's no question about it. The 3rd wideout on this team is a starting wide receiver, they play between 50-75% of the snaps. It needs to be an above average wide receiver with experience in the league. And it's not.

It's a fundamental problem of the make-up of our team: No matter how good your first two options are, the defense can take them out if they allocate enough defenders to them. End of story. Belichick, Brady & Bill O'Brien are going to have to come up with an answer. I think 2WR, 2TE is probably the best answer they have, since I don't think Aiken or Edelman with his broken arm are creating mismatches right now. Who has a better chance of catching the ball, Aiken in 1-on-1 or Wes Welker sitting down between two defenders? Or Moss in double coverage? Aiken is still the last option in those progressions.

A fine argument. The flip side is that Brady had less struggles with worse receivers in years past (pre-2007). That tells me that what you shared is a factor, but is not determinative.

 

[Deus Irae]

Galloway was useless to the patriots and was well behind Aiken in the depth chart. There is no reason for us to have kept him. It is also noteworthy that no one else wanted him until this week.

7 catches in two games.... I'll take that over Aiken's production. As for 'noteworthy', not really considering you're talking about a 38 year old receiver that was cut mid-season.

Belichick had both Tate and Edelman coming back from injuries to take reps from Aiken. They did not move ahead Aiken in the depth chart. If Galloway were here now, he would likely be inactive. After all, Galloway could ahve been re-signed instead of bringing in Stanback. Galloway just was NOT the answer for the patriots.

Which is why the question becomes one of system inflexibility.

As far as next year, my expectation is that Edelman is the backup slot receiver, although he could be more. If he shows great skill as a slot receiver, then Welker and Moss can be the receivers going downfield and we would be in fine shape with Tate and Aiken and Stanback competing for the rest of the reps.

I do expect us to again bring in a veteran or two.

You think the Patriots will take the best slot receiver in the game and put him on the outside where his lack of straight line speed will lessen his impact?

 

[dhamz]

Fair enough. I see your point - and I agree, maybe its time to cut our losses with the spread and use the 2WR, 2TE more, and let those TEs go out and run more routes than they are now. OTOH, that feels like the most efficient package we've had all year.

The 2 WR, 2 TE package essentially puts Welker out wide. Is it the best use of our personnel to take the best slot WR in the game out of the slot?

 

[mgteich]

What I think is that we will bring in a veteran or two. If Edelman is good enough, Welker will get more reps downfield.

In any case, I agree with your point about system inflexibility. But the die was cast. Galloway didn't fit in to the offense. O'Brian was not capable of using the resources given to him.

My guess is that we will be in EXACTLY the same situation next year as this. We will bring in a couple of veterans like Lewis and Gallwoay, Tate will on PUP or at least recovering from a major injury and Edeleman will be a hope and a prayer.

I understand that many here believe that this year's offensive talent was not good enough. I don't think that the talent is the issue. Brady has been injured and O'Brain has been grossly incompetent. 1) He has not been able to develop schemes and game plans to take best advantage of the players he has 2) He has not been able to plan and adapt in individual games, and he has not been able to scheme around relative weaknesses and injuries.

BEST CASE FOR NEXT YEAR'S OFFENSE
a new OC
a couple of vets
a draftee

You want to use a 2nd on a WR. The reality is that we have four top picks and several needs. WR could be a top need if some of the other needs were met through extensions and free agent signings. Barring that, we need DE's, OG's, OLB's, TE's and a RB.

One bottom line question is whether we wasted a top pick on Tate.

7 catches in two games.... I'll take that over Aiken's production. As for 'noteworthy', not really considering you're talking about a 38 year old receiver that was cut mid-season.



Which is why the question becomes one of system inflexibility.



You think the Patriots will take the best slot receiver in the game and put him on the outside where his lack of straight line speed will lessen his impact?