Wide Receivers - As Good As It Can Be

[Rob0729]

Amendola is a downgrade from welker but I see Thompkins as a upgrade over Lloyd and Dobson and Boyce are upgrades over who ever was 4 and 5 last year,

the big thing is how long will Gronk be out cause without him they may have a hard time getting more then 25 points per game. the good thing is they don't play a good offense until week 4 at the falcons so they could be 3-0 with gronk comeing back for that game

Not so sure Amendola is a downgrade yet. If Amendola can be reliable in catching the ball and stay healthy, he could be an upgrade. He is faster and more versatile than Welker. Welker was more dependable and able to take a lot of abuse and keep going. If Amendola works on his dependability and stays healthy, he could end up being better than Welker. No guarantee of that though.

Thompkins seems to be far more versatile than Lloyd and could be a huge upgrade, but he is also an unproven rookie (same goes with Dobson and Boyce). So although things look good right now, there are no guarantees that it goes into the season.

I will say Dobson, Boyce, and Edelman will all be upgrades at depth. Even though Dobson and Boyce are unproven rookies, there is no where to go but up from last year's receiving corp depth.

 

[Rob0729]

The way I see it is Amendola and Thompkins will start and Dobson will be the first guy off the bench in most cases. Edelman may or may not be more ready to go in there as the #3 WR over Dobson, but Dobson brings more of an outside and down the field presence in a three WR set which Edelman can't bring.

I also expect to see a lot more sets like we saw in 2007. I think we will see a lot more four and five wides now that they have a couple of outside receivers. We haven't seen it in the preseason much, but I think it is coming. I think Amendola might have sat out this week so that Brady can get some continuity with his younger receivers without showing their hand on these sets.

The good thing about this corp is that there is a lot of diversity. The Pats have a slot receiver or two, the guy who can do a little of everything, a potential deep threat, and several outside guys. Especially if the Pats go to four and five wides, it can create match up problems. No longer can teams just flood the center of the field because the Pats had only one outside threat in Lloyd.

Granted this is all assuming the rookies actually step up and the veterans stay healthy.

 

[DarrylS]

Was listening to Johnathan Kraft the other day on the radio, and he said something to the effect about how he still cannot figure out why Welker signed with Denver. There has always been skepticism about this, and maybe he was implying that Welker's agent screwed up..

Welker is gone, Amendola is not Welker.. but can do some of the things he did and some of the things he did differently.

 

[AzorianPats]

I think Amendola is equal, if not better then Welker. I think the biggest loss is going to be Hernandez. Just what he did schematically, and the mismatches he created can't be replaced. Sudfeld looks to be good, but he's not Hernandez.

 

[Ozymandias]

The wide-outs have exceeded expectations. Most of that has been Thompkins, but nonetheless they're a lot better than I thought this unit would be going into the season.

The real fireworks haven't started yet so it's tough to gauge how these guys will react to those adverse situations that will undoubtedly come up once the games actually mean something. However, I'm still excited at their potential, much more so than I was for last season and as we know that offense was #1 in the league last year.

 

[Deus Irae]

Amendola's been what was expected
Edelman has been what was expected
Thompkins has surprised in exhibition games
Dobson and Boyce have shown that they aren't ready
The veteran FAs were busts

Outside of a potential find in Thompkins, this group is pretty much what most sane people expected it to be, for better or worse.

 

[Nunchucks]

Yeah, outside a starting WR in Thompkins, you know, a guy who can run all the routes, gets open, fights for balls, is on the field all the time, the wr core is what we expected......

Thompkins is a revelation at the WR position this summer.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah, outside a starting WR in Thompkins, you know, a guy who can run all the routes, gets open, fights for balls, is on the field all the time, the wr core is what we expected......

Thompkins is a revelation at the WR position this summer.

Thompkins is an untested rookie who looks good in exhibition games. You know, a time when teams aren't really gamplanning to stop him.

He's a potential find, not a multiple time All-Pro.

 

[Rob0729]

Amendola's been what was expected
Edelman has been what was expected
Thompkins has surprised in exhibition games
Dobson and Boyce have shown that they aren't ready
The veteran FAs were busts

Outside of a potential find in Thompkins, this group is pretty much what most sane people expected it to be, for better or worse.

Dobson has shown he is good enough to be a back up with a package of plays. He has shown he isn't ready to start, but he is certainly SEEMS good enough to come off the bench and play about a dozen or so snaps a game which is an upgrade from what we have had as the first guy off the bench which is an upgrade from last year. He did get two catches from Brady for 30 yards. He may not be an every down WR, but he is looks ready to be the #3 WR.

