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

Tom Brady, have you seen him play?


Status
Not open for further replies.

dryheat44

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
6,351
Reaction score
78
I would like to take this opportunity to try an squash a feeling out there among some of us. Namely, that the Patriots need another receiver.

We are fortuitous (that means lucky, says Josie Marcus) to have playing in Foxboro an elite quarterback. This elite quarterback is among the best at delivering the ball where it needs to go in order for the gentlemen receiving said ball to make a play. Let's look at some recent history:

Was David Patten anything but an average receiver in his career before Brady started throwing him the rock? Was he even average last year in year one of his post-Brady career?

Do we have any evidence that David Givens is anything but an average receiver, made to look above-average due to a good quarterback?

With all due respect to Mr. Patriot Troy Brown, is there any reason to believe that he would have been nearly as productive the last three years with a quarterback of lesser talents?

The Patriots WR corps is going to be just as good with a lineup of Branch, Caldwell, Brown, Jackson, Childress as it's been in the last five years. Re-watch the Eagles Super Bowl game some time, and count how many passes Brady threw in that game that didn't hit a receiver in the hands, on stride. Very few. Any WR with the physical talent to play in the NFL, who can run precise routes and has good hands, is going to look like a Pro-Bowler with Brady throwing the ball.

We might be having this discussion again this year, if Branch hasn't been re-signed yet.
 
Assuming either Caldwell or Johnson can fill the role of #2 WR, I'd say we're set, barring injury.

Its just the top 3 WRs that are going to get the bulk of the catches - we had a serious situation before if we were expecting and assuming Caldwell could do what he never has done before and claim the #2 spot, but Jackson gives us some significant insurance now

I'm sure our TEs and RBs will have plenty of catches too (not to mention our LBs!) - but you still need a credible deep threat to stretch the field and open things up for the short/mid range passes
 
Exactly see some qbs only need a few viable options..Brady gets like 4 or 5 reads to find the most open receiver..Thats why we just need receivers that can catch open balls...not superstars that have to leap 6 feet in to the air in triple coverage...See with lesser talent like say Favre..he makes one read sees the guys triple covered looks down field and sees the next guy is in man to man..so he throws it to his first read...cause hes a gunslinger(although it seems alot of his bullets must ricochet cause they come right back at him)Now The Michael Vick experience needs only one receiver as well.He drops back He runs and if they stop his running toss it to Alge Crumpler.That'll do pig That'll do.
 
dryheat44 said:
Do we have any evidence that David Givens is anything but an average receiver, made to look above-average due to a good quarterback?
No evidence, but it will get real interesting if next season Givens is average and Caldwell s magnificent.

I think Brady is, as you say, exceedingly accurate, so the key may be route running. Give him a guy who can run accurate routes and Brady will hit him.

Give him Donald Hayes and no way. It wasn't that Hayes was a bad WR. He did well with the Panthers. But not with the Pats.

Edit: WR must also be good at reading and interpreting defenses. This may be even morekey, as the Pats shift routes depending on coverages. That is why BB perhaps BB goes after certain receivers. Since he was so hot for Jackson, maybe he sees Jackson as a good route runner, good defense reader, and fast.
 
Last edited:
dryheat44 said:
Was David Patten anything but an average receiver in his career before Brady started throwing him the rock? Was he even average last year in year one of his post-Brady career?

Do we have any evidence that David Givens is anything but an average receiver, made to look above-average due to a good quarterback?

This is why I think Brady needs to get a cut out of these guys' FA contracts! He does make people around him better. It's what Jordan did with the other Bulls players in their championship run in the 90's.
 
dryheat44 said:
I would like to take this opportunity to try an squash a feeling out there among some of us. Namely, that the Patriots need another receiver.

What you talkin 'bout DryHeat?



dryheat44 said:
Do we have any evidence that David Givens is anything but an average receiver, made to look above-average due to a good quarterback?

I would call Givens an above average WR based on his YAC and blocking.

dryheat44 said:
The Patriots WR corps is going to be just as good with a lineup of Branch, Caldwell, Brown, Jackson, Childress as it's been in the last five years.

I think the Pats could use some depth at receiver. An injury to Branch would be devastating. Although, it may not have helped much this year, I really wanted the Pats to take another WR in the draft. I'd would have liked to see Stovall, Avant, Hass, or Nance on the roster as well.
 
spacecrime said:
No evidence, but it will get real interesting if next season Givens is average and Caldwell s magnificent.

