Too many receivers?

[supafly]

6 non-rookie OL is light, especially when the rooks haven't had an offseason.

3 safeties is light.

3 OLB feels light.

There usually are 2 ST-only guys as well.

That gets us up to 55, although one of the WRs you cited is expendable.

I agree with all of your positions that you see a need for an extra player. OL, S, and OLB needs one more.

FWIW--remember that he only listed 50 players though, I am not sure how you got to 55?

Also, Cannon may be PUP'ed, thus taking care of the OL addition, first taking it back down to 49, then adding in the final OL position to take it back up to 50. That would leave 1 more at S, and 1 more at OLB. That makes 52...there's a possibility (strong IMO) that there is one less ST-only player this yr, leaving us only 2, which are both included. So that takes it up to 54--meaning that we're getting pretty close here.

 

[borg]

Who am I?

Year 1 .....0 receptions
year 2.......0 receptions
year 3.......29
year 4.......67

Who am I?

Year 1.....37
Year 2......7

 

[livinginthe past]

Who am I?

Year 1 .....0 receptions
year 2.......0 receptions
year 3.......29
year 4.......67

I don't know who you are

Who am I?

Year 1.....37
Year 2......7

You are the guy some people think we should cut WWW for!

 

[The Scrizz]

Why does this thread remind me of those "too much pitching threads" I've seen on Sox boards in the past. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TOO MUCH ANYTHING! Especially in July.

 

[supafly]

Who am I?

Year 1 .....0 receptions
year 2.......0 receptions
year 3.......29
year 4.......67

Who am I?

Year 1.....37
Year 2......7

The first one is easy---that's Welker.

The second one is easy too---Edelman.

No way we get rid of Welker, I'm prone to giving Edelman another yr to see if he is closer to yr one or yr two...as I'm just wondering if the change in the offensive philosophy didn't have at least something to do with his lack of productivity last yr. One way or another, he deserves another yr to see what's going on. Did he really lose to confidence of BB and TFB that much where they simply looked past him in terms of playing time? Or did he just not see the field as much due to the trade of Branch and the TE's?

 

[Froob]

Who am I?

Year 1 .....0 receptions
year 2.......0 receptions
year 3.......29
year 4.......67

Who am I?

Year 1.....37
Year 2......7

First one is Welker, second one is edelmen like somebody said already.

 

[supafly]

First one is Welker, second one is edelmen like somebody said already.

That's all I am to you, Froob?

Just a boring old 'somebody?'

 

[Nunchucks]

I think that Tate will be the guy that gets caught in the numbers game if everybody is healthy.

Tate dropped too many balls last year, he didn't seem to be on the same page as Brady and the KR position will not be as important with the rule change.

Price has more speed than Tate, looks like he can catch better and should begin to see some playing time this season.

If it isn't Tate getting the boot, then I would lean towards Julian. However, I am sure things will work themselves out during the course of TC and preseason. Somebody always gets hurt.

 

[BradyManny]

I don't think anyone thought we had too many receivers in 2007. And we won our first 18 games that year. This offseason is sort of feeling like that one. Hopefully the results are similar.

 

[bakes781]

Edelman is out IMO.

Tate is the fastest guy on the team. No way he gets cut.

 

[Nunchucks]

Edelman is out IMO.

Tate is the fastest guy on the team. No way he gets cut.

4.52 in the 40 ain't the fastest guy on the team.
Brandon Tate, North Carolina, NFL Draft - CBSSports.com - NFLDraftScout.com

More quick than fast

 

[Triumph]

The first one is easy---that's Welker.

The second one is easy too---Edelman.

No way we get rid of Welker, I'm prone to giving Edelman another yr to see if he is closer to yr one or yr two...as I'm just wondering if the change in the offensive philosophy didn't have at least something to do with his lack of productivity last yr. One way or another, he deserves another yr to see what's going on. Did he really lose to confidence of BB and TFB that much where they simply looked past him in terms of playing time? Or did he just not see the field as much due to the trade of Branch and the TE's?