Too hard to tell with Boyce since he has been open several times for what would be huge plays where Mallett's throw is off.

Considering people compared this corp to 2006, I think it is far better than some say it is. But maybe you were including those people in the insane people category. The starters have the potential to be better than last year's starters and the back ups seem to be an upgrade too.

 

[Deus Irae]

Dobson has shown he is good enough to be a back up with a package of plays. He has shown he isn't ready to start, but he is certainly SEEMS good enough to come off the bench and play about a dozen or so snaps a game which is an upgrade from what we have had as the first guy off the bench which is an upgrade from last year. He did get two catches from Brady for 30 yards. He may not be an every down WR, but he is looks ready to be the #3 WR.

Too hard to tell with Boyce since he has been open several times for what would be huge plays where Mallett's throw is off.

Considering people compared this corp to 2006, I think it is far better than some say it is. But maybe you were including those people in the insane people category. The starters have the potential to be better than last year's starters and the back ups seem to be an upgrade too.

They've played 3 exhibtion games. Two of them were against teams with atrocious defensive backfields, and the third was missing its CB1. And, again, they were exhibition games. I'll leave it at that.

 

[MassPats38]

Thompkins is an untested rookie who looks good in exhibition games. You know, a time when teams aren't really gamplanning to stop him.

He's a potential find, not a multiple time All-Pro.

Deus - serious questions from your posts this preseason (I am not trying to take shots at you, only figure out where your mindset is on this) on this issue, as I typically do find your posts logical and this line of posts has seemed more an emotional take hoping to see this new group of WRs fail to prove some personal point regarding front office decisions with the possibility of a repeat of 2006.

Do you believe you actually know what these WRs will do in the regular season? Or otherwise, would it be correct to say that you believe these receivers will fail in the sense they will prove to be a below average corps at the end of the season? Also, do you predict, here and now, that these WRs will statistically produce less than the group last year? Would it be correct to say you believe these front office decisions represent a repeat of 2006? And yes, I have read some of your prior posts (maybe I missed some as I do not claim to read everything) and did not see a direct answer to these questions.

If this group "is what same people expected it to be," for better or worse, then that implies you know, somehow, what wildcards, ie., rookies with no NFL experience, will do in the regular season. I am not talking the abstract WR rookie statistics (that gives probabilities of success, not the outcome of a particular case), which may predict but are not dispositive, nor do I suffer from preseason elation after a good performance as Bam Childress was a preseason master and never really made the cut, but I will openly concede that I lack sufficient information to say what this group might do this year. You do not appear to be similarly encumbered from the tone of your posts (e.g., "sane people"), so I would like to hear your answer to the questions above.

My position is I don't know what they are at this point, but I hope they succeed. And yes, it is a huge gamble to rely on a group of rookies. I will not, however, claim front office success or failure before I see the body of work, and now there is none. If you, as a sane person, have that crystal ball in terms of what this season holds, I would love to hear the factual basis for it.

 

[Rob0729]

They've played 3 exhibtion games. Two of them were against teams with atrocious defensive backfields, and the third was missing its CB1. And, again, they were exhibition games. I'll leave it at that.

And you saw that I qualified it as nothing set is in stone. And I said what it SEEMS to be and not what it will be.

But it goes both ways. You can't say the receiving corp is "pretty much what most sane people expected it to be" other than Thompkins and Dobson and Boyce have "shown that they aren't ready" as if your opinions are definite, and then dismiss others' opinions by stating that anything positive was done in "exhibition" games against bad secondaries.

I am under no illusion that that what happens in the preseason is guaranteed that it will transfer into the regular season. I try to qualify my posts to reflect that. You seem to want to talk definitive with your opinions though.

One thing SEEMS pretty clear. This receiving corp looks far better than the 2006 receiving corp. If Thompkins is anything close to what we have seen in the preseason when they start playing for real, Caldwell (who was the #1 WR in 2006) wouldn't even start in this receiving corp.

 

[Deus Irae]

Do you believe you actually know what these WRs will do in the regular season?

No. I think I know what Amendola will do if he's healthy, and I'd guess a range of success for Edelman if pressed, but that's it.

Or otherwise, would it be correct to say that you believe these receivers will fail in the sense they will prove to be a below average corps at the end of the season? Also, do you predict, here and now, that these WRs will statistically produce less than the group last year? Would it be correct to say you believe these front office decisions represent a repeat of 2006? And yes, I have read some of your prior posts (maybe I missed some as I do not claim to read everything) and did not see a direct answer to these questions.

