Peter King: "Patriots have concerns"

[signbabybrady]

3.) Until Tate can prove he's a viable WR3, Welker can prove he's healthy enough for the regular season, Edelman can show that he can play without getting hurt and Price can show that he's able to play in the NFL, WR will still be an area of concern.

Calling that a non-issue is stupid. Sorry.

If he had used the word concern and than explained his point as you just did then fine maybe I could agree to disagree.

But by saying we didn't do enough would suggest we dont have enough options at the position and since we clearly have five guys to fill out the depth chart with varying degrees of pedigree than we clearly have enough.

again you can criticize what we have all you want but show me a team with two pro bowlers and 3 young 1st and 2nd year guys (who the best of the group(so far) was the only one drafted less then the 3rd RD) who thinks they didn't do enough to aide a position.

 

[Deus Irae]

I disagree. First off, how can you say "is he going to have the weapons" and then exclude the TE? That makes no sense to me.

Because tight ends and wide receivers aren't the same, and he was discussing them separately.

NE's passing issues last year were entirely because they never had more than 2 viable targets at a time. Even if Edelman gets hurt and Tate flops, simply adding a weapon at TE would make the team improved over last year.

New England's passing issues stemmed from multiple problems, and from every level involved: Brady, O-line, TEs, WRs.

2nd, the team's behavior in how they've played Tate/Edelman speaks volumes about what they think of them.

So the team has more confidence than King does. That doesn't make King's concerns "stupid". Last year happened, and the team went with Aiken and a D-line that didn't have Seymour. This team is obviously capable of completely screwing the pooch on personnel calls.

Again, are they guaranteed to be the best WR group in the league? Of corse not. But to phrase it as a weakness - and I listened to the King interview, he came across far less benign than the words alone imply - is an error in judgement, IMO.

He didn't phrase it as a weakness, and you are confusing a divergent opinion that has a factual basis with baseless stupidity. This team's WR corps was terrible at the WR3/WR5 spot last year.

 

[BSR]

You guys realize you are arguing over whether Peter King's criticism's are valid or not. Its not even a debate about the Patriots receiver depth. Its about whether or not its a valid criticism. There have been some pretty irrelevant topics beat to death on the boards over the years, but this has to be a top ten.

 

[Deus Irae]

If he had used the word concern and than explained his point as you just did then fine maybe I could agree to disagree.

But by saying we didn't do enough would suggest we dont have enough options at the position and since we clearly have five guys to fill out the depth chart with varying degrees of pedigree than we clearly have enough.

The bolded part is your opinion. It has less validity than King's opinion, since King can point to last year, and you don't even have that.

again you can criticize what we have all you want but show me a team with two pro bowlers and 3 young 1st and 2nd year guys (who the best of the group(so far) was the only one drafted less then the 3rd RD) who thinks they didn't do enough to aide a position.

This team has 2 established WRs right now, and one of them is coming back from ACL surgery. The team "addressed" the position by adding a 3rd round pick, signing Holt and Patten, hoping Tate's up for the WR3 job and hoping that Edelman's ready to step in for Welker if needed. You can sip all the Koolaid you want about that being enough, and that's fine, but looking at the position as a concern is a perfectly sensible approach.

 

[Nikolai]

A lot of NFL teams would like to have our concerns at WR.

 

[Triple-T]

The bolded part is your opinion. It has less validity than King's opinion, since King can point to last year, and you don't even have that.

Point to last year when the Pats had the 3rd best passing attack with a qb returning from major knee surgery and our wrs accounted for 70% of the yards? That would be King's point? That may not help his argument. But yes, the 4th and 5th receivers were not excellent and the 3rd receiver only seemed really good when he played extended minutes. ok

This team has 2 established WRs right now, and one of them is coming back from ACL surgery. The team "addressed" the position by adding a 3rd round pick, signing Holt and Patten, hoping Tate's up for the WR3 job and hoping that Edelman's ready to step in for Welker if needed. You can sip all the Koolaid you want about that being enough, and that's fine, but looking at the position as a concern is a perfectly sensible approach.

