OK, we officially need 5 receivers

[mgteich]

With the patriots not using the tight end and running backs much as receivers, it is time to accept that in order for Brady to have enough weapons, we need five wide receivers that are able to be significant contributers.

For me, Tate is the #5 for now, with Patten, Aiken and Stanback as alternatives if he fails.
===========
We have no #2 or #4. Moss is a fine #1 and Edelman is a fine #3 (slot) wide receiver.
==============

I have said that the offense is almost set with regard to roster, needing only 2 TE's, 2 WR's and a RB upgrade. The other 20 positions are fine. However, this is a tall order when we continue to pass on receivers and tight ends, even in these first week or so. Every day a receiver option goes away. It is early, but as of now, even ignoring Brady, we are one injury away from total disaster on the offense. If we want to consider ourselves a Super Bowl, we should be able to play without Moss for at least some of the year. We know that Welker is no playing anyn time soon; it's not like he got injured in Game 1.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

With the patriots not using the tight end and running backs much as receivers, it is time to accept that in order for Brady to have enough weapons, we need five wide receivers that are able to be significant contributers.

For me, Tate is the #5 for now, with Patten, Aiken and Stanback as alternatives if he fails.
===========
We have no #2 or #4. Moss is a fine #1 and Edelman is a fine #3 (slot) wide receiver.

How many times do you think the Patriots lined up in 5 WR formation in the past? (I'm talking 5 WR not empty backfield)

 

[DW Toys]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

With the patriots not using the tight end and running backs much as receivers, it is time to accept that in order for Brady to have enough weapons, we need five wide receivers that are able to be significant contributers.

For me, Tate is the #5 for now, with Patten, Aiken and Stanback as alternatives if he fails.
===========
We have no #2 or #4. Moss is a fine #1 and Edelman is a fine #3 (slot) wide receiver.

You have a valid point.
DW Toys

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

not sure what was wrong with the charlie weis way of doing things where the the general impression NFL-wide was the amazement with the number of different targets that would be used in any given game...you used to hear '3 or more receptions by 6 different targets'

does the offense really need to be that 'dynamic'?

 

[sieglo]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

How many times do you think the Patriots lined up in 5 WR formation in the past? (I'm talking 5 WR not empty backfield)

Injuries, bro. Think about it.

 

[mgteich]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

In order to run the 4 receiver set, we need at least five receivers. There are different roles. In addition, there are injuries. Finally, if one of your five isn't devloping well, or playing well, you need to have options.

My personal best case is to have two tight ends who can block and catch passes, as well as three recieving running backs. We have decided not to go in that direction.

In 2007, we could count on Faulk and Watson running deep as receiver options. So, we needed only three receivers. We had Moss and Welker. For part of the year Stallworth was productive and for the rest, Gaffney was productive. Faulk was also a major part of the short passing game. Faulk WAS the #4 receiver and Watson the #5.

QUOTE=emoney_33;1756910]How many times do you think the Patriots lined up in 5 WR formation in the past? (I'm talking 5 WR not empty backfield)[/QUOTE]

 

[Warren94]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

surprised Reed wasn't offered a contract. He would be a good addition to this team.

 

[blackcat54]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

not sure what was wrong with the charlie weis way of doing things where the the general impression NFL-wide was the amazement with the number of different targets that would be used in any given game...you used to hear '3 or more receptions by 6 different targets'

does the offense really need to be that 'dynamic'?

No, it doesn't, but you need NFL caliber receivers to make it work. I don't think Stanbach fits this criteria, and even though I hope he can still play, Patten probably doesn't either.

 

[alvinnf]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

not sure what was wrong with the charlie weis way of doing things where the the general impression NFL-wide was the amazement with the number of different targets that would be used in any given game...you used to hear '3 or more receptions by 6 different targets'

does the offense really need to be that 'dynamic'?

That's what we need to get back to. We used to operate out of twin TE's more frequently. Allot more under center for Brady and play action. Move the chains, not chuck and duck! We need TE's and recievers at this point. The reason lesser known recievers did well in the past is because there was a threat of a running game so play action was effective. With the amount of time Brady spends in the shotgun, cornerbacks need not worry about peaking into the backfield they just focus solely on their man.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

That's what we need to get back to. We used to operate out of twin TE's more frequently. Allot more under center for Brady and play action. Move the chains, not chuck and duck! We need TE's and recievers at this point. The reason lesser known recievers did well in the past is because there was a threat of a running game so play action was effective. With the amount of time Brady spends in the shotgun, cornerbacks need not worry about peaking into the backfield they just focus solely on their man.

Need a running game that demands respect and receivers that get the respect from the secondary.

Without those two things, play-action is irrelevent.

 

[AGHPatsfan]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

===========
We have no #2 or #4. Moss is a fine #1 and Edelman is a fine #3 (slot) wide receiver.

I dont see edelman as a slot reciever, I think that has been a misconception because he keeps getting compared to welker. The Patriots in the past have used multiple undersized recievers at the same time or "smurfs" if you would and truth be told Edelman isnt a big huge target but he is taller than welker and has blazing speed. Im sure with a year under his belt the Pats will start to line him up on the corners and take advantage of his blazing straight line speed.