It would be correct to say that I consider it unlikely that this group will match last season, just based upon where last year's team ended up historically. It wouldn't be correct to say that I expect this group of receivers to fail.

If this group "is what same people expected it to be," for better or worse, then that implies you know, somehow, what wildcards, ie., rookies with no NFL experience, will do in the regular season.

Absolutely

I am not talking the abstract WR rookie statistics (that gives probabilities of success, not the outcome of a particular case), which may predict but are not dispositive, nor do I suffer from preseason elation after a good performance as Bam Childress was a preseason master and never really made the cut, but I will openly concede that I lack sufficient information to say what this group might do this year. You do not appear to be similarly encumbered from the tone of your posts (e.g., "sane people"), so I would like to hear your answer to the questions above.

We had people on this board pimping both Jones and Jenkins, and trying to convince us that they'd make for a better WR group than last year. Most people looking at the team knew that was crazy, and that this was probably going to be a team that ended up relying on Amendola and the rookies, barring some sort of trade. That was where the "sane people" comment comes in.

My position is I don't know what they are at this point, but I hope they succeed. And yes, it is a huge gamble to rely on a group of rookies. I will not, however, claim front office success or failure before I see the body of work, and now there is none. If you, as a sane person, have that crystal ball in terms of what this season holds, I would love to hear the factual basis for it.

I think the offseason, and exhibition games, are a great time to look at potential, and to 'find' diamonds in the rough who flash enough that they are worth keeping. I don't think it usually offers much more than that. That's doubly true in the case of WRs, who traditionally struggle as rookies. There are exceptions to that, and several of those exceptions have come in recent years, but they are exceptions, nonetheless. It would be great for the team if Thompkins plays like a WR1 this season, and if Dobson plays like a WR2 or even WR3, but the odds aren't with them.

On the other hand, the Patriots have Tom Brady, who can, at times, make chicken salad.... Just ask Reche.

 

[Deus Irae]

And you saw that I qualified it as nothing set is in stone. And I said what it SEEMS to be and not what it will be.

But it goes both ways. You can't say the receiving corp is "pretty much what most sane people expected it to be" other than Thompkins and Dobson and Boyce have "shown that they aren't ready" as if your opinions are definite, and then dismiss others' opinions by stating that anything positive was done in "exhibition" games against bad secondaries.

I am under no illusion that that what happens in the preseason is guaranteed that it will transfer into the regular season. I try to qualify my posts to reflect that. You seem to want to talk definitive with your opinions though.

One thing SEEMS pretty clear. This receiving corp looks far better than the 2006 receiving corp. If Thompkins is anything close to what we have seen in the preseason when they start playing for real, Caldwell (who was the #1 WR in 2006) wouldn't even start in this receiving corp.

You made the claim that Dobson's shown to be a WR3. He's done no such thing.

As for me, the closest thing to a controversial statement that I made was when I noted was that both Dobson and Boyce have shown they aren't ready, and that shouldn't be in any way controversial. That's not news, as reporters have been noting the same thing, and that's not proof that they won't be ready at some point, be it week 1, week 16 or next year.

 

[Rob0729]

You made the claim that Dobson's shown to be a WR3. He's done no such thing.

As for me, the closest thing to a controversial statement that I made was when I noted was that both Dobson and Boyce have shown they aren't ready, and that shouldn't be in any way controversial. That's not news, as reporters have been noting the same thing, and that's not proof that they won't be ready at some point, be it week 1, week 16 or next year.

What does WR#3 catch? Three or four balls a game at most? Dobson has certainly showed that thus far. He has shown that he is capable of running certain routes. He still needs to work on his shorter routes and getting free on those short routes, but he looks good on some of the more vertical routes.

If the preseason is any indication, he certainly can be a decent #3 WR right off the bat and be the Pats' outside guy in those situations. Who knows if he can be that when the games really start. Again, we are talking about the #3 WR, not a starter. I wouldn't say from what we have saw that he would be a great #3 WR, but it would be better than what the Pats have had as a #3 WR in a long, long time (except in 2011 when Branch was the #3 WR, but was the defacto #2 WR because Ocho sucked so bad). But the Pats haven't had any real depth at WR to speak of since 2008.

I never said anything about controversial. I am talking about definitive assessments vs. opinions based on the preseason. It could just be your style, but you speak in definitive statements and seem to dismiss other's opinions as "it's just the preseason". And your sane comment is yet another example of you coming off as you thinking you are being smarter and more objective than people who disagree with your opinion. Whether that was your intent or not.

