What's the fascination with Julian Edelman?

[mgteich]

The logic is indeed the same. So you are comparing Lloyd, Edelman and Salas to Barrett, Brown and Ihedigbo?

Are you suggesting that Belichick has made as bad a judgment on these three as on the three safeties last year?

We had four positions at safety going into 2011. We have four positions at wide receiver going into 2012.
===================

Are you objecting to the decision to carry only 4 WR's and only 2 QB's in order to have better TE depth (4 TE's) and be able to better emphasize the TE's in our offense?

I suspect that you simply don't like Belichick's choices of Edelman and Salas over Branch and Gaffney.
===============
It is not my logic that is at issue. It is the legitimate questioning of the quality of the quality of Edelman and Salas as receivers

===================
BOTTOM LINE
I would also to refer see a 5th inactive receiver (in addition to the 4th being inactive) as being more valuable than having THREE front defensive kids being inactive as part of a 16 man front.

BTW, I do NOT think that the issue is whether we should carry 5 RB/FBs. Perhaps we have made the wrong choices. If either of the bottom RB's go, I would expect us to sign another. We carry 5 running backs, with 4 active. This seems right if are going to run more.

By your logic here, Sanders and Meriweather couldn't beat out Sergio Brown so there should have been no angst about the safety position last year.

 

[JJDChE]

All of this is good and true.

But I still have two issues. How much do we want to limit Welker's reps? If Hernandez doesn't go down, we keep playing that 12 personnel 60% of the time or so, and we continue to put Edelman in over Welker at the rate we were, does that make sense? That would really put a damper on Welker's PT at that rate.

Obviously, since Hernandez got hurt, we don't know how things would've stacked up exactly.

And second, is Edelman the best option we have - out of what was available to us in camp - as the #1 at that position in the 12 package?

I still haven't seen the answer to this, but if we are running more often out of the 12 formation then it makes sense to have the better blocker in there the great majority of the time. Switching between Welker and Edelman could turn into a tendency on run v. pass in that formation.

I don't mind having Edelman out there, I think he provides some big play ability. He can make a short pass into a big gain. Obviously Welker is preferred, but we're arguing about the 'limited' PT of a guy who played 63 of 75 snaps and led the team in targets.

I think this whole thing is going to blow over as a non-story within a few weeks.

 

[Ring 6]

I still haven't seen the answer to this, but if we are running more often out of the 12 formation then it makes sense to have the better blocker in there the great majority of the time. Switching between Welker and Edelman could turn into a tendency on run v. pass in that formation.

I don't mind having Edelman out there, I think he provides some big play ability. He can make a short pass into a big gain. Obviously Welker is preferred, but we're arguing about the 'limited' PT of a guy who played 63 of 75 snaps and led the team in targets.

I think this whole thing is going to blow over as a non-story within a few weeks.

Reiss said they had 12 plays with Edelman in over Welker in the 12, not counting the kneeldowns.
They ran 7 times (for 47 yards) and threw 4 plus 1 sack.
It seems that the thinking that they intended to be run heavy from the 12 is accurate. I wonder how much of the passing was play action?

 

[Ring 6]

I still haven't seen the answer to this, but if we are running more often out of the 12 formation then it makes sense to have the better blocker in there the great majority of the time. Switching between Welker and Edelman could turn into a tendency on run v. pass in that formation.

I don't mind having Edelman out there, I think he provides some big play ability. He can make a short pass into a big gain. Obviously Welker is preferred, but we're arguing about the 'limited' PT of a guy who played 63 of 75 snaps and led the team in targets.

I think this whole thing is going to blow over as a non-story within a few weeks.

3 of the 75 that he was not in on were kneeldowns, and he was out for the 1st 3 snaps.
That leaves 63 of the other 69. Talk about exaggerating an issue........

 

[BradyManny]

I think this whole thing is going to blow over as a non-story within a few weeks.

You're probably right. I think this will come to pass. But I maintain the bigger issue might not necessarily be Wes being on the sidelines in this package, but Edelman being on the field.

