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

[PatsBoy12]

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.

Yeah. That's one of the points to me saying it. It just seems like the general idea is that the Pats must go 16-0 for the season to be a success. I was saying all year in 2007 that I wanted them to lose at least one game. I didn't care for undefeated until the SB when it looked like it would happen. That game was the first time all season that I allowed myself to think of the perfect season, and we all know all too painfully well how that game turned out.

I like the loss (as much as anyone can like a loss), as I think it will refocus the team. BB has some good teaching material. I think we'll see a much better product in the coming weeks, whether we win or lose. The Cardinals played a heck of a football game, and the Patriots had no answers.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

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).

Not today, though: Edelman was 5 for 6, including two for first downs.

 

[1%er]

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.

Only so many Nicks and Cruz's. Eli is lucky to have them.

 

[RIpats88]

the whole reason I thought the pats loaded up at WR depth this off-season was so that they werent crippled by one player going down like they were in the superbowl when gronk was ineffective..

unfortunately, it seems BB banked on Hernandez(who hasnt played a full season yet) to be fully healthy...so now, we are stuck with Edelman as our #3 WR??

we need to get Branch and/or gaffney back..

I think we can get by with Lloyd/welker/Gronk/Gaffney(and or branch)

 

[mgteich]

Isn't the solution to have the team in the hurry-up much more often and to have Welker and Gronk on the field almost 100% of the time?

I don't understand why Welker is sitting.

 

[BananaRepublican]

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. .

Waited for him to be released.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Isn't the solution to have the team in the hurry-up much more often and to have Welker and Gronk on the field almost 100% of the time?

I don't understand why Welker is sitting.

Neither do I, Mg. We've heard everything from a possible concussion in the preseason (not far-fetched) to they phasing him out and trying to show him then don't need him (more outlandish, but not impossible). I don't know if anyone outside the organization really knows what's up. Whatever it is, though, it's weird and the offense has looked out of sync. I felt the same way even after the week 1 win. I was just so in love with the balance that it didn't matter enough to me to make a big deal out of it. That's what a loss is for.lol

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Isn't the solution to have the team in the hurry-up much more often and to have Welker and Gronk on the field almost 100% of the time?

I don't understand why Welker is sitting.

TFB has pointed out that it's almost as taxing on the OL as on the D. They can only do no-huddle/hurry-up so much in any one game.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

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.

Apparently you didn't get the memo. It's Lloyd and Edelman for some reason.

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?

I never saw it. And he certainly didn't beat out Welker. For some reason Deion was signed and then not allowed to practice much and not featured in preseason until the end. Even though once he was the media claimed he looked just fine. Welker disappeared after his uncle died and no one has explained that. He was still the best receiver in camp by all accounts. Bill is supposed to be big on competition, only this years almost seems as if it was rigged.

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

Under the circumstances unless he can be active on game day he might as well be on the PS - or the shadow roster.

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.

We have too many developmental players on the 53 on both sides of the ball and it's coming back to bite us.

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.

A good idea? We could also use a roster upgrade on the game day OL.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Waited for him to be released.

They traded for him. A 2015 draft pick... Might have had to trade a 2014 pick to get him sooner. Or they could have waited for him to be cut. But then Branch would probably still be here.

 

[Sciz]

Not today, though: Edelman was 5 for 6, including two for first downs.

Are you including the tipped pick as his sixth? That'd make Edelman 5 for 5 on catchable balls.

 

[borg]

Sorry if this is already contained in this thread....
Reiss writes...."Brady was 3-for-12 for 80 yards on throws of at least 15 yards downfield. He’s 6-for-19 on such throws through the first two games. Brady connected on 51 percent of his 15-plus yard throws last season. "

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Sorry if this is already contained in this thread....
Reiss writes...."Brady was 3-for-12 for 80 yards on throws of at least 15 yards downfield. He’s 6-for-19 on such throws through the first two games. Brady connected on 51 percent of his 15-plus yard throws last season. "

no doubt he is off...but it will com around

 

[Sciz]

One more thing. I hate threads that say "let get a player who fits these attributes."

Name players. Name what you would do to get them. I know the original post mentioned both Bowe and Marshall, but the Pats can't afford to fit the $9+ million salary of either of those guys under their cap and still have enough room for injury replacements. Then there's the questions about how they'd fit in the offense (neither is a guy I have much trust in), and how the Pats would acquire them.

I need to see more names before people criticize the Pats for this.

 

[Jangles]

This has been the case for years.

Nothing new here.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry if this is already contained in this thread....
Reiss writes...."Brady was 3-for-12 for 80 yards on throws of at least 15 yards downfield. He’s 6-for-19 on such throws through the first two games. Brady connected on 51 percent of his 15-plus yard throws last season. "

If Lloyd catches those 2 bombs, Brady is 8 for 19 for something over 200 yards. I don't see an issue here, beyond the Brady/Lloyd connection still being a work in progress.

 

[Mack Herron]

They really do not have the speed at WR to threaten the edge of the defense or the OL to consistently protect, and the few times they get someone open out there, Brady cannot connect. It is an invitation for opposing teams to take risks and challenge the Patriots to beat them over the top. Until they do, I think you will see our opponents defending 15 yards of the field. My biggest worry is not at WR or QB though, because I think they have been better than what they have shown. My big concern is they are weak on the OL and also very thin. Today, RG was a big problem (Connolly dressed but did not play), Vollmer is evidently not healthy enough to play an entire game, and Cannon and Solder are mediocre. It is a far cry from last year's line, and Brady has no binky when the walls close in. Josh had better figure it out by next week or they will be 1-2.

 

[satz]

Perfect plan. the OL cannot protect brady , time to call some 7 step drop .....brilliant

today the 3rd WR put up 5 catches for 95 yrds.... when is the last time our 3rd wr put that number?

satz

 

[Reckedtrek]

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

Don't go slinging that excuse for Red Sox Nation around in this Pats forum. There is NO curse. And as far as The Red Sox there never was one. It's easy to blame failure on some random mumbo jumbo garbage BS and say "we're cursed". Bull****! You're good enough or you're not.

The curse excuse is for people (and teams) who choose not to accept responsibility of their failures and their willingness to try harder the next time. End of story.