I think Brady is, as you say, exceedingly accurate, so the key may be route running. Give him a guy who can run accurate routes and Brady will hit him.

Give him Donald Hayes and no way. It wasn't that Hayes was a bad WR. He did well with the Panthers. But not with the Pats.

Edit: WR must also be good at reading and interpreting defenses. This may be even morekey, as the Pats shift routes depending on coverages. That is why BB perhaps BB goes after certain receivers. Since he was so hot for Jackson, maybe he sees Jackson as a good route runner, good defense reader, and fast.

I agree with all the above with one added point....getting separation. The receiver has to not only run the route but sell it and get open. I think that's the key quickness and burst that BB's looking for as apposed to just being able to run fast(aka Bethel).
 
spacecrime said:
Edit: WR must also be good at reading and interpreting defenses. This may be even morekey, as the Pats shift routes depending on coverages. That is why BB perhaps BB goes after certain receivers. Since he was so hot for Jackson, maybe he sees Jackson as a good route runner, good defense reader, and fast.


This is a very good point, and I think it may separate Branch from the rest. All WRs should be able to improvise a route on the fly and be on the same page as the QB, but Branch seems to do this exceedingly well.

You also bring up a point with Hayes that I neglected to. The Patriots certainly do have a complex offense. Guys with learning disabilities probably aren't going to do well. And Charles Johnson didn't do so well here, though he was certainly an average receiver. Of course, Brady wasn't nearly as good back then.
 
dryheat44 said:
The Patriots WR corps is going to be just as good with a lineup of Branch, Caldwell, Brown, Jackson, Childress as it's been in the last five years. Re-watch the Eagles Super Bowl game some time, and count how many passes Brady threw in that game that didn't hit a receiver in the hands, on stride. Very few. Any WR with the physical talent to play in the NFL, who can run precise routes and has good hands, is going to look like a Pro-Bowler with Brady throwing the ball.
makes one yearn for the days of the-not-so-distant-past when Drew would be a throwin' those balls behind and down to receivers goin'over the middle like it was the way the route was designed, you know what I mean?

gawd, I miss him.
 
dryheat44 said:
We are fortuitous (that means lucky, says Josie Marcus) to have playing in Foxboro an elite quarterback.

Who is Josie Marcus? My college insurance professor would roll over in his grave (if he were dead) every time he hears the word fortuitous misused. It means "happening by chance".
 
MagicMarker said:
Who is Josie Marcus? My college insurance professor would roll over in his grave (if he were dead) every time he hears the word fortuitous misused. It means "happening by chance".

It's a line from Tombstone. She uses the word, and assumes Wyatt Earp doesn't know what it means.

As for the misuse, unfortunately usage dictates what a word means, and not the other way around. I've rarely heard anybody use the words moot or ironic in their correct applications.
 
I think the WR corp is more than adequate. You add in TE Graham (he had 7 TDs the year before-- I think he'll be back in form this year), and of course, the pass catching RBs, and Tom should have another stellar year. I'm not concerned at all about the WRs. They are good route runners, and have good hands. And Tom will make a decent WR corp look great.
 
GayBrady said:
I think the WR corp is more than adequate. You add in TE Graham (he had 7 TDs the year before-- I think he'll be back in form this year), and of course, the pass catching RBs, and Tom should have another stellar year. I'm not concerned at all about the WRs. They are good route runners, and have good hands. And Tom will make a decent WR corp look great.
I know i am just one person on here, but can u stop posting the Tom Brady Brokeback Mountain pictures? Thank you.
 
dryheat44 said:
As for the misuse, unfortunately usage dictates what a word means, and not the other way around.
Generaly accepted usage. You and I cannot change a word's meaning my misusing it. I think it is usage by PGRAI (People Generally Regarded As Intelligent)

****************
from dictionary.com:

for·tu·i·tous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôr-t-ts, -ty-)
adj.
Happening by accident or chance. See Synonyms at accidental.

Usage Problem.
Happening by a fortunate accident or chance.
Lucky or fortunate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin fortutus. See bher-1 in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for·tui·tous·ly adv.
for·tui·tous·ness n.

