OK, we officially need 5 receivers

[mgteich]

I don't think you and I make it to 2010 patriot heaven if we need to believe and state before others that we believe this nonsense creed.

You're in danger of falling prey to the pitchfork parade. You're not reciting the mantra. Repeat after me:



1.) Moss hasn't lost a single microsecond of speed or burst since joining the team

2.) Welker will be ready, and 100%, for game 1

3.) Edelman is already an established WR2, and is just as good as Welker in the slot

4.) Tate has clearly demonstrated that he's a quality WR2/WR3 in this league, even though he's never caught a pass

5.) Patten will have a tremendous bounce back year and put up great numbers AND be a god in the locker room

6.) Aiken was not a problem last year, and he's actually a tremendous WR3 option

7.) The team doesn't need to bring any WRs in, because the corps is already awesome

8.) If the team does draft a WR, he'll be a more than capable WR2 by week 1, guaranteed


Keep repeating that until you've learned the error of your ways. You can still be saved.

 

[eagle eye]

Alot of folks seem willing to count on a player who didn't play his senior year, missed trainging camp, and played a mediocre week in the NFL before getting injured again.

Tate may be a great talent. He may replace Moss. And, based on the past history of those who ahve missed their rookie camp and season (he has missed more), he may never reach his potential.
============

Hope is great!

However, please list all those players (other than qb's and rb's who seem to do okay on the shelf) who became starters after losing so much playing time at the beginning of their careers.
=========

Personally, I think it makes much more sense to count on Patten than Tate. He is 3 years younger than Galloway and Patten will not have problems getting used to Brady and the offense. I seriously doubt that Patten is here without a good word from Brady.

I'm saying Tate is a no.4, no more no less. If injuries get in his way again, well thats the end of that but hey thats the reason you have a no.5 and 6.

You keep saying we need two but I disagree.

1. Moss
2.*Vacant
3. Edelman
4. Tate
5. Patten
6. Aiken until Welker returns(if that happens)

PUP: Welker

We need a no.2 and its important we get one. Personally I'd look to the draft for Golden Tate if he drops as far as us but a good experienced pro will be more than satisfactory.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

You're in danger of falling prey to the pitchfork parade. You're not reciting the mantra. Repeat after me:



1.) Moss hasn't lost a single microsecond of speed or burst since joining the team

2.) Welker will be ready, and 100%, for game 1

3.) Edelman is already an established WR2, and is just as good as Welker in the slot

4.) Tate has clearly demonstrated that he's a quality WR2/WR3 in this league, even though he's never caught a pass

5.) Patten will have a tremendous bounce back year and put up great numbers AND be a god in the locker room

6.) Aiken was not a problem last year, and he's actually a tremendous WR3 option

7.) The team doesn't need to bring any WRs in, because the corps is already awesome

8.) If the team does draft a WR, he'll be a more than capable WR2 by week 1, guaranteed

9) Randy Moss has been a MONSTER of a WR in the playoffs,no one can stop him
Keep repeating that until you've learned the error of your ways. You can still be saved.

I added one for you.....

 

[emoney_33]

I'm glad the clowns can come in and derail the thread with their nonsense.

 

[BradyManny]

So without spending for a big time FA or devoting a top 50 pick in 2010 on a WR, I ended up with a reasonable WR depth chart in the short, medium and long term. If Belichick is more pessimistic about Welker's recovery or Tate's potential, he probably won't go this route. But I don't have any evidence that either of those things are true.

Getting a "top" WR (FA or top 50 pick) this year will absolutely help in the short term but will box out the development of Tate and Edelman this year. So IMO, the Pats are positioned pretty well to deal with the WR depth chart without making a huge move in the short term. If an opportunity in FA or the draft, I'm sure they will jump at it. My point is that they don't have to.

There is plenty of reps to go around with the way this team is constituted. Welker is likely headed for PUP and Randy Moss is given days off fairly regularly. Patten isn't going to need much time with Brady, and if - for instance - we obtain Deion Branch somehow, he - like the other vets - will probably be a part-time practice participant. Ultimately, I cannot think of an example where Belichick has jeopardized the team's ability to win in the short term for the sake of developing unknown, young talent at a position. He always brings contingencies - at least to camp. If the veteran contingency gets beat out - so be it, but I'd be surprised if he goes into camp counting on Brandon Tate, anything Tate gives you is a bonus.

