Things that I learned on Sunday.....

[BelichickFan]

What I look at to justify what I said is what did Givens do in 2004 in his third year in the league in the absence of a #1 for half of the season - and the answer is a 7th rounder stepped up.

He did have a very good 15.6 YPC that year. And 56 catches.

Caldwell is on pace for 55 catches but a lower 12.2 YPC. However in his last 4 games (not cherry picking but it'll get to my next point), he's averaged 14.9 YPC. Including a 19 YPC average against the Bears who lead the league, by a wide margin, in Yards per Attempt by opposing QBs, averaging an amazing 5.60. Next is Jacksonville at 6.05

What's my point ? Yes Caldwell was drafted higher. And, yes, he's been a WR longer. But in 2004 Givens was in his 3rd year with the Patriots and the same offense. This is Caldwell's first. Maybe that doesn't balance out some of your valid points to you but it does to me.

 

[FloridaPatsFan]

He did have a very good 15.6 YPC that year. And 56 catches.

Caldwell is on pace for 55 catches but a lower 12.2 YPC. However in his last 4 games (not cherry picking but it'll get to my next point), he's averaged 14.9 YPC. Including a 19 YPC average against the Bears who lead the league, by a wide margin, in Yards per Attempt by opposing QBs, averaging an amazing 5.60. Next is Jacksonville at 6.05

What's my point ? Yes Caldwell was drafted higher. And, yes, he's been a WR longer. But in 2004 Givens was in his 3rd year with the Patriots and the same offense. This is Caldwell's first. Maybe that doesn't balance out some of your valid points to you but it does to me.

Even if the production between Givens and Caldwell end up being similar, Givens had a knack for getting open when we really needed him and being that he was a former RB at Notre Dame turned WR- I think he still had that RB mentality once he had the ball. He didn't shy away from contact. I loved that about him. Maybe Caldwell will continue to grow on us as Givens once did but I will think of the two recievers as very different type of players who are playing in similar roles.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

That's fine but there's not a single number to back you up. Fine, you use the all encompassing "it's not just about the stats" - but stats are what they do.

In his first year with the team, Caldwell's YPC and #catches rivals what Givens did last year. No Branch to compete with ? No. But we're also throwing less. He's not making a LOT of catches, neither did Givens, but he catches a lot of big ones.

Football Outsiders' rankings are interesting.

Last year Givens' DVOA (This number represents value, per play, over an average WR in the same game situations) ranked him 35th in the league with a 5.5% mark. His Catch% (not 1-drop%, this accounts for bad throws too but it's the same QB) was 61%.

Caldwell this year ? DVOA ranks him 34th with a 7.7% and a 60% Catch%.

Is that conclusive ? Of course not. But neither is your "it's what he does not what the numbers say he does" argument. What the numbers do say, though, is that Caldwell is as productive as Givens was last year. As we've been saying. What is needed is for someone to step up to that level to give us two of them. Troy is just a little behind but Gabriel is 48th at -1.5% (slightly below average WR).

Since Mo has beat me to the opportunity to give you a long answer, let me give you a short answer.

Caldwell is our default #1 right now. We have a TE that is very likely to end up with better stats even though that TE has hands like a brick 50% of the time.

Why is Caldwell not a better player in his 5th NFL season, with better speed and athletic ability than Givens? One poster and I have different opinions on this, so I will simply say that Caldwell is what he is. A former #3 WR. Not the most situationally aware guy I have ever seen, not possessing the great intangibles that even a player like Twig had. Not seeming able to go that extra mile that seperates the good WRs from the okay WRs.

He is currently our #1 and I don't believe his stats come close to reflecting that fact. He has been here for all of the offseason, all preseason, and all season. He is what he is.

 

[jczxohn1]

More than anyone else, Caldell reminds me of Shawn Jefferson, a very sneaky #2. That buttonhook play Sun was classic Jefferson.