Usage Note: In its best-established sense, fortuitous means “happening by accident or chance.” Thus, a fortuitous meeting may have either fortunate or unfortunate consequences. For decades, however, the word has often been used in reference to happy accidents, as in The company's profits were enhanced as the result of a fortuitous drop in the cost of paper. This use may have arisen because fortuitous resembles both fortunate and felicitous. Whatever its origin, the use is well established in the writing of reputable authors. ·The additional use of fortuitous to mean “lucky or fortunate,” is more controversial, as in He came to the Giants in June as the result of a fortuitous trade that sent two players back to the Reds. This use dates back at least to the 1920s, when H.W. Fowler labeled it a malapropism, but it is still widely regarded as incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Keegs said:
I know i am just one person on here, but can u stop posting the Tom Brady Brokeback Mountain pictures? Thank you.
He has already been asked, but you know how it is. Maybe when his mother catches him playing with the computer...
 
Keegs said:
I know i am just one person on here, but can u stop posting the Tom Brady Brokeback Mountain pictures? Thank you.

Do what I do. Put him on ignore. No more pictures. ;)
 
From KC Joyner's book, Scientific Football: 2005, here's what he said about Brady after the 2004 season. SF:2006 will be released in June/July...

A good portion of the feedback has come from people who say the article explains why the Patriots receivers aren't good fantasy players, so I thought I would run the article here and expound a bit on it:

"One of the reasons the Patriots offense is so damn good is that they have a clear idea of what it is they are trying to do not only with each player, but also with each unit. As I've pointed out many times in this book, there are many teams who have schemes that they try to force onto players who simply don't have the proper skill set to run it. The Patriots don't have to do this on offense in large part because of Tom Brady.

"Everyone likes to talk about Brady's leadership, his grace under pressure or his 'big-game ability.' That's all fine and dandy, but you know that I don't deal in that kind of mumbo-jumbo when it comes to player analysis.

"There are four specific skills that Tom Brady has that separate him from the rest of the league. He has no fear in the pocket, he finds the open receiver, he's accurate with the pass and he doesn't make bad decisions. I can't tell you how few NFL quarterbacks have all four of these skills, and no NFL quarterback has all four in the abundance Tom Brady does. The benefits these traits offer are sometimes so subtle that they require additional emphasis.

"I've broken down nearly every New England game from the past two seasons, and I have yet to find a time when Brady felt the pass rush. What I mean by this is that Brady always maintains his downfield vision, even when the pocket is collapsing. He also has the same ability Joe Montana had in making the first pass rusher miss.

"He has an instinctive feel for where the pocket is. He can also adjust to the pocket's movement without having to take his eyes off of looking downfield, and he seems to almost always move with the pocket at just the right time. This is something so many quarterbacks are taught but so few can do well, and Brady is simply the best at it.

"Brady also finds the open receiver. That sounds simple enough, but Brady's pocket presence actually makes this trait even more valuable. Because Brady is so good at buying time in the pocket, and because he has such an intense focus on how the play is developing, he is able to look at third and fourth receivers more often than any other quarterback.
"One of the ingenious things the Patriots coaches do to take advantage of this is to allow all of their receivers to run routes at all depths. Take a look at the Pats receivers and look at their pass depth distribution.

"Every single one of their receivers was used frequently on every depth level. It isn't that their receivers are so great at running routes, although they aren't bad. It's simply that the Patriots realize Brady will find the third and fourth receivers, and they don't want to limit what those receivers can do. It's not only that Brady does a great job of seeing the field. It's also that the Pats coaches have found a way to maximize the value of that skill set.

"Even though his bad decision percentages were high, Brady doesn't typically make poor decisions. He made 12 poor decisions in 19 games, but three of them came in the Monday night game at Miami. Those three plays also accounted for 11 out of the 24 weighted poor-decision points Brady had all year, so if you subtract that one poor game, you have nine poor decisions and 12 poor-decision points in 18 games. Now that's damn good.

"New England also has a very clear idea of what role they want their passing game to serve in their overall offensive philosophy. When the Patriots pass, they want to do one of two things. They either want to use the passing game to augment their running game, or they want to get vertical. The best way to illustrate this is by their percentage of short, medium and deep passes.

"The Patriots had the lowest percentage of short passes in the entire league, and there's a clear reason for this. Their short passing game is simply a tool to accomplish three things: 1) To keep defenses from putting eight defenders in the box; 2) To make sure the defense backs don't stay too far off the line to cheat for the deeper passes; and 3) As a checkoff in the event the deep pass isn't open. The Pats also run a very safe short passing game. Brady only had one poor decision on a short pass all year, and that was in the Miami Monday night game.

