Tom Brady is getting older now: we need help at WR

[Deus Irae]

Here's an explanation---it's not 2004. It's not even 2007. Branch Gaffney and Stallworth can't play anymore. Better to have a developmental player like Salas who could one day be good in the final WR slot than an over the hill player who will never again be good.

Covered this:

Either Branch and Gaffney are completely done or BB screwed up the WR corps. This isn't really news.

QBs who throw the ball do better with better receivers to catch the ball. This isn't really news.

Brady's age has nothing to do with it.

 

[LetsGoPats36]

I would have titled it, "Josh has too many toys... Needs higher dosage of Adderall"

 

[1%er]

You are entitled to your apparent opinion that Lloyd and Salas are not adequate replacements for Branch and Ochocinco.

With Hernandez out for awhile, I expect us to pick up a veteran as a backup. Maybe Gaffney and Branch are completely done, perhaps not. The judgement was that they are not worth much to the 2012 team. Did you see great 2012 practices or preseason action by them to convince you that either is worth anything at all in 2012, other than a speed-dial potential backup in case of injury?

Lloyd is a much better then Ocho. Lloyd is a very good WR and has been impressive.

I just question Salas, Hoomanawanui, and Hillard being part of the roster. Those are 3 roster spots that could of been dedicated to WR depth. Having another outside receiver is not critical in most of are games but in situations like today when you're trying to comeback it is very helpful.

 

[Ring 6]

Either Branch and Gaffney are completely done or BB screwed up the WR corps. This isn't really news.

QBs who throw the ball do better with better receivers to catch the ball. This isn't really news.

Brady's age has nothing to do with it.

With the other possibility being that Gaffney is unofficially the 54th man on the roster, ready to join the team when he is healthy, although the liklihood of that seems to be decreasing.

 

[LetsGoPats36]

For a guy I assumed was a blocking TE, Hamsandwich hasn't done much to impress in that area.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Wow, this one is new. Usually, there are all kinds of other reasons why the Pats lost. This is the first where a loss was blamed on Brady's age.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Mgteich made a great point. With AH out, Gronk/Lloyd/Welker is still one of the best receiving groups in the league. The problem today was deciding too late to attack through the air, and Edelman playing too much.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Lloyd is a much better then Ocho. Lloyd is a very good WR and has been impressive.

I just question Salas, Hoomanawanui, and Hillard being part of the roster. Those are 3 roster spots that could of been dedicated to WR depth. Having another outside receiver is not critical in most of are games but in situations like today when you're trying to comeback it is very helpful.

I question why Salas was even brought in when he was at this point. The complexity of the offense is often talked about and we've seen some struggle to pick it up. If that's truly the case, then why wait so long to bring the guy in, especially after cutting Branch and Gaffney. You have to think that both of those guys know the offense better than Salas. He was dressed last week, but I don't know if he was this week. Either way, someone said that Josh was trying to turn the Pats into the Rams, and I can't disagree with it at this point.

I'm not jumping on the bandwagon of people saying Josh sucks. I just don't buy it. Every team is going to have a bad game here and there. Baltimore lost today after everyone was crowning them champs after week one. Joe Flacco was suddenly the next greatest NFL QB and all that too. Any given Sunday should be more than just a saying. It's true.

I'm starting to believe more and more that the 16-0 season was a curse. Every NE fan expects it with each draft pick, FA signing, and other offseason move. We even had the media calling for an undefeated season. Guys, the reason why 2007 was so special is because it doesn't happen every season. If it did (and I know some teams have come extremely close - Indy and GB), then it wouldn't be such a special thing. There was a time when gaining 1,000 yards rushing was a feat, but now it's done so much that getting just 1,000 is not that special. That was probably not the best analogy, but you get the point.

 

[Deus Irae]

With the other possibility being that Gaffney is unofficially the 54th man on the roster, ready to join the team when he is healthy, although the liklihood of that seems to be decreasing.

Having one of those guys around for an injury substitution was one of the arguments made in favor of keeping them, and then for re-signing them after week one after they were cut. Unless they're done or both unable to play (and I've seen nothing that says Branch is too injured to play), BB screwed the pooch. This is last year's safety screw up all over again, only worse because he should have known better.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, this discussion is about the 3rd, 4th and 5th WR "spots". Yes, this is a worthy subject, given the poor performance by the wideouts, and given the injury to Hernandez.

IMHO, the 5th (and 6th) didn't exist last year. Edelman was a punt returner and an emergency wide receiver. Our TE's are expected to be receivers.

