Peter King: "Patriots have concerns"

[Uncle Rico]

Did I read that right that he puts the Steelers as his pick for one of the best teams this season?

He has them beating the Packers to win the Super Bowl.

2010 NFL Season Predictions for playoffs, Super Bowl, awards - NFL - SI.com

 

[Sicilian]

How is it unfair? That's where they are at NOW, with the offseason now over. What King wrote was:



If you want to think that bringing in Patten and Holt during the offseason (along with the lesser lights) was enough, you're entitled to that opinion. That doesn't make King's opinion stupid, though.

Fair enough. I guess I'm just of the mindset that bringing in three new players to go along with a returning "rookie", means that whoever wins out is going to be your best available options, and an assumed improvement. In other words, we had the following WR's last year (when Welker was healthy):

Moss
Welker
Edelman
Aiken
Slater
Galloway (briefly, if you want to count him)

This camp, we had these players at the start:

Moss
Welker
Edelman
Aiken
Slater
(So all the same, minus Galloway, plus):
Tate
Price
Holt
Patten
A spattering of UDFA

Given that it seems that Tate and Price have beaten out Aiken and Slater, we seem to have improved in this area, even without the two new vets working out.

 

[Deus Irae]

Seems to me like like 3 draft picks in 2 years is doing a lot at the position especially considering 2 of the best in the game are on the roster already. Ignoring what is there and stating the Pats didn't do enough is stupid IMO it would be equal to saying that the Patriots didn't do enough at QB during the offseason that Brady returned and Cassell left.

I am not sure how you can defend King on this as he just wrong to say WR as a concern other than Welkers return to form.

Because he's not necessarily wrong, and his position is certainly not stupid.

 

[mgcolby]

It's not a stupid point at all. Wide receiver was a clear area of weakness for the Patriots last season, and not much was done to address it in King's eyes. The reality is that the Patriots are counting on a player who showed almost nothing last year to become a legitimate WR3. Whether you and/or I think Tate can get it done is irrelevant to King's opinion on the matter.

Are we supposed to pretend the Aiken as a WR3 era wasn't just last year?

I was about to make a joke about you stating that something in Jacks post was going to be irrelevant but you beat me to it!

You should come up with a new word, because you have absolutely beaten that one to death.

 

[Sicilian]

Yes. It's called hyperbole. (It's also called indulging my 13-year old temper.)

Eh, really it just makes it harder to take your post seriously. Being obviously sarcastic or trying to be a little off the wall and funny is one thing, but when you try to mix that in with actual points, it gets muddled, IMO.

 

[Zeus]

There are clearly more glaring concerns than WR.

Had King said the youth and lack of depth at all levels of defense was his source of concern, he'd be right on the money. Instead, he focused on offense - that just doesn't make sense.

 

[Deus Irae]

Fair enough. I guess I'm just of the mindset that bringing in three new players to go along with a returning "rookie", means that whoever wins out is going to be your best available options, and an assumed improvement. In other words, we had the following WR's last year (when Welker was healthy):

Moss
Welker
Edelman
Aiken
Slater
Galloway (briefly, if you want to count him)

This camp, we had these players at the start:

Moss
Welker
Edelman
Aiken
Slater
(So all the same, minus Galloway, plus):
Tate
Price
Holt
Patten
A spattering of UDFA

Given that it seems that Tate and Price have beaten out Aiken and Slater, we seem to have improved in this area, even without the two new vets working out.

I have no problem with people who are of the opinion that Tate/Price/Edelman will be fine as the WR3-WR5. It's an opinion that has some basis in what we've seen.

However, what the Patriots did in the offseason was bring in a veteran who'd been out of the game the year prior, a veteran who'd been cut the Jaguars (a team desperate for receivers), and a rookie 3rd rounder from a school that doesn't prepare its receivers to be NFL ready. Having the opinion that what they did in the offseason was not enough, given the "Aiken is WR3" and "Welker is rehabbing from his ACL surgery", certainly has some basis in what we've seen as well.

 

[mgcolby]

Why is that our O-line is a concern when we have really only lost one position LG and he has played well during the preseason.

Yet, the Steelers O-line was garbage the past two seasons and they have done what to upgrade it? Bring in Pouncey (SP?) at C. The Jets lost Faneca and are trying to replace him with two players, both of whom played like crap during the preseason. The Colts O-line is in shambles due to injury and quite frankly lack of talent. I could keep going but I think I made my point. The O-line is not a very big concern for me.

 

[Deus Irae]

I was about to make a joke about you stating that something in Jacks post was going to be irrelevant but you beat me to it!

You should come up with a new word, because you have absolutely beaten that one to death.

:confused2:

If something's irrelevant, that's the word for it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why is that our O-line is a concern when we have really only lost one position LG and he has played well during the preseason.

Yet, the Steelers O-line was garbage the past two seasons and they have done what to upgrade it? Bring in Pouncey (SP?) at C. The Jets lost Faneca and are trying to replace him with two players, both of whom played like crap during the preseason. The Colts O-line is in shambles due to injury and quite frankly lack of talent. I could keep going but I think I made my point. The O-line is not a very big concern for me.