"The Patriots also ranked second in medium pass percentage and fourth in deep pass percentage. I haven't looked at the combined percentages for these metrics for the entire league, but I'd have to think that this probably makes them either No. 1 or a close No. 2.

"The disparity of short and vertical passes clearly illustrates the Patriots passing game philosophy. When the Pats pass short, they are going to be certain they don't make mistakes on it. They are more willing to make mistakes on vertical passes.

"What I mean by this is that the Patriots seem to have a risk/reward ratio in mind when they pass the ball. They won't take any chances on short passes because the risk far outweighs the reward. They are much more willing to take chances on deeper passes because the reward is higher. Again, they have a very clear idea of what their passing philosophy is. You'd be amazed how many teams don't have this philosophical clarity.

"The clarity of pass depth use provides the answer as to how to stop them, and it was Brady himself who pointed this out to John Madden and Al Michaels before the Miami Monday night game. Brady said he always struggles against Miami because it does two things. They play tight man coverage with their cornerbacks, and they keep their safeties deep. Or to put it another way, they do some of the same things to New England's offense that New England's defense does to other teams. Their deep safeties take away the vertical passes and their tight man coverage takes away the shorter passes. The Pats ended up having to target the Miami linebackers, as the Dolphins coverage scheme put the linebackers in man coverage situations, but it still slowed New England's offense down tremendously.

"The Patriots coaches get a lot of credit for their ingenious playcalling and scheme management, but on offense Tom Brady should get just as much credit. The synergy of Brady's skills and the Patriots skill maximization philosophy has simply made each of them better than they should be. It truly is the subtlety of genius."
 
Brady-To-Branch said:
From KC Joyner's book, Scientific Football: 2005, here's what he said about Brady after the 2004 season. SF:2006 will be released in June/July...

Interesting perspective! Thanks for posting it!
 
spacecrime said:
Generaly accepted usage. You and I cannot change a word's meaning my misusing it. I think it is usage by PGRAI (People Generally Regarded As Intelligent)

****************
from dictionary.com:

for·tu·i·tous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôr-t-ts, -ty-)
adj.
Happening by accident or chance. See Synonyms at accidental.

Usage Problem.
Happening by a fortunate accident or chance.
Lucky or fortunate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin fortutus. See bher-1 in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for·tui·tous·ly adv.
for·tui·tous·ness n.

Usage Note: In its best-established sense, fortuitous means “happening by accident or chance.†Thus, a fortuitous meeting may have either fortunate or unfortunate consequences. For decades, however, the word has often been used in reference to happy accidents, as in The company's profits were enhanced as the result of a fortuitous drop in the cost of paper. This use may have arisen because fortuitous resembles both fortunate and felicitous. Whatever its origin, the use is well established in the writing of reputable authors. ·The additional use of fortuitous to mean “lucky or fortunate,†is more controversial, as in He came to the Giants in June as the result of a fortuitous trade that sent two players back to the Reds. This use dates back at least to the 1920s, when H.W. Fowler labeled it a malapropism, but it is still widely regarded as incorrect.

Thank you, spacecrime. You've stopped me preparing a rant about another useful distinction of meaning being overwhelmed by the ignorance of the yahoos -- and if a character in a movie is supposed to demonstrate her erudition by misusing the word in this way, then it is truly depressing. (By the way, do people who think that there is no difference between "fortunate" and "fortuitous" also think that some things are "un-fortuitous"?)
 
Mike the Brit said:
Thank you, spacecrime. You've stopped me preparing a rant about another useful distinction of meaning being overwhelmed by the ignorance of the yahoos -- and if a character in a movie is supposed to demonstrate her erudition by misusing the word in this way, then it is truly depressing. (By the way, do people who think that there is no difference between "fortunate" and "fortuitous" also think that some things are "un-fortuitous"?)

...and don't get me started on ultimate
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Patriots Kraft ‘Involved’ In Decision Making?  Zolak Says That’s Not the Case
MORSE: Final First Round Patriots Mock Draft
Slow Starts: Stark Contrast as Patriots Ponder Which Top QB To Draft
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/24: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/23: News and Notes
MORSE: Final 7 Round Patriots Mock Draft, Matthew Slater News
Bruschi’s Proudest Moment: Former LB Speaks to MusketFire’s Marshall in Recent Interview
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/22: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-21, Kraft-Belichick, A.J. Brown Trade?
MORSE: Patriots Draft Needs and Draft Related Info
Back
Top