Welcome to PatsFans.com

Some friendly competition among the WRs this year?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by FredFromDartmouth, Jul 21, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FredFromDartmouth

    FredFromDartmouth Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,981
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +4 / 5 / -0

    It is a slow time on the board so I thought I should point out this little fact from Mike Reiss:

    Top active pass receivers: Randy Moss is third (926 receptions) and Torry Holt fourth (920 receptions).
  2. stinkypete

    stinkypete Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +28 / 0 / -1

    #24 Jersey

    Something unthinkable would have to happen for that gap to not widen.

    IIFC, Moss passed Holt on this list last season.
  3. Ron Sellers

    Ron Sellers Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    With the difference between the two being six receptions, my guess is that you are correct.:D
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2010
  4. patsfan-1982

    patsfan-1982 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,045
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +7 / 1 / -0

    moss, should have 80 to 90 rec and holt could have 60 rec with welker, missing a few games
  5. sbpatfan

    sbpatfan Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'd rather see Moss and Welker end up with about 50-60 receptions each. It's time to break in the new wave.
  6. resdubwhite

    resdubwhite Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,173
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +67 / 0 / -0

    No Jersey Selected

    Whatever it takes to win. Dropping Moss to 50-60 is potentially suicidal. Ok, seek out WR1 -WR2 less and spread the love. but by 50%? Especially with there being no obvious 1000 yd RB and to me thats a recipe for disaster.
  7. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,433
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ratings:
    +222 / 17 / -2

    I agree.

    We have had a fine offense, and one of the very best passing offenses in the league. We should not reduce the contributions of two of the league's best players. There are several challenges in the passing game. They do not include purposely reducing the production of Moss.

    PASSING NEEDS
    1) We need improvement in the red zone. The answer is likely to come from the tight ends.
    2) We need improved production from the tight ends.
    3) We need a better red zone running offense. I suspect that the issue in 2009 was the health of the OL more than anything. After all the Committee (Maroney, Morris and Taylor) did reasonably OK for the season with over 1300 yards and 4.1 yards per carry.

  8. JoeShmoe

    JoeShmoe Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I sincerely hope we see a better distribution in the passing game this year. When teams like the saints, ravens etc took out Moss and Wes together we had nothing

    Holt, Tate, Edelman plus the TE's plus the RB's all need to get more involved. Dont know the stats but woudnt be surrpised if we threw 80% of the time to 2 recievers last year
  9. sbpatfan

    sbpatfan Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You don't need two receivers with 90 and 100 receptions to win. Our offense was stat bloated anyways with all the red zone problems. It's like this, when Randy and Welker have high numbers - it means the rest of our receivers suck. And it's very easy to tell that - just look how much Brady forced crap to Welker / Moss last year. Moss is getting old now anyway, his body was run down last season and Welker is coming off a serious injury. It's time to take some of the workload off them, they'll still be effective and probably even moreso with less targets.
  10. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,433
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ratings:
    +222 / 17 / -2

    Perhaps some facts might change your view. Moss and Welker accounted for a whopping 53% of patriot receptions last year, and 58% of the yards. 9 players caught at least 14 passes in 2009.

    I agree that we need more production from our tight ends and a better deep threat than we had last year opposite Moss. HOWEVER, you greatly overstate the case. We had a fine passing game in 2009, and it will improve simply because Brady will be healthy to start the season. Brady has been a great quarterback with much less talent than he has supporting him in 2010.

    I do indeed believe that Hernadez, Watson and Crumpler will be an improvement over Watson, Baker and Green-Ellis whose roster spots they take. I also believe that Tate, Holt and Price will be serious improvement over Aiken, Galloway and Steinback. Finally, Edelman should be better in 2010 than he was in 2009. Of course, the loss is that Welker is that is not as healthy as he was in 2009.

    2009 SUMMARY
    Welker 123
    Moss 83
    Running backs 74
    Other receivers 67
    tight ends 43

    BOTTOM LINE
    I would like to see an improvement in the production from the tight end position. We need to get back to what we had just a few years ago. And yes, some folks do need to step into the gap and make up for any loss of production from Welker. Edelman is likely to do that as he did in the last couple of games of 2009. And finally, yes I would like to see a better receiver than Aiken as the wideout opposite Moss. We have lots of possibilities. Certainly Tate and Holt have the inside track, and Edelman when Welker is helath and playing in the slot.





    New England Patriots Statistics - NFL Football - ESPN

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>