 

[patfanken]

I think it's becoming obvious that the guys we ended up with were available for a reason, and it wasn't because they were merely underappreciated or poorly coached or in the wrong system. I think Brady has the patience of a saint and the determination of a warrior and he will continue to strive to make the most of the hand he's been dealt. I just don't know if in the final analysis that will be enough. That will depend to some extent on how well the rest of the contenders perform or hold up as we head down the stretch. And that's frustrating because I think in all other respects while thin and susceptible to injury there is just enough talent here to get to Miami and probably more than enough to prevail if they can. With a viable #1 WR added to our mix I think we would be virtually unstopable.

This isn't to say that what you said in the entire post isn't valid or well articulated, however I think you are are too strong in the statement above concerning the Pats WR corp. I think that on the basis of the stats and what we have seen with our own eyeballs, considering that they are merely in their first year together the Brady/Caldwell combination vs the Brady/Givens combination is looking very compatable and might get better over time.

This isn't to denegrate either Givens or Branch. Both were super players for the Pats who came with both strengths and limitations. Givens was a physically tough player who could make the tough catch in traffic, however he was limited in his speed/quickness, and CONSISTANTLY proved that he COULD NOT create separation against good man coverage or when he was the focus of the defense. BTW I don't know if Caldwell CAN EITHER. The point of this is, is whether Givens/Caldwell swap is something that is close to an equal trade. I say it is (at least based on the evidence so far) and if it is, it is a perfect example of how the Pats FO MAXIMIZE the value of their salary cap, trading a talented WR who was overpaid for past performance on a great team, for a lower paid player who offers a similar production level for a lot lower price, ergo allowing more money to be available to others.

 

[BelichickFan]

I also don't think it's fair to blindly say "look at 2004 when Branch was out". We also have a 3rd year Ben Watson now. Back then he was a rookie who was out for the season. If Watson were the player he is now back then would Givens have caught the same number of passes ? If Watson were out for the year now would Caldwell catch more passes ? They're different years, different offenses, different coordinators.

All I know is that Caldwell is playing very effectively at a #2 WR level. Football Outsiders' numbers show that. Was Givens a little better ? Maybe. Was he a lot better ? Definitely not IMO. What Ken says about value is clear and indisputable. But even leaving value out of it and looking at just the player, I don't think Givens would have made a huge amount of additional impact over what Caldwell has if the two swapped places. And that should just become clearer the more Caldwell plays with Brady.

Here's an interesting stat, btw :

Last year Branch averaged 12.8 yards per catch.
This year Watson is averaging 13.3.

Branch was 78-998 last year, Watson is on pace for 65-871. Not quite at Branch's pace but not far off. Looking at Football Outsiders' stats, the big problem for Watson continues to be his Catch% which is a low 54% (includes bad throws as a non catch). That's the last frontier for Watson, getting a few more of the passes thrown to him completed.

 

[DaBruinz]

What I look at to justify what I said is what did Givens do in 2004 in his third year in the league in the absence of a #1 for half of the season - and the answer is a 7th rounder stepped up. In a year when we had an excellent running game to boot. These WR's aren't being asked to play on a 2005 team that had no viable running game due to injury, and a defense that was putting them behind the 8 ball every other week until the last month of the season. It was what he did in 2004 that got Givens that contract, not 2005 which for this entire team was something of an injury riddled aberation.

Caldwell is a former 2nd round selection in his 5th NFL season with a full TC under his belt being asked to step up in the absence of a #1 on a team with a different but still productive running attack and more talented TE support and a solidly performing defense compared to 2005, yet through week 11 I just don't see performances bordering on what Givens brought to the table in 2004 - a year that all but the WR corps more closely resembles performance wise than 2005. And I believe that is because Caldwell has a ceiling lower than Givens did. I think he ends up being a very good 3rd WR and an adequate #2 if we had an above average #1. But we don't.

That Givens was an elite #2 as opposed to merely adequate was clearly demonstrated in 2004. Ergo he has not effectively replaced Givens even if at the end of the season his 2006 stats machup against Givens 2005. 2005 is not the kind of performance we were looking to replace, and I see no indication Caldwell could come close to providing what Branch did even in that aberant season which unfortunately is what we need someone to start doing or this will end up 2005 revisited - when we get to the playoffs but simply can't get past the rest of the AFC.

