What's the fascination with Julian Edelman?

[mgteich]

Before Hernandez went down, our backup had exactly zero reps. Welker didn't start and came in only after an injury to Hernandez. Welker's reduced role in Game One has been well documented.

You can repeat your assertion that Edelman is not a legitimate WR as many times as you wish, and long for Branch and Gaffney. Josh and Bill strongly disagree. Edelman is our #2 receiver. Welker is a backup. Welker is going to get lots of reps NOW that our top threat in the slot is out.

I CANNOT give the reason for the team's conclusions with regard to Edelman, Welker, Gaffney and Branch (and Salas). However it is what it is.

That being said, we may indeed bring in a backup WR or TE for a few weeks.

There is no doubt Welker was overworked last year. The 63 snaps he played out of 76 (or whatever it was exactly) is about right. The problem is because Hernandez went down, in addition to Welkers 63 we needed a boatload out of the 3rd WR, and unfortunately that happens to be Edelman who really isn't good enough.
The problem isn't reducing Welkers snaps, that make sense by itself.
The problem is that when Welker is off the field we only have 1 legitimate WR on the roster to put out there.

 

[BradyManny]

There is no doubt Welker was overworked last year. The 63 snaps he played out of 76 (or whatever it was exactly) is about right. The problem is because Hernandez went down, in addition to Welkers 63 we needed a boatload out of the 3rd WR, and unfortunately that happens to be Edelman who really isn't good enough.
The problem isn't reducing Welkers snaps, that make sense by itself.
The problem is that when Welker is off the field we only have 1 legitimate WR on the roster to put out there.

Good point. I would amend this to say one legitimate outside receiver. I think Edelman is fine on the underneath and screen stuff. I just find it hard to believe that Deion Branch or Jabar Gaffney can't run better intermediate routes on the outside.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

And here I am thinking we should be sending a fruit basket to Waters.

That too, or a money tree.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

It's possible, but what I'd come back to with that is that you can't argue with production. Or, rather, Wes' production.

I think what's at the core of your argument - that the team is doing some early season tinkering to see what they have - has validity. Maybe the team wants to see if Edelman can follow up his strong camp with strong play in games, and see what they have beyond Welker.

Whatever it is, I can't see how having Welker on the sidelines is good for the team. Conservatively, Wes Welker is one of the five best players on this team. If we're sending out personnel packages that do not include him - and had Hernandez not gone down with an injury, I assure you we would've seen the 22 personnel much more - then the coaching staff oughta reconsider. Wes belongs on the field. If the goal is being as productive as possible and winning games, he should be out there.

I think we'll see a lot more Wes in week 3. If I had to guess, these first two weeks did involve some feeling out and some experimentation. Week 3 vs. Baltimore, we need Welker out there for most of the snaps.

Agreed with everything about WW, and the fact that the team is clearly better off with him on the field. I'm just trying to come up with the most sensible reason they'd limit one of their best players this much. To me tinkering, seeing what other players can do, and trying to create some chemistry make far more sense than sacrificing games to lower WW's value or some other silliness.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Welker bailed the Pats' offense out so many times yesterday that it was kind of funny, in a sense. When they needed a big play, he was the one who provided it, almost every time. Edelman can't do that, and will never be able to. Time to abort the experiment - if the Pats are going to start running a lot of 3 WR sets with Hernandez out, then they're going to need a real WR3 on the roster. This is exactly why so many of us hated the Gaffney cut, and unfortunately it only took until week two for it to bite the Pats in the ass.

Did you see the Ravens playoff game?

 

[BradyManny]

To me tinkering, seeing what other players can do, and trying to create some chemistry make far more sense than sacrificing games to lower WW's value or some other silliness.

Concur 100%. Belichick does what he believes is best for the team. Every time. But sometimes he is weighing long-term factors and seeing what the ultimate goal is, and maybe that's what is happening here. I just disagree with the specific implementation of that approach here, nonetheless.

 

[BradyManny]

NOTE: What I'm referring to as 22 personnel should really be 12 personnel. My mistake, though I think it remains clear.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, we all have problems of analysis and issues where we disagree with Bill and Josh. For Bill and Josh, they'd rather have Salas than Gaffney or Branch.