He was asked a general question about the Pats. He decided to focus on the offensive weaknesses (OL, RBs, WRs). Given the defensive concerns, that's a really odd choice, specifically considering the offensive upgrades (TEs). If the standard is the theoretical potential for nothing to go right, then we can just go ahead and say every single unit of every single team in every single sport has "concerns." Right, it's not invalid. It's just....I don't know....completely inconsequential.

 

[mgcolby]

1.) The offensive line is clearly an issue. The team's on it's #3 left guard before the season even starts, just to point out on obvious concern.

2.) The problems of other teams have nothing to do with the problems of the Patriots. If the entire Jets team were to be suspended tomorrow, the Patriots wouldn't be better or worse.

1) there is no proof that Kaczur would be better than Connolly at Guard.

2. was a twisted way to look at my point, but I'm not shocked. Regardless of what you think of the Patriots perceived weaknesses they are in direct correlation to other teams problems, because that is in fact what they are being compared to. You can't compare this Pats team to the 2004 Pats team say oh they are weak here, here and here in comparison so therefore they aren't going to be good this season. That is idiotic, the only way to judge this year's team is against its competition. There is no other correct way to judge it!

And I'll even play your foolish game. If the Jets entire team was suspended tomorrow than in fact the Patriots would improve, because now they just have to compete against 2 division teams and 30 NFL teams, hence their odds of wiining just got better...as did the entire NFL's.

Sometimes you outsmart yourself with your ridiculous stances/micro arguing.

 

[signbabybrady]

The bolded part is your opinion. It has less validity than King's opinion, since King can point to last year, and you don't even have that.



This team has 2 established WRs right now, and one of them is coming back from ACL surgery. The team "addressed" the position by adding a 3rd round pick, signing Holt and Patten, hoping Tate's up for the WR3 job and hoping that Edelman's ready to step in for Welker if needed. You can sip all the Koolaid you want about that being enough, and that's fine, but looking at the position as a concern is a perfectly sensible approach.

I am not saying there is a guarentee that the 3 guys work out I am saying that drafting 2 players in the third round and one in the 7th is adequately adreesing the position. There obviously is no guarentee it works but that would have been true of drafting dez bryant.

And if you dont think it is adequately adressing the position then which of the 3 would you give up on in order to have adressed it differently?

 

[Deus Irae]

Point to last year when the Pats had the 3rd best passing attack with a qb returning from major knee surgery and our wrs accounted for 70% of the yards? That would be King's point? That may not help his argument. But yes, the 4th and 5th receivers were not excellent and the 3rd receiver only seemed really good when he played extended minutes. ok

Ok, either you watched last season and can make a sane assessment of the team, or you think that last year's wide receiver crew was good enough. It's one or the other.

He was asked a general question about the Pats. He decided to focus on the offensive weaknesses (OL, RBs, WRs). Given the defensive concerns, that's a really odd choice, specifically considering the offensive upgrades (TEs). If the standard is the theoretical potential for nothing to go right, then we can just go ahead and say every single unit of every single team in every single sport has "concerns." Right, it's not invalid. It's just....I don't know....completely inconsequential.

As I noted earlier, he also talked about the defensive secondary. Again, there was nothing wrong with his opinion, whether you agree with it or not. It was logically based upon the most recent 'real' (regular season/playoffs) games the team has played and what he perceived was done afterwards. He's not under any requirement to list every potential failing he sees.

 

[Fixit]

I agree with King and, by extension, Deus. The Patriots should have spent their first and second round picks on wide receivers to go with the two chumps who only accounted for 200 catches and 2000+ yards. The guy who caught two TDs in the playoffs with a broken arm missed a couple of preseason games, so we know he's made of glass. And the second-year guy who made a couple of moves in the preseason that made defenders look stupid? If he's so good, he would have been playing last year, now wouldn't he?

The tight end picks are irrelevant (holla!) because no matter how much they may stretch the field and make plays, they are not referred to as receivers (even though they make receptions and are credited with receiving yards...I'll get back to you on that one).

They also dropped the ball (ha!) because they could and should have acquired Boldin, Holmes, Owens, TJ Whosyourmama, and figured out ways to swing trades for Andre Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald.