I'm happy to hear he had a great camp and is improving, but I'm skeptical of his upside, and very aware of his notable lack of production in opportunities in 2010 & 2011. I wish Branch or Gaffney still had the skill and usefulness to be worth keeping on the roster - let's put it that way.

 

[BradyManny]

That leaves 63 of the other 69. Talk about exaggerating an issue........

AJ, you're putting aside the fact that the Hernandez injury clearly shook up what the team wanted to do personnel-wise. Is it safe to say that the personnel groupings would've more closely resembled the Titans game had Hernandez not gone down? I would say yes.

I don't think it's a leap to then project what Welker's PT would've been. I know you think it's a waste of time, but I've got the time to go through such an exercise. And I will. It appears clear that Edelman was the 1 over Wes in that package, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Deus Irae]

The logic is indeed the same. So you are comparing Lloyd, Edelman and Salas to Barrett, Brown and Ihedigbo?

You keep trying to add Lloyd into the mix. He has nothing to do with it. He's the replacement for Johnson. The WR problems are the decisions to understaff the position and overpromote Edelman.

Are you suggesting that Belichick has made as bad a judgment on these three as on the three safeties last year?

Any difference regarding the two, not three, is simply a matter of degree and not kind.

Are you objecting to the decision to carry only 4 WR's

Yes

and only 2 QB's

No

in order to have better TE depth (4 TE's) and be able to better emphasize the TE's in our offense?

4 TEs are more than is needed, and they should never have made the radical switch they've made.

I suspect that you simply don't like Belichick's choices of Edelman and Salas over Branch and Gaffney.

I've made my points on the WR position many times and Salas has never really been an issue. You surely know this, because you've been around to see the posts.

It is not my logic that is at issue. It is the legitimate questioning of the quality of the quality of Edelman and Salas as receivers

No, it's your logic that's at issue.

I would also to refer see a 5th inactive receiver (in addition to the 4th being inactive) as being more valuable than having THREE front defensive kids being inactive as part of a 16 man front.

They need to have at least 4 active WR.

BTW, I do NOT think that the issue is whether we should carry 5 RB/FBs. Perhaps we have made the wrong choices. If either of the bottom RB's go, I would expect us to sign another. We carry 5 running backs, with 4 active. This seems right if are going to run more.

Viewed on their own, one can make an argument for any number of players at any number of positions. Viewed as part of the whole, however, the team's carrying too many RBs, too many TEs and too many DLs. Given the cutting of Hoyer, they have the luxury of carrying too many of one of those positions, but not all 3. Since they've decided to chuck last year's offense in the toilet, it makes sense to bring in a replacement for #47 and keep the TE numbers the same, but that means that a RB and DL need to go.

 

[JJDChE]

You're probably right. I think this will come to pass. But I maintain the bigger issue might not necessarily be Wes being on the sidelines in this package, but Edelman being on the field.

I'm happy to hear he had a great camp and is improving, but I'm skeptical of his upside, and very aware of his notable lack of production in opportunities in 2010 & 2011. I wish Branch or Gaffney still had the skill and usefulness to be worth keeping on the roster - let's put it that way.

Looking at his production the last two years based on offensive snaps is a bit disingenuous. He was likely the last option almost every time he was on the field. They are clearly trying to get it to him more often now. I want to see more before I say that he isn't worth putting out there.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

AJ, you're putting aside the fact that the Hernandez injury clearly shook up what the team wanted to do personnel-wise. Is it safe to say that the personnel groupings would've more closely resembled the Titans game had Hernandez not gone down? I would say yes.

I don't think it's a leap to then project what Welker's PT would've been. I know you think it's a waste of time, but I've got the time to go through such an exercise. And I will. It appears clear that Edelman was the 1 over Wes in that package, wouldn't you agree?

We're all worrying about nothing. Chris Price spells it all out.