I just find it hard to believe that Deion Branch or Jabar Gaffney can't run better intermediate routes on the outside.

 

[Kontradiction]

They should be sending one to all three guys. Not only is this team in serious need of bringing one or both of them back for an extra guy to throw to, but the O-Line's blocking has been borderline atrocious. Waters can help out big time. The O-Line could barely hold up against the Cardinals. What is going to happen if they bring that against the Ravens?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Did you see the Ravens playoff game?

I assume that you're referring to 2009? I did. Wasn't that the same season where Belichick acknowledged in the NFLN documentary that, if opposing defenses took away Moss and Welker, the offense had nobody else that could punish them? He was right, and Edelman may not have been part of the problem, but he certainly wasn't part of the solution.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

They should be sending one to all three guys. Not only is this team in serious need of bringing one or both of them back for an extra guy to throw to, but the O-Line's blocking has been borderline atrocious. Waters can help out big time. The O-Line could barely hold up against the Cardinals. What is going to happen if they bring that against the Ravens?

Luckily suggs is out and pollard is hurting.

The o Line was fine against Tenn...but horrible against the cards. The cards have a BIG front 7. Their D line is very underrated.

 

[BradyFTW!]

They should be sending one to all three guys. Not only is this team in serious need of bringing one or both of them back for an extra guy to throw to, but the O-Line's blocking has been borderline atrocious. Waters can help out big time. The O-Line could barely hold up against the Cardinals. What is going to happen if they bring that against the Ravens?

I think the line will hold up better against the Ravens, to be honest. The Cardinals' line is really good. The problem is, if the Pats want to win the SB, they're going to have to beat a couple of teams with really good defensive lines and a competent quarterback. If the Cardinals had a good QB yesterday, that game wouldn't have even been close.

 

[BradyManny]

Did you see the Ravens playoff game?

I don't think anyone argues with the fact that Edelman has been an effective slot receiver in the 3-wide package. He has been.

The question is, is he more effective than Welker in the slot? I say no. The question of whether he is a suitable replacement for Welker in 2013 is not relevant enough to me to leap him in the depth chart. And the other question is: is he a suitable receiver on the outside in either the 2WR or 3WR package? I, again, say no.

So I question the gameplan we had going into yesterday's game, understanding things changed considerably once Hernandez went down.

 

[mgteich]

Josh and Bill sees that we had our #1 and #2 WR to throw to. Josh and Bill see that had Gronkowksi to throw to. Josh and Bill see that if any of the four go down, our $9.5M sub is a fine target. Josh and Bill see Ridley and Woodhead as folks to throw to. 2 WR's, 3 TE's and and 2 RB's are enough targets, at least according to Josh and Bill. In addition, we had the #8 target, a favorite of Josh's, as inactive.

But for posters here, the problem is NOT the awful right side blocking (due to injuries). It is not receivers dropping the ball. It certainly isn't our QB being off in some of his passes. The REAL problem is that our #8 receiver should be Gaffney or Branch instead of Salas. Of course, wither would have been inactive for Game 2. If we want one active for Game 3, we can pick up the phone and Branch will be here on the next plain.

THE REAL PROBLEM is that we dsiagree 2with Josh and Bill regarding roster, strongly believing that Gaffney and/or Branch are more valuable that those presently on our roster and those getting reps.

They should be sending one to all three guys. Not only is this team in serious need of bringing one or both of them back for an extra guy to throw to, but the O-Line's blocking has been borderline atrocious. Waters can help out big time. The O-Line could barely hold up against the Cardinals. What is going to happen if they bring that against the Ravens?

 

[RhodyPatriot]

I have no idea.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Before Hernandez went down, our backup had exactly zero reps. Welker didn't start and came in only after an injury to Hernandez. Welker's reduced role in Game One has been well documented.

You can repeat your assertion that Edelman is not a legitimate WR as many times as you wish, and long for Branch and Gaffney. Josh and Bill strongly disagree. Edelman is our #2 receiver. Welker is a backup. Welker is going to get lots of reps NOW that our top threat in the slot is out.

I CANNOT give the reason for the team's conclusions with regard to Edelman, Welker, Gaffney and Branch (and Salas). However it is what it is.

That being said, we may indeed bring in a backup WR or TE for a few weeks.

