Pats now must sign a WR

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Thanks for posting stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with the questions asked.

Why do you feel compelled to be so nasty to posters you disagree with? People have differing opinions - that's exactly why you bother reading this forum. Some people may lack the knowledge you possess, kindly sharing you wealth of insight might help all of us understand the Patriots the in-depth way you do. BTW, can I have Pioli's home phone number while you're at it? I know you have it.

I've got to disagree with AJ's assertion that CJ's injury will not "at all" affect the Patriot's offseason WR plans. Such a premise ignores the probabilty that BB had anticipated an increased output from Jackson in his second year regardless of CJ's performance in 2006. Considering it is an established fact most rookie WRs struggle, BB surely expected a blossoming of some sort in Jackson's sophmore year. Now that it is possible CJ won't even be able to play until mid to late season, his injury certainly created a void BB couldn't have known he would have to fill. BB often talks about how the team has projections of where they think player will be in a year or two, it's unlikely that they would have written under CJ's projection - will be injured severely and miss most of year two.

 

[unoriginal]

Drew Bennett is not a legitimate deep threat. Jesus. He's a tall mid-range possession receiver and a first down machine. Most of Bennett's long plays have come from him steamrolling smaller corners along the sidelines.

 

[Ring 6]

Why do you feel compelled to be so nasty to posters you disagree with? People have differing opinions - that's exactly why you bother reading this forum. Some people may lack the knowledge you possess, kindly sharing you wealth of insight might help all of us understand the Patriots the in-depth way you do. BTW, can I have Pioli's home phone number while you're at it? I know you have it.

I've got to disagree with AJ's assertion that CJ's injury will not "at all" affect the Patriot's offseason WR plans. Such a premise ignores the probabilty that BB had anticipated an increased output from Jackson in his second year regardless of CJ's performance in 2006. Considering it is an established fact most rookie WRs struggle, BB surely expected a blossoming of some sort in Jackson's sophmore year. Now that it is possible CJ won't even be able to play until mid to late season, his injury certainly created a void BB couldn't have known he would have to fill. BB often talks about how the team has porjections of where they think player will be in a year or two, it's unlikely that they would have written under CJ's projection - will be injured severely and miss most of year two.

I think its fair to say the projection for Jackson was hopefully he will progress, but other players need to be available if he does not. (Similar to how Bethel Johnson being on the roster was handled) I am certain the plan was to bring in WRs to compete for playing time. No doubt some that are better than Jackson was in 06, and probably worse than he projected to be in 07, but still better than what he could be RELIED upon to be.
I dont think that changes. I dont think a plan (if it was the plan) to bring in WRs to compete for pt through FA or the draft turns into needing to bring in starting or #1 WR because Jackson has an injury that MIGHT POSSIBLY impact his 2007 season.
By the way, there is absolutely no evidence at all that he may not be able to play until mid or late season.
I would say the off-season plan if he were 100% injury free would be to be prepared for him to not contribute much next year, but also be hopeful he can step it up and help a lot. I dont see how that has changed.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

I think WR was a priority , with or with out Jackson...

 

[patfanken]

The fact that most people are MISSING here is that FOR THE MOST PART, WRs DO NOT come into the league as finished products. A while back someone wrote an excellent post listing several All Pro WRs who had miserable to average initial seasons. Several who didn't come into their own until their THIRD season in the league. Jeees, the boo birds were after THIS guy after the THIRD game last season. In fact Jackson in his BUST of an injury plagued season had almost as many TD catches as did Deon Branch.

Obiviously, Jackson's injury will hurt both HIS development, and the Pats depth at an already thin WR group. YES! The Pats will HAVE to do something in FA in the WR market, now. BUT to blast the Coaching staff for an injury is simply stupid. I don't know how else to put it. SPECIAL TEAMS is were rookies go to earn playing time in this league. If its good enough for Vrabel, Bruschi, and Seymour to play on special teams, than you can't expect to hide Chad Jackson. Injuries happen. They happen on first and 10 and they can happen on a punt. It is what it is.

 

[richpats]

Ummm. No, its not fact. Its just YOUR OPINION. The FACT is that in 2001, the Pats didn't have anyone BUT Troy Brown and David Patten. The Pats only had 2 legitimate WRs and a pass catching RB in Faulk. They had no #3, #4 or #5 receiver to speak of (all of whom were significantly worse than Kelvin Kight). They had no Pass Catching TE to speak of. Yes they had Wiggins, but that's it.

While Gaffney and Caldwell won't put up the numbers that Brown did in 2001, its because the offense has changed and has many more weapons.