I think it's becoming obvious that the guys we ended up with were available for a reason, and it wasn't because they were merely underappreciated or poorly coached or in the wrong system. I think Brady has the patience of a saint and the determination of a warrior and he will continue to strive to make the most of the hand he's been dealt. I just don't know if in the final analysis that will be enough. That will depend to some extent on how well the rest of the contenders perform or hold up as we head down the stretch. And that's frustrating because I think in all other respects while thin and susceptible to injury there is just enough talent here to get to Miami and probably more than enough to prevail if they can. With a viable #1 WR added to our mix I think we would be virtually unstopable.

Mo -
How do you know that Givens play in 2004 wasn't the aberration?

As for Caldwell, I think you are over-looking one MAJOR item. He tore his ACL pretty bad and, when he came back, he was the 5th receiving option behind 2 ALL-PRO players and two other damn good receivers. How can you fault him for his play in 2005 when he was recovering from a MAJOR injury and stuck in a system that regularly used a 2WR, 2 RB (RB/FB), 1 TE set as their base.

To say that Givens proved himself to be a "ELITE" #2 WR is a major stretch.

OH, as for Givens in 2004, he had one good stretch where he put together 3 straight 100+ yard games. After that, though, he never got more than 67 yards. And that was across 9 games.

I hardly call that proving someone to be Elite.

 

[DaBruinz]

I think it's becoming obvious that the guys we ended up with were available for a reason, and it wasn't because they were merely underappreciated or poorly coached or in the wrong system. I think Brady has the patience of a saint and the determination of a warrior and he will continue to strive to make the most of the hand he's been dealt. I just don't know if in the final analysis that will be enough. That will depend to some extent on how well the rest of the contenders perform or hold up as we head down the stretch. And that's frustrating because I think in all other respects while thin and susceptible to injury there is just enough talent here to get to Miami and probably more than enough to prevail if they can. With a viable #1 WR added to our mix I think we would be virtually unstopable.

The Pats ended up with Caldwell because the Chargers had younger and cheaper players behind him that they were content with in their offense. Its not like Caldwell lasted until July on the Free Agent Market.

 

[DaBruinz]

Since Mo has beat me to the opportunity to give you a long answer, let me give you a short answer.

Caldwell is our default #1 right now. We have a TE that is very likely to end up with better stats even though that TE has hands like a brick 50% of the time.

Why is Caldwell not a better player in his 5th NFL season, with better speed and athletic ability than Givens? One poster and I have different opinions on this, so I will simply say that Caldwell is what he is. A former #3 WR. Not the most situationally aware guy I have ever seen, not possessing the great intangibles that even a player like Twig had. Not seeming able to go that extra mile that seperates the good WRs from the okay WRs.

He is currently our #1 and I don't believe his stats come close to reflecting that fact. He has been here for all of the offseason, all preseason, and all season. He is what he is.

I think its a fallacy to call Caldwell our defacto #1. I don't think the Pats have a #1 receiver. As Belichick has said, Brady throws to the guy who is open. The idea that we fans have of typifying the receivers in order of importance doesn't do justice to this offense.

Now, because the Pats don't have a true #1 receiver, its unfair to say that Caldwell's stats don't reflect that of a #1 receiver. While, literally, its correct, the implications are not. We all talk about how players here won't get big numbers in this offense, but then we are overally critical of those same plaers because they don't have the big numbers. You can't have it both ways. Fact is that Caldwell has, for the most part this season, done everything that Givens has done, except according to Stats Inc, Caldwell doesn't have a drop while Givens had 6 last year.

Caldwell was the #3 receiver in San Diego because of injury. Prior to his ACL injury he was a solid #2 pushing Parker for the #1 spot.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Thanks for a marvellous post, Ken.

I agree completely with what you say about Seau. It was astonishing to see the difference in the game, although, as you say, there will be a week of practice for MV to get adjusted. But just think back to last year. Monty Beisel as a replacement? Even if he weren't lighting things up in Arizona, you'd have to be kidding. It's Mike Vrabel and heavily crossed fingers from now on.