Yeah. Okay, McColby.

 

[patsox23]

King's concerns in the Q&A...

o-line
running game
not addressing WR enough in the offseason
Youthful secondary

He didn't mention the linebackers or the DEs. The harshest criticism that can reasonably be aimed at King is that he didn't voice enough concerns.

Maybe, yes, the HARSHEST, but he certainly deserves to be slammed for mentioning WR and not THE biggest hole on the team, OLB. That is a black hole on this defense, a total unknown, perhaps a bigger unknown than any we've seen during the BB Era. I'd love to see Cunningham step up, and I'd love to see Murrell come out of nowhere, TBC continue to develop, etc... but not mentioning the OLB corps as a concern while going on about the wide receivers? And you're DEFENDING that? Come on, man. That's just silly.

The receiving corps, which absolutely -- and obviously -- includes the TEs was very well taken care of during the off-season, and that notion was proven pretty well during the pre-season. I appreciate that King was talking about the WR, but I have a hard time buying that argument, even without including the influx of talent at tight end.

 

[Sicilian]

:confused2:

If something's irrelevant, that's the word for it.

Here ya go, we wouldn't want people to get bored because they don't have enough synonyms on this board:

Main Entry: irrelevant
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: beside the point
Synonyms: extraneous, foreign, garbage, immaterial, impertinent, inapplicable, inapposite, inappropriate, inappurtenant, inapropos, inapt, inconsequent, inconsequential, insignificant, not connected with, not germane, not pertaining to, off the point, off the topic, out of order, out of place, outside, pointless, remote, trivial, unapt, unconnected, unimportant, unnecessary, unrelated, without reference

Oh, and tongue planted heavily in cheek, in case it wasn't obvious.

 

[Uncle Rico]

 

[Deus Irae]

Maybe, yes, the HARSHEST, but he certainly deserves to be slammed for mentioning WR and not THE biggest hole on the team, OLB. That is a black hole on this defense, a total unknown, perhaps a bigger unknown than any we've seen during the BB Era. I'd love to see Cunningham step up, and I'd love to see Murrell come out of nowhere, TBC continue to develop, etc... but not mentioning the OLB corps as a concern while going on about the wide receivers? And you're DEFENDING that? Come on, man. That's just silly.

The receiving corps, which absolutely -- and obviously -- includes the TEs was very well taken care of during the off-season, and that notion was proven pretty well during the pre-season. I appreciate that King was talking about the WR, but I have a hard time buying that argument, even without including the influx of talent at tight end.

He wasn't asked to give a laundry list of every problem the Patriots have. He is under no compulsion to rank the problems in the same order you believe them to be, nor is he required to mention everything you consider an issue.

Do we start calling your takes stupid because you didn't mention Moss' contract status, BB spreading himself too thin, O'Brien having control (not a problem for me, but others are already lining up near bridges), the lousy special teams from last year and the mediocre performances they were giving this offseason, etc...?

Of course not. And there was nothing wrong with King's response, either.

 

[mgcolby]

:confused2:

If something's irrelevant, that's the word for it.

It seems over the past few months everytime I read your post relevant or irrelevant is in there. Try something like Germane instead, throw us a curveball everyonce in a while.

 

[signbabybrady]

Because he's not necessarily wrong, and his position is certainly not stupid.

What else should we have done and who would you cut to make room for them? We have 5 WR who would have been extremely difficult to cut yet somehow it is a mistake that we didn't do more when if we did more we would have to have cut someone else. And since we have 5 guys with varying degrees of pedigree by saying we didn't do enough (and we should have got player x instead of drafting player y in one of the last 2 drafts) what you are really saying is that we failed at what we did do and that is a different criticism.

 

[Deus Irae]

It seems over the past few months everytime I read your post relevant or irrelevant is in there. Try something like Germane instead, throw us a curveball everyonce in a while.

Well, many of the words and phrases I'd have preferred to use are frowned upon here.

 

[mgcolby]

Yeah. Okay, McColby.

Why is the o-line a concern for you? We upgraded RT, and lost Mankins. Connolly has looked solid. If depth is a concern than I can see that given Neil's history. But the starting five are as solid as they come in the NFL.

Have you seen the Jets, Steelers, Colts play this preseason? What have their lines done that have impressed you?

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Why is that our O-line is a concern when we have really only lost one position LG and he has played well during the preseason.

Yet, the Steelers O-line was garbage the past two seasons and they have done what to upgrade it? Bring in Pouncey (SP?) at C. The Jets lost Faneca and are trying to replace him with two players, both of whom played like crap during the preseason. The Colts O-line is in shambles due to injury and quite frankly lack of talent. I could keep going but I think I made my point. The O-line is not a very big concern for me.

It's easy. Don't evaluate based on consistent evaluation criteria.

What exactly did Pittsburgh do to upgrade their WR's? lose Holmes?

King can have concerns because he can simply ignore that his "great" teams had bigger OL issues and did less to address.

 

[reflexblue]

I listened to him on Serius, he was reminded about how much he sucks at picking SB winners before he (King) said a word. King then went on to explain his twisted logic in picking the Steelers.