OH, Branch wasn't all that. He'd disappear for games as well.

Yeah, it's an opinion, yet you don't even come close to disproving that opinion.

Branch only showed up during the playoffs and had huge games, I remember one was in the Super Bowl. Yeah, he wasn't all that

Yes, I watched those games and it seems that, unlike you, I look at the ENTIRE situation and not just things in a vacuum. But lets recap for a moment.

Denver Game - Early in the season. Neither Caldwell nor Gabriel were on track. Gaffney wasn't with the team yet. The running game didn't do much that day. Corey Dillon and Matt Light both got hurt in that game. Brady made some very BAD pass attempts. There were MANY complaints about BRADY being the issue and not the receivers.

So if the receivers weren't on track then how was Brady the issue? Which one was the REAL issue? Denver stuffed the run and made the Pats beat them through the air because they didn't respect the passing game. I wonder why, they only had CHAMP BAILEY covering Reche Caldwell.

Jets game #2: It was horrible field conditions and Brady was slipping and falling all over the place because of the mud. That game was the straw that broke the camel's back regarding the natural grass being replaced.

Gee, Chad Pennington managed to stay on his feet. The 'sloppy field' excuse is pure Colts-talk.

Miami #2: Pats were 14-28 in passing and the offense had 4 fumbles, including the one by Doug Gabriel. The Pats were without Laurence Maroney that game.

77 yards. That's only 5.5 yards PER COMPLETION. Yeah, they were without Maroney, which meant the Pats were screwed b/c the passing game wasn't anything to fear for Miami.

San Diego: The Passing game was 27 for 51. Brady wasn't sacked, though he was pressured a few times. The receivers had a couple of drops. The Pats went with a short passing game, for some reason. Also, their running game took a huge hit with Faulk and Dillon being out for much of the 2nd half.

27 for 51 in a SHORT passing game? Is that supposed to be good? They went short because the deep passes would get Brady killed and they had no chance in hell of completing anything deep anyways (SD's guys had our receivers covered all day).

Basically, in your analysis you cite the lack of OTHER personnel for the ineffectiveness of the passing game. That's why the passing game wasn't a strong threat in '06, it couldn't pick up the slack where other areas of the offense were hampered. No running game? See Week 3 against Denver. No protection? See Week 14 against Miami.

What "deep threat" did the Pats have in 2001 and 2003?

Brown was still a deep threat in '01. Branch was in '03.

The Pats were a scoring machine this year, in case you missed it. The Pats scored 25 passing TDs and 20 rushing TDs. That is actually MORE than in 2004 when they only had 44 TDs (29 passing and 15 rushing).

Do "machines" neglect to score TDs until late in the 4th with the game out of reach (or in one case no points at all)? In 2004 the Pats had ONE game in which they didn't score 20. In 2006 the Pats had FIVE such games.

Now, why are you making stupid assumptions about what I think regarding the LB position? If you'd actually read other threads on the board, particulary in the draft forum, I believe that the Pats would do well to sign Jarrett Johnson and Carlos Polk as well as draft 1 or 2 LBs.

If my assumptions were so stupid then why did you confirm those assumptions were correct?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

It's time to dust off the Bongos, hitch up the bandwagon, and start the Kelvin Kight fan club!

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not going to get in the middle of this but, there is no way on earth that Troy Brown could be considered a DEEP THREAT in 2001. I dont think he had a single 50 yard catch, but i am going from memory.
Deion Branch was never a deep threat. He caught a few long balls in 2004, but he was never a deep threat, he was a quick mid-range receiver. I would bet in 4 years here he did not catch a total of 12 passes more than 30 yards down the field.
Ok, sorry for the interuptoin feel free to go back to arguing.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I'm not going to get in the middle of this but, there is no way on earth that Troy Brown could be considered a DEEP THREAT in 2001. I dont think he had a single 50 yard catch, but i am going from memory.
Deion Branch was never a deep threat. He caught a few long balls in 2004, but he was never a deep threat, he was a quick mid-range receiver. I would bet in 4 years here he did not catch a total of 12 passes more than 30 yards down the field.
Ok, sorry for the interuptoin feel free to go back to arguing.

Feel the beat of the bongos Andy! Let them carry you high on Kight! :singing: :singing:

 

[Ring 6]

Feel the beat of the bongos Andy! Let them carry you high on Kight! :singing: :singing:

If I had the time, I'd go in much greater detail on this, but.....