Anyone who has watched the Patriots on a regular basis over the course of the last three years can tell you Edelman is a better receiver now than he was at this point last year. He is able to get separation from defenders, he’s a better and more consistent route-runner and is clearly more confident in his role in the offense. He’s never going to be mistaken for Jerry Rice, but he’s certainly a more polished product in his fourth year than in his third year, and the Patriots have adjusted their expectations for him accordingly.


He has six catches through two games, and while it’s a relatively small sample size, if he can continue to average three receptions a game, he will break his career high for catches (37), which he set as a rookie in 2009. (He should also easily break his personal best for yardage in a season, 359, also set as a rookie.)

See, at this pace if Edelman remains on the field as the #2 WR he projects to top 37 catches and 359 yards.

It's after noon. Think I'll go get a drink and just kick back and watch the plan unfold.

PS Per Reiss we were middle of the pack in red zone offense week 1. Heading towards bottom of the barrel in week 2. But again, we fixed that issue after 2010 so I'm sure it's just an anomoly. What was I about to do...oh, that's right, drink.

 

[IllegalContact]

something is telling me the pendulum is swinging back to the defense and BB is finding having the shizzle on the defensive side of the ball fun again. If the pats defense gets back to 2003 form, is the current version of the offense even needed? or will it revert to a very dynamic ball control with short passes and yac as well as a more balanced overall attack.

I put brady's chances of being here for 5 more years at slim to none

 

[Ring 6]

AJ, you're putting aside the fact that the Hernandez injury clearly shook up what the team wanted to do personnel-wise. Is it safe to say that the personnel groupings would've more closely resembled the Titans game had Hernandez not gone down? I would say yes.

No you are creating something out of thin air.
The Titan game had Welker playing something like 70% of the snaps.

I don't think it's a leap to then project what Welker's PT would've been. I know you think it's a waste of time, but I've got the time to go through such an exercise. And I will. It appears clear that Edelman was the 1 over Wes in that package, wouldn't you agree?

No it is a tremendous leap. And we have already discussed that if the point was to limit Welkers reps to some degree that is the only sensible package to do it in.

 

[Jackson 2]

something is telling me the pendulum is swinging back to the defense and BB is finding having the shizzle on the defensive side of the ball fun again. If the pats defense gets back to 2003 form, is the current version of the offense even needed? or will it revert to a very dynamic ball control with short passes and yac as well as a more balanced overall attack.

I put brady's chances of being here for 5 more years at slim to none

In that case I'm guessing he's a lock for 10 more...

 

[mgteich]

1) The team decided that Edelman is better than Branch; you disagree. I understand your position, but Branch's pre-season performance against scrubs wasn't convincing enough for the team.

2) You prefer the 2011 mix, when we had 4 WR's actives and 2 TE's. The team has moved to 3 WR's and 3 TE's. The "radical" change was to think that we actually needed backups to best TE pair in the history of the nfl, and that when we played a 3 TE set, it was good to have a 3rd TE on the roster, rather than using OT's for this role.

I would also have another WR active.

3) 3) ROSTER BALANCE - OFFENSE (25)

a) I am fine with 2 QB, 5 RB, 5 WR, 4 TE, 8 OL and 1 Ster. The choice has been made to beef up the running game. Keeping a FB and a 4th TE is part of that effort.

b) I agree that we could likely upgrade on of our running backs. But keeping 5 seems OK, as long as we keep our developmental backup OL's on the Practice Squad.

c) If we can take back the 25th spot from the DL, we would have a spot for the WR. We don't need 16 front seven defenders with 3 of them inactive.

d) BOTTOM LINE
We could use upgrades at TE (signed today), RB and the addition of a receiver. I believe that we are in general agreement, except that you would not use a roster spot for a FB, favoring a 6th WR ( I think).

1) The WR problems are the decisions to understaff the position and overpromote Edelman.

2) 4 TEs are more than is needed, and they should never have made the radical switch they've made.

They need to have at least 4 active WR.