Let's make a simplistic breakdown.

TOP 2 RECEIVERS
We both are fine with Welker and Lloyd instead of Welker and Branch.

NUMBER THREE
Edelman beat out Branch, Gaffney and Stallworth for the #3 WR position (and is hopefully an upgrade over Ochocinco last year). Do you disagree?

NUMBER FOUR
We've used this spot for developmental prospect Salas. This seems an upgrade over Price and Underwood.

NUMBER FIVE
IMHO, this position doesn't really need to exist. Josh has chosen to have 3 TE's and 3 WR's on the active roster, with one of each on the inactive roster. That being said, I am 100% fine with using a roster spot for a 5th WR instead of a 16th front seven defensive player. I have posted this position often. We don't need to have Francis AND Forston AND Rivera on the 53 man squad.

In any case, with Hernandez injured, presumably Fells will be active if he is healthy. The question is whether we need to sign a wide receiver and have him active. I would say that this would be a good idea. I have no particular insight with regard to whether Gaffney, Branch or Stallworth are worth signing.

Since I didn't make that argument, perhaps you could avoid putting such arguments in my proverbial mouth. The issue isn't about Lloyd, as you know since we discussed this all bloody offseason. This is about the 3-4-5 WRs. You may think that carrying what seems to be 444 D-linemen is more important than having quality players at WR who would see time in a regular game and in case of injury. I think having legitimate WRs backing up the outside WRs is more important than carrying the stiffs that currently reside on the bottom of this team's roster.



You know better than making this argument about veterans. I didn't need to see any preseason action of the nature you're talking about. Brady didn't show much either. I didn't notice him getting cut.

Jeez. Going that far to make a point about an argument I never made in the first place.... There's so much more on the board for you to focus on.

 

[RIpats88]

honestly, im expecting the pats to bring in either/or Branch/Gaffney within the coming days...no one has signed either of them..

have gaffney/branch line up outside with welker/gronk in the slot

 

[Bhelmet]

We needed a turnover to have a shot and the D gave us that - that was CLUTCH. Just like SB's could not close.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I'm starting to believe more and more that the 16-0 season was a curse.

I dare say that no other team in the history of football has ever had national media openly question whether or not the coach has "lost his edge" simply because his team managed to lose two games in a row.

 

[DocHoliday]

I think what OP means is that he'd like one of those 6'5 receivers that don't need the ball between their numbers to catch them.

Eli's got two guys he can toss up balls to with a decent chance of getting huge gains. Brady doesn't like allowing his receivers to make plays, and even with Lloyd he rarely has an opportunity to do so.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I have no particular insight with regard to whether Gaffney, Branch or Stallworth are worth signing.

I would take any of them, if not injured, over Hilliard.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Having one of those guys around for an injury substitution was one of the arguments made in favor of keeping them, and then for re-signing them after week one after they were cut. Unless they're done or both unable to play (and I've seen nothing that says Branch is too injured to play), BB screwed the pooch. This is last year's safety screw up all over again, only worse because he should have known better.

I normally don't rush to the front of the line in terms of question a BB decision. The guy just has a track record of making calls that seem crazy to everyone else work in the team's favor. However, I'm still struggling to see the sense in releasing both Branch and Gaffney (Branch more). Even after the impressive win last week, I thought Branch was going to get a call. It didn't happen. His knowledge of the offense and rapport with Brady would have been invaluable today.

I am not on the "I hate Edelman" bandwagon, but he's just not a reliable enough WR in the NFL. He provides tons of versatility, but he is not a consistent threat to a defense and I've seen more incompletions than completions when he's targeted. I am just really confused about what's going on with the WR position. The cuts were all head-scratchers. The lack of playing time for Welker has been puzzling as well. Something about this offense just seems off, even with the balance (which I love).

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Bill and Josh seemed to put most of their eggs in one basket, the one the two headed TE's were carrying. While I agree it's good to have depth at the position - and I said so last season when we didn't have any, you're never going to replace either one of them in kind let alone with guys stored on inactive or IR. Would have been nice if Plan B involved WR depth out of the gate and/or stabilizing the OL. I like Ridley a lot, but he isn't going to replace one of the TE's either unless he gets a lot more realistic opportunities blocking wise. He's making the most of the ones he's been given. Even Woody did in the end, until his one decent shot all day was wiped out.