2001.
Troy Brown, starting for the 2nd year of his career.
Terry Glenn AWOL.
David Patten former part time starter.
Charles Johnson, Torrance Small, Bert Emannuel (wasnt there a 4th one?) free agents signed at the end of their career with nothing left
Boom Boom Coleman, our #4 WR with all of his 3 receptions

2003
Deion Branch, 2nd year player who missed half of the year
David Patten. 3rd year starter who missed 3/4 s of the year.
David Givens 2nd yr player who caught 9 passses the year before (excuse if my numbers are not exact, but I dont have the time to look them up)
Troy Brown former starter on the downside
Bethel Johnson rookie

2004
Deion Branch. 3rd year starter who had less than 100 career receptions
David Givens 2nd year starter who had less than 50 career receptions
Troy Brown WR playing defense more than offense
Bethel Johnson 2nd year WR tryingto figure out how to get on the field
David Patten no longer a starter, but a pretty good role player

Someone please show me where the WR position has been a key to Patriot SB Championships.
In 2001 it was a very weak unit
In 2003 it was a young group yet to prove anything
In 2004 it was 'solid' only because 2 starters improved dramatically from their 1st 2 years in the league

I'm not thrilled going into next season with Caldwell, Gaffney, Jackson and a bunch of jags, but we will not be.
That doesnt mean we need Holt, Chad Johnson and Hines Ward to succeed.

BB will add to this group. If he finds a WR thatis better than anyone we have at a price that allows him to fill the rest of his needs we get one.
If he finds one about as good as what we have at the right cost, he gets one.
If he finds that the best cost/value approach is to go into 2007 adding that years versions of Caldwell, Gaffeny, Jackson, Gabriel then that is what he will do.

In any of those cases, we won't not win a SB because of the WR position. We havent won a SB in 2 years (although some posters around here seem to think it 52 years) but in neither case was it because of the WR position.
In 2005 it was because of the secondary primarily. In 2006 it was because of a great defense having a horrible half at the wrong time.

In 2001, 2003 and 2004 we would have won the SB with the 2006 WR corp.
In 2002, 2005 or 2006 we would not have won the SB with the 2001,2003 or 2004 WR corps.


I 'trust in BB' not because of blind faith, or really even because of the rings. I trust in BB because IN ADDITION to the rings I agree with his philosophy of how to build a team, how to coach it and how to game plan. He has shown me very clearly that his philosophy includes that WR is not close to the most important part of a team, and that you can win without 'great WRs'. It would seem to follow that the cost of those 'great WRs' makes it harder to win if you get them and cut corners elsewhere.

 

[Brady to Brown]

I'm not going to get in the middle of this but, there is no way on earth that Troy Brown could be considered a DEEP THREAT in 2001. I dont think he had a single 50 yard catch, but i am going from memory.
Deion Branch was never a deep threat. He caught a few long balls in 2004, but he was never a deep threat, he was a quick mid-range receiver. I would bet in 4 years here he did not catch a total of 12 passes more than 30 yards down the field.
Ok, sorry for the interuptoin feel free to go back to arguing.

Some posters on this site apparently work very close with Belichick each and every day. They are in team meetings and have their finger on the pulse of the Patriots. If someone on this site has a different view than those "in the know" they are told that they are stupid and know nothing. Perhaps those "in the know" folks could tell us who the Patriots will be drafting this year so the rest of us can watch some hockey or go for a walk.

Internet Bully's how old are they?

 

[shirtsleeve]

Some posters on this site apparently work very close with Belichick each and every day. They are in team meetings and have their finger on the pulse of the Patriots. If someone on this site has a different view than those "in the know" they are told that they are stupid and know nothing. Perhaps those "in the know" folks could tell us who the Patriots will be drafting this year so the rest of us can watch some hockey or go for a walk.

Internet Bully's how old are they?

Please tell me you just didn't call out AJ, of all people???

 

[Brady to Brown]

Please tell me you just didn't call out AJ, of all people???

You should read the entire thread if you want to make this kind of assumption.

 

[Ring 6]

Some posters on this site apparently work very close with Belichick each and every day. They are in team meetings and have their finger on the pulse of the Patriots. If someone on this site has a different view than those "in the know" they are told that they are stupid and know nothing. Perhaps those "in the know" folks could tell us who the Patriots will be drafting this year so the rest of us can watch some hockey or go for a walk.

Internet Bully's how old are they?