I also agree with what you say about Grossman and about the atrocious refereeing. It isn't a matter of changing the rule but of applying it properly. The announcers seem to me to have made an excellent suggestion: make PI calls reviewable. They are, after all, almost all very big plays. Certainly, there is an element of judgement in PI calls, but it was clear to me that there was, for example, indisputable visual evidence of Watson being face-masked, whatever you think of the rule, and equally clear evidence that Hawkins' contact was incidental to his going for the ball, as he is entitled to.

In the end, there isn't much you can do, though, if the refs are one-sided. Walt Coleman, Walt Coleman -- now where have I heard that name?

Thanks again.

Making PI calls reviewable would accomplish exactly what?

If it were called at all for the ticky tacky calls, would review show there was "unequivocally" no contact at all? Probably not in most cases. If there was absolutely no contact, then it would be overturned. This is a tiny number of the objectionable calls. If review showed incidental contact, but nevertheless contact, how do you present "incontrovertible evidence" to overturn?

You can't.

Not with out a choice for flagrant or non flagrant PI calls, to go with it.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I think its a fallacy to call Caldwell our defacto #1. I don't think the Pats have a #1 receiver. As Belichick has said, Brady throws to the guy who is open. The idea that we fans have of typifying the receivers in order of importance doesn't do justice to this offense.

Now, because the Pats don't have a true #1 receiver, its unfair to say that Caldwell's stats don't reflect that of a #1 receiver. While, literally, its correct, the implications are not. We all talk about how players here won't get big numbers in this offense, but then we are overally critical of those same plaers because they don't have the big numbers. You can't have it both ways. Fact is that Caldwell has, for the most part this season, done everything that Givens has done, except according to Stats Inc, Caldwell doesn't have a drop while Givens had 6 last year.

Caldwell was the #3 receiver in San Diego because of injury. Prior to his ACL injury he was a solid #2 pushing Parker for the #1 spot.

Db, my read is that Reche is the #1 WR from the way they use him in a game. Ben has taken over the role of #1 receiver, which bumps Reche to #2, but he is being use more in the Deion Branch role than the David Givens role, which is why I would call him the #1 WR. Not a significant issue for us to gossip about, but a technicality we can squabble over while waiting for those cute wittle kitties to come to town and bore us with their ineptitude.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Making PI calls reviewable would accomplish exactly what?

If it were called at all for the ticky tacky calls, would review show there was "unequivocally" no contact at all? Probably not in most cases. If there was absolutely no contact, then it would be overturned. This is a tiny number of the objectionable calls. If review showed incidental contact, but nevertheless contact, how do you present "incontrovertible evidence" to overturn?

You can't.

Not with out a choice for flagrant or non flagrant PI calls, to go with it.

I think it would accomplish something -- not everything, but something.

In the case of last Sunday, the non-call on the facemask guarding could have been overturned by "indisputable visual evidence". In other cases, it would be possible for the referee to say that, although there was contact, the back was going for the ball with his head turned. Both of those things came up on Sunday and they don't strike me as having less strong evidence than some of the reviewable calls.

By the way, I can't understand your last sentence. Can you explain it, please?

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I think its a fallacy to call Caldwell our defacto #1. I don't think the Pats have a #1 receiver. As Belichick has said, Brady throws to the guy who is open. The idea that we fans have of typifying the receivers in order of importance doesn't do justice to this offense.

Now, because the Pats don't have a true #1 receiver, its unfair to say that Caldwell's stats don't reflect that of a #1 receiver. While, literally, its correct, the implications are not. We all talk about how players here won't get big numbers in this offense, but then we are overally critical of those same plaers because they don't have the big numbers. You can't have it both ways. Fact is that Caldwell has, for the most part this season, done everything that Givens has done, except according to Stats Inc, Caldwell doesn't have a drop while Givens had 6 last year.

Caldwell was the #3 receiver in San Diego because of injury. Prior to his ACL injury he was a solid #2 pushing Parker for the #1 spot.

I didn't say he was the defacto number 1, but the 'default' #1. Meaning he has caught the most balls because he has caught the most balls. But it does appear that he is being asked to fill the defacto #1 role if you look at the way they use him.

