PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Receiver Arithmetic - Spreading It Out


Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes - I was expecting that type of snarky response from you. (I'm not about to waste my time putting together War and Peace size essay addressing every possible factor just to appease you.)

There was nothing snarky about the response. You cited to a minimal number of stats and then made an overly broad claim as a result of it.

And yet the statement that more yards and catches does not necessarily equal more wins is indisputably true no matter how much you want to pick a fight about it.

That's not what you wrote. Perhaps you could have double checked that instead of being "snarky" yourself:

So if anyone wants to make the point that "Better Statistics = More Wins", they'd be dead wrong.
 
do we expect anything form Andre Holmes, WR... just notice hes under contract for another 2 years....
 
do we expect anything form Andre Holmes, WR... just notice hes under contract for another 2 years....

Here's a link to his measurables,combine and pro day stats.
Andre Holmes*|*Hillsdale,*WR*:*2011 NFL Draft Scout Player Profile

Folks wanting a tall WR might like him (6-4, 210). They rated him as the #29 WR. Pats worked him out in 2011, before he signed with the Cowboys.



It Is What It Is » Patriots sign WR Andre Holmes to practice squad
The 24-year-old Holmes originally entered the NFL as a rookie free agent with Minnesota out of Hillsdale in 2011. The 6-foot-4, 223-pounder was released by Minnesota after training camp and was signed to the Dallas practice squad. Holmes was signed to the Dallas 53-man roster late in the 2011 season but was inactive for the final four games of the season. He made the Dallas 53-man roster out of training camp in 2012 and played seven games, registering two receptions for 11 yards.​
Cowboys Draft Prospects: Andre Holmes - Blogging The Boys
Pro Football Weekly (Nolan Nawrocki) 51st rated WR in 2011
Positives: Outstanding size-speed ratio. Has long arms and terrific body length with a frame to add bulk. Surprising foot quickness. Eats up cushion and covers ground with long, fluid strides. Good hands. Runs through the catch. Outstanding two-year production. Broad jumped 10 feet, 10 inches at the Combine and posted a time of 6.69 seconds in the 3-cone drill.

Negatives: Small hands. Has a wiry build and needs to improve functional strength-vulnerable to the jam and can be bumped off his routes. Average suddenness and explosiveness-too many catches are contested. Adequate route runner in need of polish-needs to learn to sink his hips and sell patterns. Limited after catch. Not a physical blocker. Exhibits a track mentality, could stand to play with more intensity and has some underachiever traits. Faced marginal competition. Looked overwhelmed and out of place weaving and getting beat up by the ball in the gauntlet drill at the Combine.

Summary: Small-school, height-weight-speed prospect who did not dominate marginal competition like his measurables suggest he should have and does not have a special-teams mentality. Is not strong or explosive and will have to adjust to the speed and physicality of the pro game to make it.​
The Sporting News (Russ Lande)
Holmes jumped off the film last year when we were scouting Hillsdale OT Jared Veldheer, a third-round pick of the Raiders who already has become a solid NFL starter. Holmes (6-4, 203) performed even better in '10, catching 104 passes for 1,368 yards and 11 touchdowns. Holmes is a tall receiver with explosive quickness and home-run speed who can turn short passes into big plays. He was more consistent in '10, making big plays in key situations. He certainly will be at least a late-round pick, but he could fly up boards in the spring with some standout pre-draft workouts.​
Dallas Cowboys: Will Andre Holmes Be the Next UDFA Star? | Bleacher Report

From NFL scout Brian Broaddus:
Holmes did a nice job of adjusting his body along the sideline to keep his feet in bounds and catch the ball. He played with technique to free himself in routes, using an arm-over move to buy himself some space. He was a willing blocker, not a killer, but more of a get-in-the-way type. His team brought him in motion to crack on the edge.


Holmes did play some on the slot. He used his hands to snatch the ball, and did a good job of getting up field once he had the ball in his hands. He has outstanding timed speed and you see it when he ran crossing routes. He can really cover some ground when on the move and will get vertical.