You've run through the best case and worst case scenario pretty thoroughly - so I won't rehash, though I will say your worst case does not account for Randy Moss getting injured - which he did this year, but the lack of depth at the position forced him to play through it.

Essentially, I'd say the worst case scenario could be a lot worse. Just look at this season. Between Galloway & Lewis, we thought we'd have a WR depth chart as deep as 2007. Those guys were complete busts and we were forced to play a 7th round QB-turned-WR and a career STer - and that pretty much unraveled our season, just as much as any defensive struggles or AD shooting off his mouth.

And the upside of aggressively addressing the wide receiver position is just too high. The last time Brady was given ample weapons, they blew away offensive records and damn near went undefeated. In 2003/2004, when he had what I'd say is clearly the 2nd best unit he's dealt with - they won Super Bowls. If they had just one more capable receiver in 2006, I have no doubt we probably have one more ring. If they had one more capable receiver in 2009, I'm damn sure we make it past the first round. The reward is too high not to add wide receivers, whether it stifles Tate's development or not. If Brady has 3 or 4 legitimate options, we score points against any defense.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

If he can stay healthy, I think Tate has the upside to be a very good #2 WR in this offense. He was sick at UNC and in my eyes was a first round talent who slid b/c of his ACL surgery and drug issues. But I remember Reiss saying Tate's knee injury at the end of last year wasn't a tear and didn't require surgery, and I have very high hopes for him this year. I think some people are underrating his talent b/c he hasn't been on the field much.

We need to add another WR though, IMO. Moss, Tate, Edelman, and a draftee like Benn would be a very good group of WR. But I don't know if Belichick is going to want to spend a high pick on WR. We could try to pick up someone later in the draft, pick up a FA (not many great options left), or maybe work out a trade to bring back Branch. I believe Reiss has said the Pats kicked the tires on Branch at the deadline last year.

Hopefully you get Welker back at some point, but you can't count on that or that he's. I know some might feel that I'm putting a lot of stock in Tate, but that's how confident I am in his abilities. I'm really targeting a big-time WR in 2011 with that great class coming out.

 

[Metaphors]

There is plenty of reps to go around with the way this team is constituted. Welker is likely headed for PUP and Randy Moss is given days off fairly regularly. Patten isn't going to need much time with Brady, and if - for instance - we obtain Deion Branch somehow, he - like the other vets - will probably be a part-time practice participant. Ultimately, I cannot think of an example where Belichick has jeopardized the team's ability to win in the short term for the sake of developing unknown, young talent at a position. He always brings contingencies - at least to camp. If the veteran contingency gets beat out - so be it, but I'd be surprised if he goes into camp counting on Brandon Tate, anything Tate gives you is a bonus.

I'm not against bringing in receiver competition. Quite the contrary. Bottom line, if Belichick thinks Tate has the potential to earn the spot opposite Moss in 2010, then it makes little sense to bring in Boldin/comparable because you pretty much ensure that Tate won't reach his potential. Poor use of resources (you want everyone to outplay their contract/draft position) and if you do it enough, your locker room starts filling up with youngsters wishing they were somewhere else.

You've run through the best case and worst case scenario pretty thoroughly - so I won't rehash, though I will say your worst case does not account for Randy Moss getting injured - which he did this year, but the lack of depth at the position forced him to play through it.

Essentially, I'd say the worst case scenario could be a lot worse. Just look at this season. Between Galloway & Lewis, we thought we'd have a WR depth chart as deep as 2007. Those guys were complete busts and we were forced to play a 7th round QB-turned-WR and a career STer - and that pretty much unraveled our season, just as much as any defensive struggles or AD shooting off his mouth.

It was less of a "worst case scenario" and more of the lower end of reasonable expectations. Moss is old, Welker is injured, Tate is new, Edelman has uncertain upside, Aiken is limited. You could make a case that they all need contingencies but unless you flush them all and start over, you really can't cover everything. For example, getting Boldin would be fine but you are right back where you started if Welker doesn't come back and Tate is a flop. Add in a Moss injury and Aiken is starting again.