Edelman dropped the ball. Bottom line.

Remember the game where he was all alone in the endzone and dropped a bullet from Brady? Was that the Pitt game? He regressed in his 2nd year at WR, but that doesnt mean that he cannot be a good NFL WR like some posters think.

By that logic, the Pats would have given up on BJGE and he would be gone because he struggled in year 2. BB says players take the biggest leap in development in year 2. BJGE certainly did.

 

[Froob]

That's all I am to you, Froob?

Just a boring old 'somebody?'

lol I was posting that before I saw your post. I was talking about livinginthepast saying edelman was the 2nd one. Beat me to the welker.

 

[Sicilian]

Not much I can add to this discussion that hasn't already been said, but the most important points are IMO:

1) Injuries happen in TC and preseason, so even if we have one extra WR that's a good problem to have. Worry about who to cut after the last preseason game, if you're blessed enough to have everyone healthy.

2) If Welker, Ocho, and Branch are all healthy and don't look to have tailed off with age, they're all staying.

3) Realistically, Edelman, Price, and Tate are competing for two spots, and each has their own advantage. Edelman returns punts, Tate returns kicks, and Price has the best raw skills (from what I can tell/have read).

My premature opinion is that Tate will be cut. Edelman provides value at PR and backup slot, and I just have a good feeling about Price and what he can bring potentially. Tate just doesn't look fluid on the field to me, and I may be alone here but I felt he was too inconsistent on KR too. Outside of a couple big ones, he seemed to run to the 20 and get buried too often (granted, I have no evidence that isn't anecdotal from memory).

Anyway, long story short, no. Right now we do not have too many receivers for a training camp roster.

 

[The Scrizz]

Edelman is out IMO.

Tate is the fastest guy on the team. No way he gets cut.

Why don't we have a dislike button?

 

[borg]

My take: Edelperson is Welker insurance considering Welker is in contract year, the importance of the slot position, Welker's age/concussion/injury concerns, Welker's drops in 2010. Edelperson sticks this year and next...signed through 2012 at $525k/yr. No one else could fill the slot role if WW goes down. In other words JE is untouchable.
Branch is in contract year so the Ocho signing can be seen as a bridge to 2012.

 

[Synovia]

Edelman
Tate
Price

That's the 3 you might need to upgrade.

You can't just keep replacing every WR you draft because he isn't Randy-Moss-as-A-rookie.

 

[Two Eight]

Great shape @ WR excellent starters at each position and solid backups too...

X: Branch, Price
Y: Welker, Edelman
Z: Johnson, Tate

 

[mgteich]

We have room on the roster for a total of 13 RB's, TE's, WR's and returnes. We NEED 3 RB's, 2 TE's, and 4 WR's. That leaves 4 positions.

Many have suggested 4 RB, 6 WR and 3 TE
Others have suggested 5 RB, 5 WR, and 3 TE
Others have suggested 4 RB, 5 WR and 4 TE
Some can't count or would steal a position from the OL

COMMON TO ALL: AT LEAST 4 RB, 5 WR, 3 TE

So the question is whether the last position on offense is a RB, WR or TE. Injuries are very, very likely to affect that decision. If everyone is healthy, the best player will likely make it regardless of position. For me, the probability of a running back injury is high, so I would choose 5 RB's. However, I could certainly see Belichick deciding that the best returners must stay and therefore we need to allocate an additional WR spot to a returner.

 

[Synovia]

So the question is whether the last position on offense is a RB, WR or TE. Injuries are very, very likely to affect that decision. If everyone is healthy, the best player will likely make it regardless of position. For me, the probability of a running back injury is high, so I would choose 5 RB's. However, I could certainly see Belichick deciding that the best returners must stay and therefore we need to allocate an additional WR spot to a returner.

While the injury rate of RBs is high, the chance of finding and UDFA/Practice Squad/etc RB who can be useful in the middle of the season is much higher than at TE or WR. IE, RBs are somewhat fungible.