He will catch the ball with men on his back in traffic, and was willing to take his route inside, catch the ball and take a hit from the defender. He will lay out for the ball down the field. He knows how to push off to buy himself some separation, and showed the ability to adjust to the low ball.

He was a raw route-runner in college—there was not much smoothness or purpose in this area. But he was clearly better than anyone who tried to cover him, so he wasn't taxed like he would be in the NFL...


Now, Holmes is over a year removed from the games that I was able to study, so you have to feel like there would be improvements in many of the critical areas that I pointed out.

His measurables are quite impressive along with his ability to catch the ball, so he has that going for him.
 
Last edited:
I disagree, we have a QB moving into the back nine, he can still play, but he needs to be protected.

He has been, and is currently "being protected." The front office has spent numerous resources on healthy contracts and first round picks to continue to protect him.

The offensive scheme itself is designed to protect Brady and limit his hits. Last year Brady had the quickest release time out of any NFL QB at around 2.4 seconds average per throw. That is due to the short pass offense and use of the slot receiver etc. The implementation of the hurry-up obviously adds to his benefit.

It's somewhat ironic that so many clamor for a downfield threat WR and a step into the more traditional passing game under center etc, yet at the same time so many are worried about Brady's protection and lifespan etc.

He needs to throw the ball less, he needs to take less hits, and he needs defenses to fear the run. Brady would be more effective with a real commitment to the running game.

As I said, Belichick/McDaniels/Brady are already using a system designed to minimize his hits. This was put in place when they decided to release/trade Randy Moss back in early 2010, and takes advantage of quicker timing throws and patterns that are based more cerebrally by reading pre-snap defensive alignments based on where the safety and others are lining up.

I can't see how you can honestly claim that "we need a real commitment to the running game," when our 2012 rushes for the season made us the #2 team in the NFL in terms of attempts? Obviously, we already have a commitment to running the ball more. That is what led to the 55/45 breakdown already, which was down from 57/43 the year before.

There will be plenty of time for your proposed 50/50 ratio when Tom Brady is done playing football. In the meantime, if they are honestly going to consider a 50/50 ratio for the entire season (which they're not) they would be better off using a lesser talented QB saving money, and adding it to other areas of the team. Opposing DC's stay up at night gameplanning around Brady/Gronk/Hernandez/Amendola (Welker in the past), not our vaunted rushing attack, although it's great to see more balance and production and I'd like it to stay that way, particularly in the late season playoff games.

The bottom line is that Brady is still our #1 weapon, and Belichick and Co. have found a way to use that talent while also addressing your concerns over ratios, protection, and career span by tailoring the offense around these factors.

Make those throws count for more, because Brady only has a certain number of throws left.

Obviously you have a point with the generalization of the comment, much like Brady "only has a certain number of breaths left" etc, but you're also making some assumptions in terms of how many years he has left etc.

Brady regularly wins the award/parking space for the best offseason workout and shape etc. He takes very good care of himself. We've seen many QB's like Elway, Moon, Montana, Young, Marino, Favre all play into their late 30's/early 40's in an era where QB's did not take this good of care of themselves, so I'm not sure why we should be jumping to conclusions that he can't continue to play at a high level for another 4-5 yrs? Brady's drive and commitment to his health and physical condition already should set him apart from some of these other QB's who played late into their careers.

In the meantime, he's become a much better QB in his past several yrs in terms of decision making/less INT's etc, and his biggest jump has probably been how he reads and reacts to the defense and makes the proper adjustments to that. He actually made the comments of "I am a better QB now" when compared to his days of the past in interviews.
 
If we want to protect Brady, we might consider drafting an OG high if one projects to be better than Connolly.
 
do we expect anything form Andre Holmes, WR... just notice hes under contract for another 2 years....

I think it's awfully hard to predict at the current moment, and it's likely that only Belichick and company have any idea as to whether or not he could see some live gameday reps any time soon.