And the upside of aggressively addressing the wide receiver position is just too high. The last time Brady was given ample weapons, they blew away offensive records and damn near went undefeated. In 2003/2004, when he had what I'd say is clearly the 2nd best unit he's dealt with - they won Super Bowls.

2003/2004 had Brown, Branch, Patten, Givens and Bethel. Patten was injured in 2003 and Bethel's primary contributions were on ST. In this configuration, Edelman has to fill the Branch role and Tate has to be Patten. If you don't believe that either of these guys can reach that bar, then I understand why you want someone else. BTW to finish out the comparison, I'm looking for the Pats to draft Seyi Ajirotutu to play the Givens role. Also, I didn't mention Welker and if he returns for the stretch run (a reasonable possibility), the depth chart of Moss, Welker, Tate, Edelman, Ajirotutu/comparable, Aiken compares pretty favorably to 2003/2004.

IMO, chasing 2007 is both futile and foolish. Getting the consistency and clutch play of 2003/2004 is a worthwhile goal. I thought drafting Tate and Edelman was a step in that direction.

If they had just one more capable receiver in 2006, I have no doubt we probably have one more ring. If they had one more capable receiver in 2009, I'm damn sure we make it past the first round. The reward is too high not to add wide receivers, whether it stifles Tate's development or not. If Brady has 3 or 4 legitimate options, we score points against any defense.

They had one more receiver in both 2006 and 2009, but they didn't turn out to be capable (CJack = underachiever, Tate = hurt). The player acquisition effort was there, but the results weren't. In the end, Belichick has to make the call and it didn't work out in 2006 and 2009 (he would almost certainly admit that as well). We will see this offseason whether Belichick is hedging his bets on Tate and Edelman.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, if Tate is healthy, continues to be so, plays as well in the nfl as he did two years ago in college, and learns the patriots offense, then perhaps he will be a quality starter for the patriots. Oh yeah, and he need to avoid any drug issues.

If he can stay healthy, I think Tate has the upside to be a very good #2 WR in this offense. He was sick at UNC and in my eyes was a first round talent who slid b/c of his ACL surgery and drug issues. But I remember Reiss saying Tate's knee injury at the end of last year wasn't a tear and didn't require surgery, and I have very high hopes for him this year. I think some people are underrating his talent b/c he hasn't been on the field much.

We need to add another WR though, IMO. Moss, Tate, Edelman, and a draftee like Benn would be a very good group of WR. But I don't know if Belichick is going to want to spend a high pick on WR. We could try to pick up someone later in the draft, pick up a FA (not many great options left), or maybe work out a trade to bring back Branch. I believe Reiss has said the Pats kicked the tires on Branch at the deadline last year.

Hopefully you get Welker back at some point, but you can't count on that or that he's. I know some might feel that I'm putting a lot of stock in Tate, but that's how confident I am in his abilities. I'm really targeting a big-time WR in 2011 with that great class coming out.

 

[Metaphors]

Yes, if Tate is healthy, continues to be so, plays as well in the nfl as he did two years ago in college, and learns the patriots offense, then perhaps he will be a quality starter for the patriots. Oh yeah, and he need to avoid any drug issues.

Don't you think Belichick and his scouts considered these things when he drafted Tate? Was Tate an exceptionally bad choice or does Belichick has some fundamental issue with drafting certain positions (or drafting in general)? Should Belichick stick to FA acquisitions or make sure that certain draft picks (or all of them) are accompanied by a FA acquisition ahead of them on the depth chart?

I just don't get what the "any production from Tate is just a bonus" crowd is driving at. Does he need time to develop? Is he limited to being just a niche/depth WR? Does he need to be replaced on the roster entirely? All of these perspectives are based on information none of us have. And clearly they are not based on anything prior to October 2008. So if you believe that an ACL injury for a 21 yo is a career-limiter or that you've seen enough of his ability since October 2008 to make a football evaluation, then you are more in the loop than I am.

Tate may a dud or have ligaments made of play-doh, but I am confident Belichick will take appropriate action as soon as that becomes apparent. So if a big-time FA or draft pick isn't part of the 2010 mix, then I think it is pretty clear that Belichick believes Tate is healthy, that he should continue to be so, will play like he was projected out of college, is capable of doing what the Pats will assign to him in the playbook and will stay away from the Tijuana slims. None of these things are certain but very little in the NFL is.