 

[Nunchucks]

And you saw that I qualified it as nothing set is in stone. And I said what it SEEMS to be and not what it will be.

But it goes both ways. You can't say the receiving corp is "pretty much what most sane people expected it to be" other than Thompkins and Dobson and Boyce have "shown that they aren't ready" as if your opinions are definite, and then dismiss others' opinions by stating that anything positive was done in "exhibition" games against bad secondaries.

I am under no illusion that that what happens in the preseason is guaranteed that it will transfer into the regular season. I try to qualify my posts to reflect that. You seem to want to talk definitive with your opinions though.

One thing SEEMS pretty clear. This receiving corp looks far better than the 2006 receiving corp. If Thompkins is anything close to what we have seen in the preseason when they start playing for real, Caldwell (who was the #1 WR in 2006) wouldn't even start in this receiving corp.

I would postulate that most "sane" people would expect the receiving group to be a hot mess with the only bright spot being Amendola. As it is made up of rookies and JAG vets. The fact that Thompskins is running with the first group and looking better than I've ever seen a rookie receiver look outside of Branch, well....I would say things are looking fabulous.

 

[Deus Irae]

I never said anything about controversial. I am talking about definitive assessments vs. opinions based on the preseason. It could just be your style, but you speak in definitive statements and seem to dismiss other's opinions as "it's just the preseason". And your sane comment is yet another example of you coming off as you thinking you are being smarter and more objective than people who disagree with your opinion. Whether that was your intent or not.

Are you trying to claim that Amendola hasn't been as expected? That Thompkins hasn't been a potential find? That Edelman, now that he's on the field, has been about what was expected? That the vet FAs didn't bust? Outside of your opinion on Dobson, which is just as definite as mine, exactly what is your issue here?

Go read my post again. It's comfortably within the confines set out by the O.P. and the other posters.

 

[Oswlek]

What does WR#3 catch? Three or four balls a game at most? Dobson has certainly showed that thus far. He has shown that he is capable of running certain routes. He still needs to work on his shorter routes and getting free on those short routes, but he looks good on some of the more vertical routes.

If the preseason is any indication, he certainly can be a decent #3 WR right off the bat and be the Pats' outside guy in those situations. Who knows if he can be that when the games really start. Again, we are talking about the #3 WR, not a starter. I wouldn't say from what we have saw that he would be a great #3 WR, but it would be better than what the Pats have had as a #3 WR in a long, long time (except in 2011 when Branch was the #3 WR, but was the defacto #2 WR because Ocho sucked so bad). But the Pats haven't had any real depth at WR to speak of since 2008.

I never said anything about controversial. I am talking about definitive assessments vs. opinions based on the preseason. It could just be your style, but you speak in definitive statements and seem to dismiss other's opinions as "it's just the preseason". And your sane comment is yet another example of you coming off as you thinking you are being smarter and more objective than people who disagree with your opinion. Whether that was your intent or not.

Yeah, the group has played - to date! - sizeably better than any pessimist indicated just a month ago. Fall back on "they haven't played in a real game yet" if you must, but pretending that it has gone exactly as expected is disingenuous and downright silly. If anything, optimists have been right. So far, of course.

 

[Rob0729]

I would postulate that most "sane" people would expect the receiving group to be a hot mess with the only bright spot being Amendola. As it is made up of rookies and JAG vets. The fact that Thompskins is running with the first group and looking better than I've ever seen a rookie receiver look outside of Branch, well....I would say things are looking fabulous.

Personally, I think any "sane" person would say the Pats would find a way to make the receiving corp work because that is what they do when they have Brady, Belichick, and McDaniels. Even with Reche Caldwell as his best receiver, Brady was 7th in yards and 4th in TDs. And I would argue Brady is a better QB today than he was in 2006 and this receiving corp isn't nearly as bad as 2006 (at least at full strength).

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah, the group has played - to date! - sizeably better than any pessimist indicated just a month ago. Fall back on "they haven't played in a real game yet" if you must, but pretending that it has gone exactly as expected is disingenuous and downright silly. If anything, optimists have been right. So far, of course.

Dobson/Boyce - Not ready, not surprisingly (they're rookies, for crying out loud)
Edelman - Edelman
Amendola - Amendola

Outside of Thompkins, everything is not only as the "pessimists" would have indicated, it's as even most "optimists" would have acknowledged. Thompkins has upset the apple cart. Everything else is pretty much as one would expect to this point. Given that, your post really doesn't make any sense.