Iron, they never put someone on Graham... so this shows a couple of things, from our POV:
1) part of the game plan is always to identify the most glaring weakness and exploit it.
2) Washington played as if our receivers were a threat, and they could not spare the personnel to cover a TE. Linebackers, obviously, aren't up to the task.
3) On an occasion or two Watson DID beat coverage by the Wash. secondary, so they had him covered for THOSE PLAYS... but it did not work. But we knew what we had in Watson. I'm interested to see what the Tapeheads see on those coverages, because I am going from memory.
Okay, so: you need to cover Reche, just in case on any given play he recognizes the importance of RECEIVING for a RECEIVER... granted he's personally left points on the field two games in a row, but he does get open. You need to cover Troy, on a good day double him, because he can get open against man... you're looking at two guys likely to be open if you don't double, just not sure things WHEN you double them, or for that matter sure things against man (or in Reche's case, all by himself.)
Our backs demand coverage out of the backfield, and Watson demands coverage as a receiver -- double if you want to be sure, and we're not talking about a LB. Graham can also beat LB coverage, so on any given play you have to account for him as well.
Maybe Brady did just get fed up with papier Reche and decide that unless he was so open he had his own ZIP code, he wouldn't be worth the risk. But in that scenario he still had an open Watson all night long.
I get what you're saying and there's reason there for concern. Putting two and two together, you could say "oh look. A team with a poor receiving corps turning to the tight end. Well you can counter that easily enough."
Looking at the glass half full (rah rah sis boom bah,) I could ask you to list the "impact" receivers on the Chiefs (for example). I think we're headed that direction... Brady can hit the open man, and you still have to account for other receivers as actual threats, even if lesser ones than Branch. But given the "minor" nature of the receivers -- the Watson presence and the ability to throw at backs out of the backfield, go a long way toward alleviating that "hole" at receiver.
Yeah I want more trustworthy receivers too, especially in Reche Caldwell's case. Not ready to give up just yet, but I could see Bam Childress (or someone) floating up the depth chart by the end of it all.
But do I think changing the Pats' approach to Deion is suggested by receiver stats in a 41-0 victory? Not no, hell no.
If anything the message is, someone will get those yards. Someone will get those TDs. And someone will look at you next year, when your contract is up, and say "oh yeah, he had a couple good years... but he did have Tom Brady throwing to him." The best thing that can happen this year for Deion, if he doesn't come back to the fold, is a successful campaign by Givens in Tennessee, disproving the "product of the system" line of thought. Given that Volek and Bennett are linked telepathically, that seems unlikely to me.
If I'm Deion, this makes me a tiny bit less likely to hold out 10 games (this is assuming the trade does not happen -- and the trade thus far seems unlikely to me. They're asking for a 1. Do you give up a 1 for Branch?)
Just Sunday morning blathering,
PFnV