 

[BostonPatriot]

I'm glad the clowns can come in and derail the thread with their nonsense.

Lets get things back on track for you, emoney....

The Patriots have no needs, because Bill Belichick is the smartest man in the world. The team has no holes to fill...infact, they are better than they were in 2007!

I dont think there is room on the roster for another wr. Welker will be back week 1, Tate is an all pro, Moss is more motivated than ever, and of course, we have Edelman as a downfield threat. That's not even taking into account studs like Aiken we have as depth. It's laughable to think we need to add a legit 2nd option at the wr position!

The Pats have everything under control and this is all a ploy to make the leauge think we have a thin wr corp, currently.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

Lets get things back on track for you, emoney....

The Patriots have no needs, because Bill Belichick is the smartest man in the world. The team has no holes to fill...infact, they are better than they were in 2007!

I dont think there is room on the roster for another wr. Welker will be back week 1, Tate is an all pro, Moss is more motivated than ever, and of course, we have Edelman as a downfield threat. That's not even taking into account studs like Aiken we have as depth. It's laughable to think we need to add a legit 2nd option at the wr position!

The Pats have everything under control and this is all a ploy to make the leauge think we have a thin wr corp, currently.

Hahahahah good stuff. Loves to use those profootballfocus rankings for stating Bodden > Samuel, but doesn't seem to want to use them when they suggest Moss is the 21st overall ranked WR in the NFL. Those rankings are absolute garbage FWIW anyway b/c there's no way Bodden is better than Asante and Nnamdi, and there's no way Cotchery and Bess are better than Moss. Just love to the see the subjective use of certain stuff and how people can convince themselves to believe something if they truly want to.

 

[PatsCanDoIt]

Maybe we can clear things up by estimating the production of each WR. Not a real serious estimate. Just a modest ballpark estimate for each guy. Future injuries are obvious exceptions.

1) Moss: At least 1100 yards and 75 catches. He is extremely important next season.

2) Welker: If IR'd obviously zero. If pupped and plays 6 games then 37 and 392. For 10 games 60 and 650. This is at 85% of Wes's normal production. If he can physically play six games I think this outlook is reasonable.

3) Edelman: He filled in for Welker early last season and I expect about the same rate stats but for the volume stats to improve. Something like 65 for 610+. If we add Welker and Edelman's stats together we should see a little less than one of Welker's last three season.

4) Tate: All I have to go on are other receivers in this offense. In 2006 Doug Gabriel caught 25 for 344. If Brandon plays most of the season I think that would be his floor. IOW, he should be better than Aiken in the 3-spot. David Givens went from 9 catches and a 7 round nobody to 34 catches and playoff playmaker. I wouldn't be surprised by production similar to Givens.

5) Patten) I honestly don't expect him to make the roster on opening day. Historically he caught 3 passes per game for 15 yards a catch on this team. If he does make it I would guess production similar to Aiken last year from him; 20 for 280+.

6) Aiken: In 2008 he caught 8 for 101, so that would be all I would like to see. I doubt he sees the snaps he saw last season.

7) Rookie X: I expect to see a draft choice this year on WR. With Bill and Brady the most productive rookie WR was Deion Branch. He had 43 catches and 489 yards. However, Deion had way less talent in front of him in 2002. I wouldn't expect more than 25 catches and 330 from whoever. In reality only two of the Rookie, Aiken and Patten will be on the team. one would catch 8 and another with 20. Six WRs caught balls last season, so I'm taking six.

If I combine the the WR catches, ( 75, 37, 65, 34, 20, 8 ) there would be a total of 239. Last season the WRs had 273 catches but that is a very high number. Normally 220+ is good for for the WRs. The only question I have is, can these guys execute in the redzone and score TDs? A better running game and thus more carries would help. We would only need one of these WRs to step up and best my modest estimates to have a great offense. If Welker is IR'd things change and we would need either a much better ground game or all of the pass catchers would have to step up. Maybe McCluster would be the best option if wes is IR'd.

 

[DaBruinz]

Alot of folks seem willing to count on a player who didn't play his senior year, missed trainging camp, and played a mediocre week in the NFL before getting injured again. Tate only missed part of his Senior Year. And, while he wasn't actively participating in the on field activities, he was part of all the film studies, game planning sessions, etc. That came out in the off-season interview that he did...

