Where Is The Pats Deep Threat At????

[DocHoliday]

The Giants did not play the scheme the Jets did in 2010. Thats what you said, and it is wrong.

Taking away the short passing game and stopping run with nickel is their overall end goal, and I consider that their scheme.

I'd be impressed if you remembered enough to say how exactly they managed to use their personal to do this, but the end goal for all teams that face this offense is the same.

Few teams have the personnel to do so, and even fewer can do it with Gronk playing (I'd say zero).

 

[Ring 6]

Taking away the short passing game and stopping run with nickel is their overall end goal, and I consider that their scheme.

I'd be impressed if you remembered enough to say how exactly they managed to use their personal to do this, but the end goal for all teams that face this offense is the same.

Few teams have the personnel to do so, and even fewer can do it with Gronk playing (I'd say zero).

Wait. We play 2TE with Hernandez, 2 WR and 1 RB as our base, and often goshotgun and spread it. We are a passing team.
Every team plays base nickel vs us. Every team tries to take away the pass, and since the focus of our routes and throws is heavy on the short pass, every team tries to take that away.
By your argument every team plays the same scheme against us.

I have lost track of what your point is.

It sounds like your point is that if we face a team with good players on defense we aren't as effective as if we face one with bad. Is that what I wasted all this time to find out?

 

[DocHoliday]

Wait. We play 2TE with Hernandez, 2 WR and 1 RB as our base, and often goshotgun and spread it. We are a passing team.
Every team plays base nickel vs us. Every team tries to take away the pass, and since the focus of our routes and throws is heavy on the short pass, every team tries to take that away.
By your argument every team plays the same scheme against us.

I have lost track of what your point is.

It sounds like your point is that if we face a team with good players on defense we aren't as effective as if we face one with bad. Is that what I wasted all this time to find out?

That losing Gronk makes this offense too susceptible to the teams we will face in the playoffs, and for all our next man to mentality we are too dependent on one man (Brady obviously moreso, but that's inevitable)

We cannot adapt without him and this had cost us two postseasons.

And yes, the blueprint to beat the Patriots without Gronk is out there, and everyone tries it, few succeed. Without an elite defense, you must patch this hole to get a Lombardi.

 

[ATippett56]

Which is why I mentioned we need backups for crucial pieces like Gronk or make their losses bearable by being good in 3WR.

2012 New England Patriots tight ends:

Gronkowski - placed on IR
Hernandez
Fells
Hoomanawanui
Shiancoe - placed on retroactive IR and subsequently cut
Winslow, Jr - signed for one or two weeks and subsequently cut

2012 New England Patriots wide receivers:

Welker
Lloyd
Edelman - placed on IR
Branch
Stallworth - placed on IR
Salas - traded future late round draft pick (2015?) and subsequently cut
Aiken

 

[Claremonster]

Not really. All the need for Gronk to stay healthy. When this team was built around Moss, the same issues would have occurred if Moss went down.

This team could use another receiving weapon or two, but necessarily a deep threat. As Bedard pointed out, Branch was on the field too much and the Ravens didn't care about him allowing them to tee off on Welker, Hernandez, and/or Lloyd. A blocking TE could have helped too.

Good luck with that when it happens. It will be the same result in a big game. Moar weapons = higher chance to win.

 

[supafly]

Good luck with that when it happens. It will be the same result in a big game. Moar weapons = higher chance to win.

More weapons would = a higher chance to win, and that's why losing the #1 weapon on offense (besides Brady of course) 2 years in a row during massive games hurt so badly.

I agree with your thoughts that we need to bring in another WR or two, but not any of those FA's who are going to cost a ton. It's too much of a gamble, and we have our own version of a top tiered, top priced WR who may not even stay, and he's averaging 100+ catches per year in 5 out of the past 6 seasons. It's the draft of bust...maybe a mid level FA signing if we're lucky. The WR corps isn't anywhere near as bad as many think, especially if we retain Welker.

The issue also lies on defense a lot too, more than most give credit to. Giving up 3 TD's in the last 1.5 quarters of a big playoff game is absolutely unacceptable, and unfortunately has grown to become the Pats usual standard in huge games. Giving up very long, entire field driving late game TD's in the past 2 SB's in the final minutes of the game BOTH times says a lot. It isn't about what the offense scored necessarily, as it is that we HAD leads in both of those games. That is the main point.