Obviously a strong showing at TC would be an excellent indication of the odds of his chances, but we'll have to wait until the end of summer to see that.

In the meantime, they'll keep him as a developmental WR and try to continue working with him, so he's certainly not a bad prospect to have there. Unfortunately I don't think we know much about his chances at the moment though.
 
If we want to protect Brady, we might consider drafting an OG high if one projects to be better than Connolly.

That may certainly be a possibility.

In the meantime though, without the options of fielding an all-pro OL, they've done an excellent job of dedicating resources there overall.

And of course the scheme, design, and ability/focus to get rid of the ball quickly has certainly come into play, not to mention the dedication to the running game.

I'm not sure that everyone actually realizes what "50/50" would mean in terms of taking away throws and production from Brady. I think they assume it means handing the ball off another 2-3 or so times a game, when in reality it means lessening a nice chunk of the production of our biggest weapon and league feared player.

There are many other ways to go about improving the balance, protecting Brady, limiting his hits, etc--and I believe that Belichick has done a very nice job of looking ahead and addressing this issue. I do not feel moving to a 50/50 ratio would be in our best interests, at least not for another 3+ yrs if it happens. I also don't believe in moving towards a more traditional passing approach as that would instantly take away many of the benefits that have been installed. I think the answer lies in continuing to build on what has been established, while adding a downfield threat to the current offense--not changing it up entirely.
 
There was nothing snarky about the response. You cited to a minimal number of stats and then made an overly broad claim as a result of it.



That's not what you wrote. Perhaps you could have double checked that instead of being "snarky" yourself:

Fact: Brady had fewer completions and yards gained in 2010 yet more wins than in 2009 and 2011.

Good luck disproving that.

My point is that YOU, nor anyone else, cannot prove that the team will have fewer wins because of a drop in overall passing production.

I expect you'll now try to twist that into me saying that fewer yards and completions = more wins - which of course I am not saying.
 
Fact: Brady had fewer completions and yards gained in 2010 yet more wins than in 2009 and 2011.

My point is that YOU, nor anyone else, cannot prove that the team will have fewer wins because of a drop in overall passing production.

Not meaning to get in the middle of your debate, but I'm not personally as worried myself about any loss of production from one certain area, as I see these 5 aspects of our offense being more than any production statistics: (copied from a previous post of mine)

In my opinion we have 5 focal points of the offense:

--The 2 TE's

--The short passing or slot game (ex: Welker/Amendola/Edelman)

--The running game

--The possession catches (ex: Llyod)

--The deep threat (at least giving us the ability to keep the defense honest, likely to be filled by a rookie with minor production but still added benefits)


When you consider the fact that we've reached the AFCCG or better in both of the last 2 years with only 2-3 of these five aspects, having anything better should only be a plus. I'd think that having 4/5 of these focal points would lead us to being extremely competitive and heading deep into the postseason, so I'd like to be able to have as many as possible at the end of the year where depth will be very important.

As I said I'm not meaning to get in the middle of your debate, because I think it's pretty reasonable to see both sides of the argument. The concern of lessened production is certainly a reality and often doesn't equate to more success, so I definitely understand that. I also understand your point that less production not always equaling poor results at the same time, which made me think of the importance of checking off these 5 "focal points" to our success on that side of the ball.
 
Not meaning to get in the middle of your debate, but I'm not personally as worried myself about any loss of production from one certain area, as I see these 5 aspects of our offense being more than any production statistics: (copied from a previous post of mine)

In my opinion we have 5 focal points of the offense:

--The 2 TE's

--The short passing or slot game (ex: Welker/Amendola/Edelman)

--The running game

--The possession catches (ex: Llyod)

--The deep threat (at least giving us the ability to keep the defense honest, likely to be filled by a rookie with minor production but still added benefits)


When you consider the fact that we've reached the AFCCG or better in both of the last 2 years with only 2-3 of these five aspects, having anything better should only be a plus. I'd think that having 4/5 of these focal points would lead us to being extremely competitive and heading deep into the postseason, so I'd like to be able to have as many as possible at the end of the year where depth will be very important.