Tate may be a great talent. He may replace Moss. And, based on the past history of those who ahve missed their rookie camp and season (he has missed more), he may never reach his potential.
============

Hope is great!

However, please list all those players (other than qb's and rb's who seem to do okay on the shelf) who became starters after losing so much playing time at the beginning of their careers.
=========

Personally, I think it makes much more sense to count on Patten than Tate. He is 3 years younger than Galloway and Patten will not have problems getting used to Brady and the offense. I seriously doubt that Patten is here without a good word from Brady.

This is the same David Patten who was benched for much of the 2004 play-offs and whom the Patriots cut after the 2004 SB..

Tate is a question mark. I'll admit that. But this idea that the Pats are somehow short 5 receivers (WRs/TEs) is a bit far-fetched. They need someone to line-up opposite Moss on the Outside. They have Edelman for the slot until Welker returns. They need 2 TEs.. That's 3 receivers.

I'll be honest, I can see Aiken losing his special teams job to a LB... The Pats have other players who can be gunners. All they need is someone who can be the Personnel Protector on the Punt Unit and Aiken can go.. Then they might need another WR.

I see the Pats needing 3 receivers to make the roster. One WR and 2 TEs. That being said, there are a bunch of unknowns at those 2 positions on this team already. Tate, Agnone, Myers, Jenkins, Barnes, and White. If the Pats hadn't seen something in Barnes and White, they wouldn't have put them on the Reserve/Military list. The Pats clearly liked Agnone and brought in Myers after Agnone was injured. Jenkins was signed to the Practice squad after Terrence Nunn was signed about by the Bucs... Jenkins showed enough before being injured for the Pats to offer him a contract for 2010..

It's all well and good to WANT top notch vets at all the WR positions, but reality is that it just doesn't work like that. Do they need someone who can be an effective blocker at TE? Yes. 80% of the TEs job is supposed to be blocking. The Pats still have plenty of time to add 2 or 3 with the draft and the rest of free agency. Just like I think they will add 1 or 2 WRs between the draft and free agency. Then they'll have plenty of competition at those 2 positions.

 

[emoney_33]

Hahahahah good stuff. Loves to use those profootballfocus rankings for stating Bodden > Samuel, but doesn't seem to want to use them when they suggest Moss is the 21st overall ranked WR in the NFL. Those rankings are absolute garbage FWIW anyway b/c there's no way Bodden is better than Asante and Nnamdi, and there's no way Cotchery and Bess are better than Moss. Just love to the see the subjective use of certain stuff and how people can convince themselves to believe something if they truly want to.

I never once used their ranking system for anything.

 

[DaBruinz]

Hahahahah good stuff. Loves to use those profootballfocus rankings for stating Bodden > Samuel, but doesn't seem to want to use them when they suggest Moss is the 21st overall ranked WR in the NFL. Those rankings are absolute garbage FWIW anyway b/c there's no way Bodden is better than Asante and Nnamdi, and there's no way Cotchery and Bess are better than Moss. Just love to the see the subjective use of certain stuff and how people can convince themselves to believe something if they truly want to.

You really shouldn't listen to Boston Patriot. He's nothing but an imbecilic homer hater who actually does more attacking of people than I do.. Which is saying something..

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

I never once used their ranking system for anything.

They've been used numerous times in the Samuel discussions and about how Leon Hall and such are much better. But that's for another time.

You really shouldn't listen to Boston Patriot. He's nothing but an imbecilic homer hater who actually does more attacking of people than I do.. Which is saying something..

I don't really know what he posts about. I haven't read many of them, but there are quite a few fans who are too subjective. You've got plenty of people on here who think everyone the Jets add will fail miserably and Moss, Edelman, Patten is good enough to compete with, just like Andy Gresh on the Hub.

 

[emoney_33]

They've been used numerous times in the Samuel discussions and about how Leon Hall and such are much better. But that's for another time.

Again, I have never used their ranking system for anything. I have used their site for peripheral numbers only. I'm sorry if you do not understand what that means, but that is not my problem.