You know who else has big problems? The Colts. If Wayne, Collie, Garcon, Clark (waaaaaait...can't count him) and Gonzalez all go down, they're pretty thin.

The bottom line is that a lot of the same players from last year will be playing this year, and we didn't upgrade every single area of the team to league-best, even those that were obvious strengths last year. Way to earn your money, Bill.

You want to see a team improve itself? Look no further than the 2010 Steelers, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Richard Camembert]

lol the folks at the clinic I work at get this way when they're bored too.

You all know this but:

At the end of last year, when we had Moss and Edelman and Aiken at WR, they couldn't move the ball.

After the draft ended, even with the TE's and Price on board, until people realized that WW might come back, it was wait til WW returns and we might be okay at WR.

Then they added Holt. I felt great about the core at that point.

Then Tate emerged, the rookies and Crumpler showed a bit and WW started practicing, and we could cut Holt because we had about 4 NFL quality WR's. Tate and Welker are potential injury risks, and Edelman is really unproven on the national level.

Though I think the Pats will be fine at receiver, I can see a national media figure legitimately expressing reservations about the WR position. And I'm over it.

 

[Deus Irae]

1) there is no proof that Kaczur would be better than Connolly at Guard.

Kaczur was the starting guard before he went down. He was the starting guard because Mankins was absent from camp. You can "twist" (note your later quote) this all you want. The reality is that Connolly is LG#3.

2. was a twisted way to look at my point, but I'm not shocked. Regardless of what you think of the Patriots perceived weaknesses they are in direct correlation to other teams problems, because that is in fact what they are being compared to. You can't compare this Pats team to the 2004 Pats team say oh they are weak here, here and here in comparison so therefore they aren't going to be good this season. That is idiotic, the only way to judge this year's team is against its competition. There is no other correct way to judge it!

The Patriots offensive line will suck, be awesome, or be somewhere in the middle, independent of the Colts offensive line and independent of the offensive line of every other team in the NFL. Your argument makes no sense at all.

And I'll even play your foolish game. If the Jets entire team was suspended tomorrow than in fact the Patriots would improve, because now they just have to compete against 2 division teams and 30 NFL teams, hence their odds of wiining just got better...as did the entire NFL's.

Sometimes you outsmart yourself with your ridiculous stances/micro arguing.

Given that odds of winning and team talent are separate issues, your argument fails.

 

[mgcolby]

Kaczur was the starting guard before he went down. He was the starting guard because Mankins was absent from camp. You can "twist" (note your later quote) this all you want. The reality is that Connolly is LG#3.



The Patriots offensive line will suck, be awesome, or be somewhere in the middle, independent of the Colts offensive line and independent of the offensive line of every other team in the NFL. Your argument makes no sense at all.



Given that odds of winning and team talent are separate issues, your argument fails.

debating with you is completely pointless, hence the micro arguing stance comment in my previous post. I have never seen anyone with the same mentality or debating tactics as you.

Good luck with your idiotic irrelevances and semantics. :bricks:

 

[Fixit]

Though I think the Pats will be fine at receiver, I can see a national media figure legitimately expressing reservations about the WR position. And I'm over it.

The problem isn't the opinion, it's the glaring lack of consistency applied.

King says that the Pats didn't do enough to address the WR position on a team that starts with two of the best, they drafted a couple guys with great potential, and like what they have in two second-year players. In and of itself, I think it's an uninformed position, but a semi-defensible one.

When he takes a non-playoff team who lost their best deep threat, doesn't have its QB for the first four games and has issues in what is traditionally a strength (defense)...he has them winning the SB.

Come on.

 

[Deus Irae]

debating with you is completely pointless, hence the micro arguing stance comment in my previous post. I have never seen anyone with the same mentality or debating tactics as you.

Good luck with your idiotic irrelevances and semantics. :bricks:

People on this thread have battered at King's comments using the 'logic' that he mentioned mostly offensive problems, you tried claiming that "the starting five are as solid as they come in the NFL" and Connolly wasn't the #3 LG, and you're griping about my tactics, irrelevances and semantics?

 

[Richard Camembert]

The problem isn't the opinion, it's the glaring lack of consistency applied.