They have to pass and run block more consistently. And execute more consistently. Inability to tempers the no huddle. They need some no huddle veterans. Lloyd will probably be one in time. But for now he remains a work in progress chemistry wise, as his discussion with Brady on the bench in the first quarter underscored. Right now he's playing the Branch role and Edleman is playing the Welker role and Welker is coming off the bench to replace Hernandez and nearly saving their bacon. This is like theater of the absurd. Pick up the phone, Bill. Get Deion in and Waters if you still can. Otherwise Brady and Lloyd are never going to get in synch and worst case scenario Mallett's coming in.

And the Edleman experiment just has to end. They had just 15 snaps in "12" personnel (1RB, 2TE, 2WR) after losing Hernandez, but Edleman got 13 of them...Welker just 2.

The start of this season reminds me about the old adage about not making more than one position worse in the effort to replace one guy. I think that's what we're doing to the OL and WR positions. And maybe even to TE since none of the backups can play.

 

[reflexblue]

We need to take some heat off brady and provide him with more big playmaking WR's. I am not talking about change movers like Edelman and Welker....but going after a young WRs with size, speed, and good hands. I understand belichick doesn't covet the Brandon Marshall/Dwayne Bowe type WRs, but we could use one...especially with Hernandez out.

We need an offensive line that isn't Offesive. Like someone i know said, "It all starts in the trenches, always has always will"

 

[1%er]

I question why Salas was even brought in when he was at this point. The complexity of the offense is often talked about and we've seen some struggle to pick it up. If that's truly the case, then why wait so long to bring the guy in, especially after cutting Branch and Gaffney. You have to think that both of those guys know the offense better than Salas. He was dressed last week, but I don't know if he was this week. Either way, someone said that Josh was trying to turn the Pats into the Rams, and I can't disagree with it at this point.

I'm not jumping on the bandwagon of people saying Josh sucks. I just don't buy it. Every team is going to have a bad game here and there. Baltimore lost today after everyone was crowning them champs after week one. Joe Flacco was suddenly the next greatest NFL QB and all that too. Any given Sunday should be more than just a saying. It's true.

I'm starting to believe more and more that the 16-0 season was a curse. Every NE fan expects it with each draft pick, FA signing, and other offseason move. We even had the media calling for an undefeated season. Guys, the reason why 2007 was so special is because it doesn't happen every season. If it did (and I know some teams have come extremely close - Indy and GB), then it wouldn't be such a special thing. There was a time when gaining 1,000 yards rushing was a feat, but now it's done so much that getting just 1,000 is not that special. That was probably not the best analogy, but you get the point.

I am partially glad we lost. I see this game as extremely similar to the Browns game of 2010. We struggled for weeks to establish are offensive identity and that game was able force us to choose a identity. I am optimistic that this game will do the same.

Last year the Bills game was also a eye opening game. Teams need to experience failure sometimes to help them determine their path.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes, this discussion is about the 3rd, 4th and 5th WR "spots". Yes, this is a worthy subject, given the poor performance by the wideouts, and given the injury to Hernandez.

IMHO, the 5th (and 6th) didn't exist last year. Edelman was a punt returner and an emergency wide receiver. Our TE's are expected to be receivers.

Let's make a simplistic breakdown.

TOP 2 RECEIVERS
We both are fine with Welker and Lloyd instead of Welker and Branch.

NUMBER THREE
Edelman beat out Branch, Gaffney and Stallworth for the #3 WR position (and is hopefully an upgrade over Ochocinco last year). Do you disagree?

NUMBER FOUR
We've used this spot for developmental prospect Salas. This seems an upgrade over Price and Underwood.

NUMBER FIVE
IMHO, this position doesn't really need to exist. Josh has chosen to have 3 TE's and 3 WR's on the active roster, with one of each on the inactive roster. That being said, I am 100% fine with using a roster spot for a 5th WR instead of a 16th front seven defensive player. I have posted this position often. We don't need to have Francis AND Forston AND Rivera on the 53 man squad.

In any case, with Hernandez injured, presumably Fells will be active if he is healthy. The question is whether we need to sign a wide receiver and have him active. I would say that this would be a good idea. I have no particular insight with regard to whether Gaffney, Branch or Stallworth are worth signing.

I'm not going to re-fight the arguments that were held all offseason long and into week one in this post-game thread. Anyone who thinks that cutting loose Branch and Gaffney (assuming they weren't completely done) was a good idea is allowed to live with that insane belief. Belichick was apparently stupid enough to believe it, after all.

I'll note that the one of the major things that many of us talked about (injury with no depth because of the cuts) took only until week 2 to occur, and I'll leave it at that.