What I have in fact argued however is that Bodden 2009 was better than Samuel 2009. I prefer Bodden style CB than Samuel for the patriots defense. I don't trust nor care about what PFF's ranking system entails and I've on numerous occasions mentioned it is flawed. I do think their peripheral data however is more trustworthy.

 

[DaBruinz]

I don't really know what he posts about. I haven't read many of them, but there are quite a few fans who are too subjective. You've got plenty of people on here who think everyone the Jets add will fail miserably and Moss, Edelman, Patten is good enough to compete with, just like Andy Gresh on the Hub.

Well, when you go back and look at 2001-2004 when the Pats had Brown, Patten and Charles Johnson and then Brown, Patten, Givens, and Branch, I can fully understand why people would think that Moss, Edelman and Patten is enough to compete with. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand.

I also understand that you can't have an All-Pro at every position and back-up on the bench as well. In a perfect world, the Pats would already know exactly who is lining up across from Moss and they'd know that Welker would be back in the line-up in September. But we don't live in a perfect world. The Pats can't have All-Pros at every position and they may have to settle for some unknowns at the WR position going forward. But this team, under Belichick, has always performed well despite holes in their line-up. The last 2 years, the Pats LB corps has been thinner than papyrus, yet they've still managed 11 and 10 games respectively.

Regardless, I am confident that BB will bring in talent at both the WR and TE positions that will help this team contend..

 

[mgteich]

If we had the 2003-2004 defense and running game, then we would be fine with a set of receivers as good as what we had then.

Well, when you go back and look at 2001-2004 when the Pats had Brown, Patten and Charles Johnson and then Brown, Patten, Givens, and Branch, I can fully understand why people would think that Moss, Edelman and Patten is enough to compete with. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand.

I also understand that you can't have an All-Pro at every position and back-up on the bench as well. In a perfect world, the Pats would already know exactly who is lining up across from Moss and they'd know that Welker would be back in the line-up in September. But we don't live in a perfect world. The Pats can't have All-Pros at every position and they may have to settle for some unknowns at the WR position going forward. But this team, under Belichick, has always performed well despite holes in their line-up. The last 2 years, the Pats LB corps has been thinner than papyrus, yet they've still managed 11 and 10 games respectively.

Regardless, I am confident that BB will bring in talent at both the WR and TE positions that will help this team contend..

 

[mgteich]

You seem fine with six total receivers, 2 TE's and 4 wide receivers. You indicate that we now have three: Moss Edelman and Tate. You mock my mention of the possbility that Belichick knew what he was doing when he signed Patten.

We agree on the need for a #2.

In the end, our disagreement may simply be that I think that we need an additional receiver. For now, I have Tate/Patten as our #5, with the hope that Tate moves up.

So the issue is whether a potential number 2 is enough.

This is the same David Patten who was benched for much of the 2004 play-offs and whom the Patriots cut after the 2004 SB..

Tate is a question mark. I'll admit that. But this idea that the Pats are somehow short 5 receivers (WRs/TEs) is a bit far-fetched. They need someone to line-up opposite Moss on the Outside. They have Edelman for the slot until Welker returns. They need 2 TEs.. That's 3 receivers.

I'll be honest, I can see Aiken losing his special teams job to a LB... The Pats have other players who can be gunners. All they need is someone who can be the Personnel Protector on the Punt Unit and Aiken can go.. Then they might need another WR.

I see the Pats needing 3 receivers to make the roster. One WR and 2 TEs. That being said, there are a bunch of unknowns at those 2 positions on this team already. Tate, Agnone, Myers, Jenkins, Barnes, and White. If the Pats hadn't seen something in Barnes and White, they wouldn't have put them on the Reserve/Military list. The Pats clearly liked Agnone and brought in Myers after Agnone was injured. Jenkins was signed to the Practice squad after Terrence Nunn was signed about by the Bucs... Jenkins showed enough before being injured for the Pats to offer him a contract for 2010..

It's all well and good to WANT top notch vets at all the WR positions, but reality is that it just doesn't work like that. Do they need someone who can be an effective blocker at TE? Yes. 80% of the TEs job is supposed to be blocking. The Pats still have plenty of time to add 2 or 3 with the draft and the rest of free agency. Just like I think they will add 1 or 2 WRs between the draft and free agency. Then they'll have plenty of competition at those 2 positions.