In Sunday's game the score was a 1 point game with 14 minutes left. The defense was the side of the ball that allowed that game to change. The offense just had an uncharacteristically poor performance that doesn't usually happen, and even then we're looking at 7/15 on 3rd downs, and 8 trips inside of FG range!!! About 90%+ of the NFL (if not more) would kill for that to be an "off" performance. The system here works. Maybe not when someone is knocked unconscious, maybe not when Welker drops another major 3rd down ball to open the 3rd quarter which should've put the game in a whole other dimension, and maybe not when it's blowing crosswinds at 25+ mph...but the system here does work.

 

[Claremonster]

More weapons would = a higher chance to win, and that's why losing the #1 weapon on offense (besides Brady of course) 2 years in a row during massive games hurt so badly.

I agree with your thoughts that we need to bring in another WR or two, but not any of those FA's who are going to cost a ton. It's too much of a gamble, and we have our own version of a top tiered, top priced WR who may not even stay, and he's averaging 100+ catches per year in 5 out of the past 6 seasons. It's the draft of bust...maybe a mid level FA signing if we're lucky. The WR corps isn't anywhere near as bad as many think, especially if we retain Welker.

The issue also lies on defense a lot too, more than most give credit to. Giving up 3 TD's in the last 1.5 quarters of a big playoff game is absolutely unacceptable, and unfortunately has grown to become the Pats usual standard in huge games. Giving up very long, entire field driving late game TD's in the past 2 SB's in the final minutes of the game BOTH times says a lot. It isn't about what the offense scored necessarily, as it is that we HAD leads in both of those games. That is the main point.

In Sunday's game the score was a 1 point game with 14 minutes left. The defense was the side of the ball that allowed that game to change. The offense just had an uncharacteristically poor performance that doesn't usually happen, and even then we're looking at 7/15 on 3rd downs, and 8 trips inside of FG range!!! About 90%+ of the NFL (if not more) would kill for that to be an "off" performance. The system here works. Maybe not when someone is knocked unconscious, maybe not when Welker drops another major 3rd down ball to open the 3rd quarter which should've put the game in a whole other dimension, and maybe not when it's blowing crosswinds at 25+ mph...but the system here does work.

I agree. It probably makes sense to address this via the draft, where the contracts for rookies are more affordable. Just as long as the draft pick pans out.

Or, pickup a vet for cheap and hopefully he pans out.

 

[supafly]

I agree. It probably makes sense to address this via the draft, where the contracts for rookies are more affordable. Just as long as the draft pick pans out.

Or, pickup a vet for cheap and hopefully he pans out.

I'd prefer both to be honest. A nice higher draft pick at WR, with another addition made via a middle tiered FA.

The truth is that we'll likely see a few free agents at the position like last year, although they will probably be more for camp fodder and won't even be middle tiered guys.

I'd like just one capable mid range WR from free agency to take over the WR3 spot and move Edelman down to the 4.

 

[tonyto3690]

That deep threat really didn't help matters in 2007 or 2009 playoffs.

And who was our deep threat in 2001-2004?

This is one of the last concerns to focus on IMO.

This sums it up quite nicely. Our best years in the playoffs were when we had small possession receivers that were worse than Lloyd. Whenever we've had a passing dominant or "HERP DERP TRUE DEEP THREAT" we've lost.

In fact, since we've become a "offensive team" we are what? Barely over .500? Before we ever had a "HERP DERP TRUE DEEP THREAT" we were what? 14-2?


This moronic obsession with a deep threat needs to stop. What we need is another reliable receiver that can win one on one matchups outside the numbers and run a full route tree. We need 2010 Branch, not 2004 Moss or 2008 Fitzgerald. I think if we resign Edelman he can more than adequately fill that role and then we're just looking to fill quality depth and a quality #3 WR for any spread packages we run.

Gronk and Hernandez are locked up for 6 years. Those two are better receiving options than 80% of the league has. We don't need more weapons. We need consistent production out of those two and reliable receivers that don't drop balls every single time we have a need for a crucial catch and Brady hits them between the numbers.

 

[tonyto3690]

Good luck with that when it happens. It will be the same result in a big game. Moar weapons = higher chance to win.

You're right. Why hasn't Belichick figured out this genius?

Keys to this next season... GUARANTEED SUPERBOWL

1. Sign Greg Jennings
2. Sign Mike Wallace
3. Sign Dwayne Bowe
4. Franchise Tag Welker


I mean it's pretty obvious what we need to do. Just sign all the good wideouts and our team will clearly be unstoppable.

ALL THAT MATTERS IS HOW MANY WEAPONZ WE HAVE

 

[MoneyFX]

This sums it up quite nicely. Our best years in the playoffs were when we had small possession receivers that were worse than Lloyd. Whenever we've had a passing dominant or "HERP DERP TRUE DEEP THREAT" we've lost.