Clearl;y you are asking for a response, so here you go.
1) Some posters on this site apparently work very close with Belichick each and every day. They are in team meetings and have their finger on the pulse of the Patriots.
---I think I get the sarcasm. Please explain to me how me watching the team play and concluding the obvious: that Troy Brown in 2001 and Deion Branch is 2003 were not deep threats is me implying that I did a vulcan mind meld on Belichick.
2)If someone on this site has a different view than those "in the know" they are told that they are stupid and know nothing.
----Please show me where I told anyone they were stupid and know nothing?
I told them my opinion is that they are wrong. Did I tell anyone that I refuse to accept that my opinion could be wrong??????? How do you make the jump that because I am confident in my opinion that means I am calling someone stupid?
3) Perhaps those "in the know" folks could tell us who the Patriots will be drafting this year so the rest of us can watch some hockey or go for a walk.
---Now we reach the poor me stage. I would like you if you would to find any posts from me where I claim to be 'in the know'. When I give an opinion its because I believe I am correct. That doesnt mean I AM correct, but i wouldnt say it if you didn't need to do some convincing to show me I am not.
4) Internet Bully's how old are they
--Quite frankly, I find that comment childish and offensive. If you are incapable of handling being disagreed with, why offer an opinion?

By the way, if you disagree with me, why wouldn't you give an couterargument rather than offering this passive-aggressive drivel?

 

[Ring 6]

You should read the entire thread if you want to make this kind of assumption.

Of course, please disregard my last post if the comments you typed after copying mine were not directed at me. Butif thats the case, you should probably be more clear.

 

[shirtsleeve]

You should read the entire thread if you want to make this kind of assumption.

Hmmm....read post#50 from andy. Good stuff there. But if you have information, facts, or statistics to support a differing opinion, I would also love to read those too.

 

[DaBruinz]

Why do you feel compelled to be so nasty to posters you disagree with? People have differing opinions - that's exactly why you bother reading this forum. Some people may lack the knowledge you possess, kindly sharing you wealth of insight might help all of us understand the Patriots the in-depth way you do. BTW, can I have Pioli's home phone number while you're at it? I know you have it.

BBB -
If someone asks a question about the money they have in the stock excahnge, do you start talking about how much money you have in your piggy bank? I have no problem with people voicing their opinions, just make sure its relevant. If you looked at the questions I asked, BradytoBrown did NOT answer any of them. Maybe he doesn't know how to just reply to a thread. But he directly quoted me with something that had absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Sorry that I am not in your PC-club.

I've got to disagree with AJ's assertion that CJ's injury will not "at all" affect the Patriot's offseason WR plans. Such a premise ignores the probabilty that BB had anticipated an increased output from Jackson in his second year regardless of CJ's performance in 2006. Considering it is an established fact most rookie WRs struggle, BB surely expected a blossoming of some sort in Jackson's sophmore year. Now that it is possible CJ won't even be able to play until mid to late season, his injury certainly created a void BB couldn't have known he would have to fill. BB often talks about how the team has projections of where they think player will be in a year or two, it's unlikely that they would have written under CJ's projection - will be injured severely and miss most of year two.

One of the things that has been totally overlooked in this situation is that NO ONE has reported the EXTENT of Jackson's ACL tear. He could only have a partial tear and no need surgery (especially since he walked off under his own power and was able to stay on the sidelines). If that is the case, its a 2-3 month recovery time and he could be cleared for some things by the time passing camps start.

Also, I have to disagree with you. Since the injury happened in the last game of the season, I would be willing to bet that BB's plan factored in Jackson's injury already. Because, if I remember correctly, they usually take a week or so off before they start the player reviews and evaluations. So, they would have known the extent of Jackson's injury and the rehab time.

 

[Brady to Brown]

Of course, please disregard my last post if the comments you typed after copying mine were not directed at me. Butif thats the case, you should probably be more clear.

This is why the internet sucks. I agree with everything you posted, yet you feel that my post was directed at you. I have not seen enough of, or anything in your posts to call you a bully. You are also a Mod and I can't imagine Ian keeping you as a Mod if you were a bully.

I feel there are several bully's on this site and one of them has posted several times in this thread. My comments were directed at him. Very sorry.

 

[Brady to Brown]

Hmmm....read post#50 from andy. Good stuff there. But if you have information, facts, or statistics to support a differing opinion, I would also love to read those too.

Hmmmmmm I read it, whats your point? I agree with everything he said.

 

[Ring 6]

This is why the internet sucks. I agree with everything you posted, yet you feel that my post was directed at you. I have not seen enough of, or anything in your posts to call you a bully. You are also a Mod and I can't imagine Ian keeping you as a Mod if you were a bully.

I feel there are several bully's on this site and one of them has posted several times in this thread. My comments were directed at him. Very sorry.

I am very glad that you made that extra post, because when you copied mine and posted what you did it looked like you were directing that at me.
Sorry for the confusion.
I did think you were calling me out, so i hope you can understand the response.