King says that the Pats didn't do enough to address the WR position on a team that starts with two of the best, they drafted a couple guys with great potential, and like what they have in two second-year players. In and of itself, I think it's an uninformed position, but a semi-defensible one.

When he takes a non-playoff team who lost their best deep threat, doesn't have its QB for the first four games and has issues in what is traditionally a strength (defense)...he has them winning the SB.

Come on.

Oh, a different topic, goodie.

I guess I don't know if King is consistent in his analysis of the teams. I don't see how the Steel can get to the Super Bowl. Right now, sadly, unless the D progresses quickly, I don't see how the Pats can make the SB either even if they score 450 points like I think they might.

Maybe King meant the Ravens, I dunno.

I just wanna see some real football ffs.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I am quite sanguine that all the Mediots are listening to each other and have found flaws with the Patriots. There are flaws in this Team, compared to the Superbowl Team of 2005. But since they aren't looking too deeply, there is talent here, that was not there in 2005. The secondary is much deeper, the ILBs are much faster.

OTOH, I cannot find any position that is weaker than last year's 2009 edition. And most every squad is markedly reinforced with talent. That talent is raw, but much faster on Defense, just what you want. The Defensive strategy is designed to and covers up for mistakes, including the youthful ones. Wonderful.

The Offense has added experienced talent, at WR, TE, LG and RT, which is what you want. It gerts back some veteran talent injured last season. It is needed to increase execution proficiency. And there is some rookie talent there too.

Everyone wants to complain about the OLBs. What is the difference this year from last? I see two premium youngsters drafted very early in the last few years competing for one spot and a backup position. How good are they? I don't frankly know, but Mr. Belichick who ought to know, chose to keep them and banish the other expereinced veterans.

Meanwhile I have seen the stirrings of an interior DL pass rush, and an ILB blitz rush, and a Safety blitz rush. These things have been missing for at least two two seasons, ever since Seymour, Bruschi and Harrison left, or lost it. I expect the run defense to improve with the addition of veteran talent.

If last year's edition could manage to win 10 games while losing 4 late in the 4th quarter, I expect this team will do as well, or better. Tell me exactly why, it should not.

 

[mgcolby]

People on this thread have battered at King's comments using the 'logic' that he mentioned mostly offensive problems, you tried claiming that "the starting five are as solid as they come in the NFL" and Connolly wasn't the #3 LG, and you're griping about my tactics, irrelevances and semantics?

Never stated that Connoly wasn't the #3 LG, I simply stated that there is no proof that Kaczur would be better. Try to keep up.

And yes the Pats starting line is among the best in the NFL, you can dispute that if you like.

But I'm done talking to you, as I stated before your debating tactics are comical. Once someone proves your point wrong, you find a way to twist the the debate into two parts and then claim that you are correct and they are wrong because you rendered (in your mind only) the two parts seperate and irrelevant.

It had some humor value early on but it has gotten old and stale.

 

[Deus Irae]

Never stated that Connoly wasn't the #3 LG, I simply stated that there is no proof that Kaczur would be better. Try to keep up.

And yes the Pats starting line is among the best in the NFL, you can dispute that if you like.

But I'm done talking to you, as I stated before your debating tactics are comical. Once someone proves your point wrong, you find a way to twist the the debate into two parts and then claim that you are correct and they are wrong because you rendered (in your mind only) the two parts seperate and irrelevant.

It had some humor value early on but it has gotten old and stale.

I didn't twist anything. You started off by giving me grief over a word (no big deal), then asked why the line is a concern, as if the answer there isn't obvious to even a blind man, then tried to use the "no proof" argument when I'd noted the depth chart as if you'd made a point when you hadn't, and you accused me of micro arguing in that very same post of yours.

You didn't prove anything, or anyone, wrong, but you did act like a hypocrite. Congratulations on that, and have a great weekend.

 

[BradyToAmendola]

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 disagree. Moss is a top 5 WR. Welker is the best slot receiver in the league. That alone puts us in the top 5 or 6 in the NFL at the receiving position. Not to mention, TEs..receivers...what's the difference? They both catch the ball and we have 3 very promising TEs on the roster. I feel like we have one of if not the best receiving core in the NFL.