As I said I'm not meaning to get in the middle of your debate, because I think it's pretty reasonable to see both sides of the argument. The concern of lessened production is certainly a reality and often doesn't equate to more success, so I definitely understand that. I also understand your point that less production not always equaling poor results at the same time, which made me think of the importance of checking off these 5 "focal points" to our success on that side of the ball.

I'm not worried either - This is Tom Brady we're talking about.

Assuming he doesn't lose his entire receiving corps to injury he will complete plenty of passes.

Will he surpass 5,000 yards again? I'm not counting on that.

Will he have less than 4,000 as he did in 2010? I'm not expecting that either - but then again, in the period of 2009 - 2011 he had the most wins in the season with the fewest yards... an "off" year of just 3900 yards.

... and I'll take wins over yards any time. So I'm not overly worried.

This is Tom friggen Brady - he will find open RBs, TEs and WRs. Heck, he even made Reche Caldwell look like an above average WR - and Caldwell couldn't even stick with the worst NFL team the following year.

But Deus likes to tell everyone they're wrong and he insists that the OP's guesstimates are far too optimistic. We shall see - I don't think mgteich is all that far off in his guesses, and I can't stand to see someone like Deus ***** all over a fellow Patsfan member just for offering an educated guess as to what the offensive production looks like as of early April.
 
Fact: Brady had fewer completions and yards gained in 2010 yet more wins than in 2009 and 2011.

Good luck disproving that.

My point is that YOU, nor anyone else, cannot prove that the team will have fewer wins because of a drop in overall passing production.

I expect you'll now try to twist that into me saying that fewer yards and completions = more wins - which of course I am not saying.

Fact: That's not what your claim was, as I demonstrated by quoting it back to you. And, remember that you're the one who's been "snarky" on this, not me. You made an overly broad claim based upon 2 stats, which led to your claim being wrong/incomplete because it didn't account for a whole host of other factors. It's a simple thing. You could just have toned down your claim instead of doubling down and getting personal.
 
Fact: That's not what your claim was, as I demonstrated by quoting it back to you. And, remember that you're the one who's been "snarky" on this, not me. You made an overly broad claim based upon 2 stats, which led to your claim being wrong/incomplete because it didn't account for a whole host of other factors. It's a simple thing. You could just have toned down your claim instead of doubling down and getting personal.

My "claim" is that the from 2009 - 2011 the Patriots least productive passing season was also the season that they had the most wins.

The thing is, what you call a claim is actually a fact.

That fact gets in the way of those who would claim that fewer passing yards means fewer wins.

I know you like to argue for the sake of arguing - asserting your belief that the OP is being far too optimistic, for example - but on this one you just need to give it up. It's a fact.
 
My "claim" is that the from 2009 - 2011 the Patriots least productive passing season was also the season that they had the most wins.

The thing is, what you call a claim is actually a fact.

That fact gets in the way of those who would claim that fewer passing yards means fewer wins.

I know you like to argue for the sake of arguing - asserting your belief that the OP is being far too optimistic, for example - but on this one you just need to give it up. It's a fact.

Your claim was what I posted. It's in black and white.

That's a fact.
 
I'm not worried either - This is Tom Brady we're talking about.

Assuming he doesn't lose his entire receiving corps to injury he will complete plenty of passes.

Will he surpass 5,000 yards again? I'm not counting on that.

Will he have less than 4,000 as he did in 2010? I'm not expecting that either - but then again, in the period of 2009 - 2011 he had the most wins in the season with the fewest yards... an "off" year of just 3900 yards.

... and I'll take wins over yards any time. So I'm not overly worried.

This is Tom friggen Brady - he will find open RBs, TEs and WRs. Heck, he even made Reche Caldwell look like an above average WR - and Caldwell couldn't even stick with the worst NFL team the following year.