Here's the thing: we have no idea how the game would have turned out differently if Hernandez hadn't been hurt.

The Pats moved primarily to a 3-WR set, where Edelman and Welker were both on the field for every snap. The difference in their playing time was in the 2-WR, 2-TE set. The Pats had Edelman on the field for 15 of the 18 snaps, and Welker for the other three. Most of those 15 plays, if I remember what I've read correctly, were in fact runs.

 

[Deus Irae]

Josh and Bill sees that we had our #1 and #2 WR to throw to. Josh and Bill see that had Gronkowksi to throw to. Josh and Bill see that if any of the four go down, our $9.5M sub is a fine target. Josh and Bill see Ridley and Woodhead as folks to throw to. 2 WR's, 3 TE's and and 2 RB's are enough targets, at least according to Josh and Bill. In addition, we had the #8 target, a favorite of Josh's, as inactive.

But for posters here, the problem is NOT the awful right side blocking (due to injuries). It is not receivers dropping the ball. It certainly isn't our QB being off in some of his passes. The REAL problem is that our #8 receiver should be Gaffney or Branch instead of Salas. Of course, wither would have been inactive for Game 2. If we want one active for Game 3, we can pick up the phone and Branch will be here on the next plain.

THE REAL PROBLEM is that we dsiagree 2with Josh and Bill regarding roster, strongly believing that Gaffney and/or Branch are more valuable that those presently on our roster and those getting reps.

I really hope you're kidding with this stuff.

 

[BradyManny]

Here's the thing: we have no idea how the game would have turned out differently if Hernandez hadn't been hurt.

The Pats moved primarily to a 3-WR set, where Edelman and Welker were both on the field for every snap. The difference in their playing time was in the 2-WR, 2-TE set. The Pats had Edelman on the field for 15 of the 18 snaps, and Welker for the other three. Most of those 15 plays, if I remember what I've read correctly, were in fact runs.

Greg A. Bedard ‏@GregABedard
Patriots played 15 snaps of "12" personnel (1 RB, 2 TEs). Welker played 2 snaps. Edelman played 13.

FWIW. You may be right about the # of runs. In which case maybe it comes down to blocking, and things make a little more sense if we assume the team views Edelman as a better blocker. I still think there has to be a better receiver for that 12 personnel than Edelman. No offense to Edelman, who, again, I think has his value.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I assume that you're referring to 2009? I did. Wasn't that the same season where Belichick acknowledged in the NFLN documentary that, if opposing defenses took away Moss and Welker, the offense had nobody else that could punish them? He was right, and Edelman may not have been part of the problem, but he certainly wasn't part of the solution.

You're moving the goalposts here: I'm merely pointing out that, contrary to your claim, Edelman has been able to make big plays when the Patriots needed them.

Maybe not as consistently as Welker did yesterday, but he did make more than one big play in that Ravens game.

ETA: Let me point out one thing—I'm not saying that the Patriots are 100% infallible in increasing Edelman's playing time, apparently at the expense of Welker's. I'm merely saying that there must be some sort of logical rationale that they feel justifies doing so.

 

[Ring 6]

Before Hernandez went down, our backup had exactly zero reps. Welker didn't start and came in only after an injury to Hernandez. Welker's reduced role in Game One has been well documented.

What does well documented mean? He played twice as many snaps as Edelman, and mostly was out in 1 WR sets. But don't let facts get in the way of being well documented.
Hernandez was injured on the 3rd play.

You can repeat your assertion that Edelman is not a legitimate WR as many times as you wish, and long for Branch and Gaffney. Josh and Bill strongly disagree.

Did they tell you this?

Edelman is our #2 receiver. Welker is a backup. Welker is going to get lots of reps NOW that our top threat in the slot is out.

Since when does knee jerk reaction without knowing the whole story equal a certain fact?

I CANNOT give the reason for the team's conclusions with regard to Edelman, Welker, Gaffney and Branch (and Salas). However it is what it is.

It is what it is,but it probably isn't what you think.

That being said, we may indeed bring in a backup WR or TE for a few weeks.

We have 4 TEs in order to activate 3, so unless Fells is hurt real badly we won't need another.
We need at least 1 more like 2 more WRs.