Watson is the 'default' #1 TE right now, because he is the guy that is ranked #1 in stats for TE. And it looks like he is being used like a WR to me on some plays. He clearly seems to be the defacto #1 TE.

I like Caldwell for what he is. I liked Patten when he was here. I liked Givens. I liked Tim Dwight. I liked Marc Edwards. I liked Antwain Smith. I liked a lot of guys who did what they could for this team.

I just am not ready to put Caldwell in an elite class of WRs. I would like to have a Derrick Mason type of guy on this team, and apparently so would Bioli.

I think Caldwell will be a solid team player for us for a long time. I just think we can do better at the #1 WR position.

I would not be surprised if Caldwell is a career Patriot, the type of mid level player that suits this team in value as well as utility. That would be fine with me.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

1. Especially on the Bears' side of the ball, the defenses created turnovers. Corey said after this game it was an ugly game, but a W -- but I saw (yeah someone mentioned Briggs) balls stripped or punched loose, guys that had moved past the usual tip drill to some sort of fusion of football and beach volleyball, and just basically opportunistic D. Okay, then there were the inept turnovers too... but there was much more D going on than the 5-4 turnover story would lead you to believe.

2. Based on the bulletin boards here and over in Bearsland, I can conclude that the NFL's officiating is eggregiously biased toward both teams.

The lesson: there's no conspiracy. You get some calls, they get others. Yeah, as a Pats fan I had the same reaction as you... and then when I read the Bears' fans' board, I realized there were those "whew, we got away with one" calls that I minimized in my own mind. Of course, they're even MORE rabid about how they "was robbed", since they lost. You know what? You want to minimize the impact of HUMAN officials? You want to be bad-call-proof?

Then leave no doubt. Play 2 touchdowns better, as you said... Do what it takes. There's no conspiracy in favor of 1 team or another, the officials are human, and that's that. It's W or L... ask the "super bowl champion" Seattle Seahawks. Consider bad calls like slippery turf or a sudden downpour when you need 89 yards in 45 seconds on the clock. An obstacle you have to beat sometimes. Other times, the other team has to deal with it.

3. We can string together one good game against a tough opponent in a row. Seriously, this should be the toughest game left in the season, and by all logic, we should run the table. I doubt this will happen, however -- somebody can always pull the upset.

4. Check out other teams' schedules, especially Chiefs and Donks, and one thing becomes apparent: the Bungles and the JEST are far from an afterthought -- especially the JEST, who have some cake games coming up.

(Good post by the way... just adding)

PFnV

 

[shmessy]

Let's all put this Caldwell-Givens thing in context at THIS 2006 moment:

Givens: Games played - 8, Rec-8, Yds-104, Avg-13.0, TDs-0, cap hit (I ain't Miguel, but I'll estimate approx. $6 million)

Caldwell: Games played - 11, Rec-38, Yds-462, Avg-12.2, TDs-3, cap hit (according to Miguel - $906,160).

Advantage Belioli.

 

[DaBruinz]

I didn't say he was the defacto number 1, but the 'default' #1. Meaning he has caught the most balls because he has caught the most balls. But it does appear that he is being asked to fill the defacto #1 role if you look at the way they use him.

Watson is the 'default' #1 TE right now, because he is the guy that is ranked #1 in stats for TE. And it looks like he is being used like a WR to me on some plays. He clearly seems to be the defacto #1 TE.

I like Caldwell for what he is. I liked Patten when he was here. I liked Givens. I liked Tim Dwight. I liked Marc Edwards. I liked Antwain Smith. I liked a lot of guys who did what they could for this team.

I just am not ready to put Caldwell in an elite class of WRs. I would like to have a Derrick Mason type of guy on this team, and apparently so would Bioli.

I think Caldwell will be a solid team player for us for a long time. I just think we can do better at the #1 WR position.

I would not be surprised if Caldwell is a career Patriot, the type of mid level player that suits this team in value as well as utility. That would be fine with me.

I don't think anyone is going to say that Caldwell is amongst the ELITE of the WRs in the NFL. I know I haven't. All I have said is that he has done as good as Givens did, except that Caldwell doesn't have the drops that Givens did.