But Deus likes to tell everyone they're wrong and he insists that the OP's guesstimates are far too optimistic. We shall see - I don't think mgteich is all that far off in his guesses, and I can't stand to see someone like Deus ***** all over a fellow Patsfan member just for offering an educated guess as to what the offensive production looks like as of early April.

No one thinks Brady isn't great this is the ultimate team game and unless you get really lucky you are going to falter at some point in the post season when you trot out garbage at the receiver position. I like Amendola but I'm not counting on him to be functional come playoff time. Which is going to probably leave you with Gronk, a hobbled Hernandez because he is always dealing with something, and Jones if he makes the team. Not even Tom Brady can win a SB with that crew.
 
Fact: Brady had fewer completions and yards gained in 2010 yet more wins than in 2009 and 2011.

Good luck disproving that.

My point is that YOU, nor anyone else, cannot prove that the team will have fewer wins because of a drop in overall passing production.

I expect you'll now try to twist that into me saying that fewer yards and completions = more wins - which of course I am not saying.

You are citing one season as your "proof" that a dip in production isn't a bad thing. The one season you chose is the one season in which we had a near historical turnover differential, Brady's record 9/1 TD/INT ratio, a 7 game stretch of 0 total turnovers, a 350+ interception free passing streak, a defense that forced ~40 turnovers.

The dip in production also had something to do with facing something like 12 playoff teams, including top tier defenses of the Ravens, Steelers, Vikings, Packers, Bears, and Jets.

You never want to see a dip in production, and I bet that 9 times out of 10 it will lead fewer wins, just because New England had a bunch of things work in their favor doesn't mean that their offensive production wasn't a bad thing.

Would you argue that our season would have been worse if Brady had 900 more yards? Or Green-Ellis 400 more yards?
 
I can't see how you can honestly claim that "we need a real commitment to the running game," when our 2012 rushes for the season made us the #2 team in the NFL in terms of attempts? Obviously, we already have a commitment to running the ball more. That is what led to the 55/45 breakdown already, which was down from 57/43 the year before.

In 2012, the Patriots had more offensive snaps than any team in history, due to the hurry up offense they ran. It was not a function of being committed to running the ball. When the going got tough, they passed, passed and lost in the playoffs. Because teams didn't respect the run.

There will be plenty of time for your proposed 50/50 ratio when Tom Brady is done playing football. In the meantime, if they are honestly going to consider a 50/50 ratio for the entire season (which they're not) they would be better off using a lesser talented QB saving money, and adding it to other areas of the team. Opposing DC's stay up at night gameplanning around Brady/Gronk/Hernandez/Amendola (Welker in the past), not our vaunted rushing attack, although it's great to see more balance and production and I'd like it to stay that way, particularly in the late season playoff games.

Tom Brady can still be Tom Brady, even if he throws the ball less. It is about making those passes count for more. Allow the OL to get out and put the DL on their heels. Running the ball is about attitude, bringing physicality to the team. Teams will still have to game-plan for the Patriots offensive passing attack, because they will still pass the ball. Gronk, Aaron and Amendola will get plenty of catches, the RBs out of the backfield will get plenty of catches...What I want to see is defenses actually play the run, instead of ignore it to play the pass.


The bottom line is that Brady is still our #1 weapon, and Belichick and Co. have found a way to use that talent while also addressing your concerns over ratios, protection, and career span by tailoring the offense around these factors.

I agree, Brady is the most potent weapon on the offense. That doesn't mean he doesn't need help. The Patriots won Superbowls when the offense was complimentary, not a one sided beast like the Peyton Manning led Colts.


Brady regularly wins the award/parking space for the best offseason workout and shape etc. He takes very good care of himself. We've seen many QB's like Elway, Moon, Montana, Young, Marino, Favre all play into their late 30's/early 40's in an era where QB's did not take this good of care of themselves, so I'm not sure why we should be jumping to conclusions that he can't continue to play at a high level for another 4-5 yrs? Brady's drive and commitment to his health and physical condition already should set him apart from some of these other QB's who played late into their careers.