3) Viewed on their own, one can make an argument for any number of players at any number of positions. Viewed as part of the whole, however, the team's carrying too many RBs, too many TEs and too many DLs. Given the cutting of Hoyer, they have the luxury of carrying too many of one of those positions, but not all 3. Since they've decided to chuck last year's offense in the toilet, it makes sense to bring in a replacement for #47 and keep the TE numbers the same, but that means that a RB and DL need to go.

 

[IllegalContact]

In that case I'm guessing he's a lock for 10 more...

or maybe 2

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Some cynics might say that Belichick's fascination with Edelman is due to the stirring sight of sudsy water running down Edes lithe, young, tight muscular body in the shower after a hard practice or game workout, but I for one see it as Edelperson 2012 > Branch 2012 at the WR position. Why Edes over Welker on the field? Back to reason #1. Confounds me.

 

[mgteich]

I think that we might listen to Josh on this subject.

McDaniels addresses Edelman's rise

 

[PatsGirl2011]

something is telling me the pendulum is swinging back to the defense and BB is finding having the shizzle on the defensive side of the ball fun again. If the pats defense gets back to 2003 form, is the current version of the offense even needed? or will it revert to a very dynamic ball control with short passes and yac as well as a more balanced overall attack.

I put brady's chances of being here for 5 more years at slim to none

This team can't beat GOOD teams with just the defense. There is no Ty Law, Asante Samuels, or Rodney Harrison in the secondary. The D was solid last season at times, but they still lost games because it wasn't good enough. The league is too different for the D to be the catalyst. Where did that get the Ravens or any primarily defensive team the past decade in terms of winning SB? In the case of the Pats, my fear is that the offense is so reliant on guys that play only in the middle of the field. The league has adjusted to the Pats in that regards, hence the results we see against good defensive squads who have the athletes to matchup with Gronk/Hernandez/Welker.

 

[Ring 6]

I think that we might listen to Josh on this subject.

McDaniels addresses Edelman's rise

Why? It is typical rhetoric the NEP coaching staff answers with.
You can't really think it is insightful, can you?

 

[Deus Irae]

1) The team decided that Edelman is better than Branch; you disagree. I understand your position, but Branch's pre-season performance against scrubs wasn't convincing enough for the team.

2) You prefer the 2011 mix, when we had 4 WR's actives and 2 TE's. The team has moved to 3 WR's and 3 TE's. The "radical" change was to think that we actually needed backups to best TE pair in the history of the nfl, and that when we played a 3 TE set, it was good to have a 3rd TE on the roster, rather than using OT's for this role.

I would also have another WR active.

3) 3) ROSTER BALANCE - OFFENSE (25)

a) I am fine with 2 QB, 5 RB, 5 WR, 4 TE, 8 OL and 1 Ster. The choice has been made to beef up the running game. Keeping a FB and a 4th TE is part of that effort.

b) I agree that we could likely upgrade on of our running backs. But keeping 5 seems OK, as long as we keep our developmental backup OL's on the Practice Squad.

c) If we can take back the 25th spot from the DL, we would have a spot for the WR. We don't need 16 front seven defenders with 3 of them inactive.

d) BOTTOM LINE
We could use upgrades at TE (signed today), RB and the addition of a receiver. I believe that we are in general agreement, except that you would not use a roster spot for a FB, favoring a 6th WR ( I think).

ok,

BOTTOM LINE

You're not really saying anything. You're just trying to stir the pot. I'm not going there today.

 

[ATippett56]

d) BOTTOM LINE
We could use upgrades at TE (signed today), RB and the addition of a receiver. I believe that we are in general agreement, except that you would not use a roster spot for a FB, favoring a 6th WR ( I think).

First, the tight end situation was temporarily resolved today.

Second, the running back situation will be hopefully resolved once Shane Vereen returns from injury.

Third, Lex Hilliard needs to be cut immediately followed shortly by Michael Hoomanawanui. Neither can block worth a damn.

Fourth, the primary issue with the New England Patriots offense faltering versus the Arizona Cardinals defense was the porous offensive line more so than the quality of the receiving corps.