In fact, since we've become a "offensive team" we are what? Barely over .500? Before we ever had a "HERP DERP TRUE DEEP THREAT" we were what? 14-2?


This moronic obsession with a deep threat needs to stop. What we need is another reliable receiver that can win one on one matchups outside the numbers and run a full route tree. We need 2010 Branch, not 2004 Moss or 2008 Fitzgerald. I think if we resign Edelman he can more than adequately fill that role and then we're just looking to fill quality depth and a quality #3 WR for any spread packages we run.

Gronk and Hernandez are locked up for 6 years. Those two are better receiving options than 80% of the league has. We don't need more weapons. We need consistent production out of those two and reliable receivers that don't drop balls every single time we have a need for a crucial catch and Brady hits them between the numbers.

I think the depth at WR needs focus this offseason. When an older Deion Branch is your #3, you know there's depth issues. Ridiculous money should not be spent on just wide receivers; positions like safety and cornerback need to be addressed too. Hopefully the team can get Brady multiple options at WR (at least 4 options that can contribute while one of the others are injured), with at least one that can be big target in the red zone if Gronk gets injured, a speedster that can go deep and outrun the safeties, and a physical one that can catch while covered.

 

[Ivan]

A deep threat is important in this new nfl.

Desean jackson torched the 2 defenses that shut down the patriots the last two seasons.. There's nothing like shocking a defense with a deep ball, but the patriots don't have one.

No doubtm the eagles have 2, count em' 2 legit deep threats and they are a dynasty. Wake the hell up Belichick, follow the Eagles model.

 

[IcyPatriot]

We need a deep threat when we have a QB who is not very accurate throwing deep balls?

How about we need better luck in the health department... we had a team the last 2 years to win it all and we got screwed in the health area ... 2 years no Gronk, the game with no Welker, no Talib this year ... seriously - we have/had good teams.

 

[Claremonster]

This sums it up quite nicely. Our best years in the playoffs were when we had small possession receivers that were worse than Lloyd. Whenever we've had a passing dominant or "HERP DERP TRUE DEEP THREAT" we've lost.

In fact, since we've become a "offensive team" we are what? Barely over .500? Before we ever had a "HERP DERP TRUE DEEP THREAT" we were what? 14-2?


This moronic obsession with a deep threat needs to stop. What we need is another reliable receiver that can win one on one matchups outside the numbers and run a full route tree. We need 2010 Branch, not 2004 Moss or 2008 Fitzgerald. I think if we resign Edelman he can more than adequately fill that role and then we're just looking to fill quality depth and a quality #3 WR for any spread packages we run.

Gronk and Hernandez are locked up for 6 years. Those two are better receiving options than 80% of the league has. We don't need more weapons. We need consistent production out of those two and reliable receivers that don't drop balls every single time we have a need for a crucial catch and Brady hits them between the numbers.

You obviously do not understand football.

When all of your targets are short to midrange, 0 deep threats, it's pretty easy to control...why cannot you get this?

Having at least 1 deep threat is needed for the defense to account for.

That is all.

 

[Claremonster]

We need a deep threat when we have a QB who is not very accurate throwing deep balls?

How about we need better luck in the health department... we had a team the last 2 years to win it all and we got screwed in the health area ... 2 years no Gronk, the game with no Welker, no Talib this year ... seriously - we have/had good teams.

Ok, better draft 5 more tight ends and slot receivers then.

You need at least 1 deep threat to make the opposing defenses account for them.

Think about it.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

underwood duhhh...wait...

 

[fumbrunner]

underwood duhhh...wait...

Dont forget Stallworth....and Bethel Johnson.....

 

[Darrone]

Does anyone think the lack of a "deep threat" is an intentional ommission? I haven't seen anything out of Brady in the last 3 years that makes me think he can accurately hit a deep man. I think he is still a great QB, but I think the deep ball days are behind him.

 

[coolguy]

Does anyone think the lack of a "deep threat" is an intentional ommission? I haven't seen anything out of Brady in the last 3 years that makes me think he can accurately hit a deep man. I think he is still a great QB, but I think the deep ball days are behind him.

Tell that to shane vereen

 

[Ring 6]

Does anyone think the lack of a "deep threat" is an intentional ommission? I haven't seen anything out of Brady in the last 3 years that makes me think he can accurately hit a deep man. I think he is still a great QB, but I think the deep ball days are behind him.

You should watch the games