 

[mgteich]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

Edelman did well as a slot receiver in his first year as a receiver. For now, we need a slot receiver. Perhaps in 2011, with Welker back, Edelman can develop into a #3 receiver.

I dont see edelman as a slot reciever, I think that has been a misconception because he keeps getting compared to welker. The Patriots in the past have used multiple undersized recievers at the same time or "smurfs" if you would and truth be told Edelman isnt a big huge target but he is taller than welker and has blazing speed. Im sure with a year under his belt the Pats will start to line him up on the corners and take advantage of his blazing straight line speed.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

In order to run the 4 receiver set, we need at least five receivers. There are different roles. In addition, there are injuries. Finally, if one of your five isn't devloping well, or playing well, you need to have options.

My personal best case is to have two tight ends who can block and catch passes, as well as three recieving running backs. We have decided not to go in that direction.

In 2007, we could count on Faulk and Watson running deep as receiver options. So, we needed only three receivers. We had Moss and Welker. For part of the year Stallworth was productive and for the rest, Gaffney was productive. Faulk was also a major part of the short passing game. Faulk WAS the #4 receiver and Watson the #5.

Not sure what exactly you are saying here.

5 "competent" receivers is one thing, 5 "productive" receivers is another. Aiken is classified as competent BTW.

We will also have a tight end by season start, and we will most likely have Faulk at season start.

 

[BradyManny]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

How many times do you think the Patriots lined up in 5 WR formation in the past? (I'm talking 5 WR not empty backfield)

It's not about lining up with 5 wide, its about having 5 legitimate wide receivers like when we won in 2003/2004.

As of now, I'm with mgteich, we just need bodies at both WR and TE. We really need to get a lot better at WR. Our depth at the position was unacceptable last year, and we've lost our most consistent - though not best, that's still Moss - performer in Welker. WR is - without question - the weak spot on this team, and one that needs to be addressed aggressively in the draft and perhaps via trade.

I think adding Josh Reed would go a long way to creating some stability at the position. He'd be very similar to Gaffney, and I think we really missed Gaffney last season. I'm not sure why Reed hasn't been added yet - maybe he thinks he can get more elsewhere. I doubt he will, so I have a feeling we end up signing him.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

Need a running game that demands respect and receivers that get the respect from the secondary.

Without those two things, play-action is irrelevent.

I believe play-actions with Maroney have been effective to date.

 

[blackcat54]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

I dont see edelman as a slot reciever, I think that has been a misconception because he keeps getting compared to welker. The Patriots in the past have used multiple undersized recievers at the same time or "smurfs" if you would and truth be told Edelman isnt a big huge target but he is taller than welker and has blazing speed. Im sure with a year under his belt the Pats will start to line him up on the corners and take advantage of his blazing straight line speed.

I think he will play some of both. He is fast and big enough to play more on the outside. They just need to get him the ball in space because he is something with the ball in his hands.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

It's not about lining up with 5 wide, its about having 5 legitimate wide receivers like when we won in 2003/2004.

As of now, I'm with mgteich, we just need bodies at both WR and TE. We really need to get a lot better at WR. Our depth at the position was unacceptable last year, and we've lost our most consistent - though not best, that's still Moss - performer in Welker. WR is - without question - the weak spot on this team, and one that needs to be addressed aggressively in the draft and perhaps via trade.

I think adding Josh Reed would go a long way to creating some stability at the position. He'd be very similar to Gaffney, and I think we really missed Gaffney last season. I'm not sure why Reed hasn't been added yet - maybe he thinks he can get more elsewhere. I doubt he will, so I have a feeling we end up signing him.

actually, 2003/2004 is a poor example since the pats don't even use the scheme anymore.......if they did, we would still need TE's

 

[emoney_33]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

It's not about lining up with 5 wide, its about having 5 legitimate wide receivers like when we won in 2003/2004.

As of now, I'm with mgteich, we just need bodies at both WR and TE. We really need to get a lot better at WR. Our depth at the position was unacceptable last year, and we've lost our most consistent - though not best, that's still Moss - performer in Welker. WR is - without question - the weak spot on this team, and one that needs to be addressed aggressively in the draft and perhaps via trade.

I think adding Josh Reed would go a long way to creating some stability at the position. He'd be very similar to Gaffney, and I think we really missed Gaffney last season. I'm not sure why Reed hasn't been added yet - maybe he thinks he can get more elsewhere. I doubt he will, so I have a feeling we end up signing him.

#4/#5 WR don't have to be much more than Aiken. Matter of fact Aiken is just fine as a #4/#5.

The 4/5 WR combined for 25 receptions in 2003, 27 in 2004. We surely didn't need a 5th in 2007.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

I believe play-actions with Maroney have been effective to date.

My impression was that PA effectiveness was mixed for all RBs. Maroney. Morris. Taylor. Didn't matter on the RB. Receivers didn't get open, etc.

 

[TomPatriot]

Re: OK, we officially need 5 receivers.

Jermaine Gresham

Alge Crumpler