In the meantime, he's become a much better QB in his past several yrs in terms of decision making/less INT's etc, and his biggest jump has probably been how he reads and reacts to the defense and makes the proper adjustments to that. He actually made the comments of "I am a better QB now" when compared to his days of the past in interviews.

Brady is still working out and playing at a very high level. That doesn't mean we should ignore the signs of him aging. How many times did we see him duck phantom rushers last year? He has always been slow, bu he really took that slowness to new heights last year...and lets not forget how many seasons Brady has ended with rib injuries, shoulder injuries and ankle injuries...The guy gets rid of the ball superfast, but he still takes a lot of hits and as he ages, the hits take more of a toll.

Was it 27 sacks last year? How many knockdowns? He isn't superman, once he begins to show his age, it will happen fast. Best not to push the envelop. I just would like to see a commitment to the run. That doesn't mean abandoning the passing game, but it does mean running the ball in different situations, not just to hold a lead and run out the clock.
 
In 2012, the Patriots had more offensive snaps than any team in history, due to the hurry up offense they ran. It was not a function of being committed to running the ball. When the going got tough, they passed, passed and lost in the playoffs. Because teams didn't respect the run.

New England was 14 rushing attempts short of leading the NFL last season. It was the most balanced offense we've boasted since the Championship years.
 
New England was 14 rushing attempts short of leading the NFL last season. It was the most balanced offense we've boasted since the Championship years.

I am more concerned with the situational runs. BTW, when you lead the league in snaps...by a lot, it inflates a lot of numbers. Hurry up and run the ball on first down is not the kind of running situations that I am talking about. I want to see the Patriots line up and run the ball when the other team expects it.

Did you see Dallas run all over the Ravens last year? It was brutal....Why couldn't the Patriots do that? Oh, because they lacked commitment to the run.
 
New England was 14 rushing attempts short of leading the NFL last season. It was the most balanced offense we've boasted since the Championship years.

And Brady had the most pass attempts in his career
 
Your claim was what I posted. It's in black and white.

That's a fact.

Gotcha.

So my claim isn't what I say it is.

It's what YOU say it is.

Now it all makes sense. :rolleyes:

You are citing one season as your "proof" that a dip in production isn't a bad thing.

Why does everyone always try to start an argument by taking someone's comment as an "always" or absolute?

I'm saying a dip in completions and yards does't NECESSARILY mean more losses. In fact, as we've seen, one can actually see an increase.

Would you argue that our season would have been worse if Brady had 900 more yards? Or Green-Ellis 400 more yards?

Of course not. But how does painting a completely different scenario of more completions negate the FACT that you can have fewer completions and yards, and more wins?

The reasons why, in each game, are complex. I'm not even going to even attempt to list each and every factor (Deus, while criticizing those who fail do to so, also leaves himself open to the same criticism as he too declines to list the hundreds of factors in every win or loss)

The reality is that at times the offense has been VERY heavily focused on Welker.

Welker's absence will likely result in seeing the ball spread more evenly to other receivers, as well as a drop in overall completions and yards.

My point is that in doing so, the Patriots offense could be much more difficult to defend on critical first downs. (Fans and DC's alike usually knew that in those critical plays, the ball was heading towards Welker)

The stats, in turn, may show a drop from previous seasons. But we could also see the Patriots win critical games that, during Welker's tenure, they've lost.

Those obsessed with fantasy football stats will be disappointed. Those interested in wins - especially playoff wins - will likely be pleased.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Friday Patriots Notebook 4/19: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf’s Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/18/24
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/18: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/16: News and Notes
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/15: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-14, Mock Draft 3.0, Gilmore, Law Rally For Bill 
Potential Patriot: Boston Globe’s Price Talks to Georgia WR McConkey
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/12: News and Notes
Not a First Round Pick? Hoge Doubles Down on Maye
Back
Top