5 weeks into FA season, Pats' approach still makes no sense

[Rob0729]

You're right that the 06 offense was probably worse, but the fact that we are using that offense as the closest comparison is my entire point. Randy Moss is getting older. That is not being negative, it's just a fact. Anyone who watched him last year could see he had a harder time beating tough press coverage than he has in the past. Welker may be back next year, but to expect him to be the same player he was less than 1 yr after a serious knee injury is being overly optimistic. THe Moss/Welker tandom we have gotten to know over the last few years is over. What are we replacing it with? Aiken/Edelman?? Edelman/Tate?? Sure we may be able o hit on a WR in the draft, but there is strong chance that a drafted doesn't pan out. All I am saying is this offense as we know it is gone and what is it going to become? Where is the foundation for a new peoductive offense other than Brady??

First, we don't know if the Welker/Moss tandem is over. This isn't 1980 anymore. Plenty of WRs have returned from an ACL tear in less than a year and been productive.

As for Edelman, how do we know if he doesn't ultimately end up better than Welker? I wouldn't bet on it, but I wouldn't bet heavily against it. After one year in the pros, if you said Welker would lead the league in receptions two years in a row and might have done three if he didn't miss two games, everyone would have thought you were crazy. People were thinking he would less receptions in his career than he did last year alone after his first year in the league. Edelman is already far better than he was at that point. Will he progress to Welker's level, maybe not. But he looks like he can be 80%.

As I said before, there are still good WRs out on the market. They may not be sexy pick ups, but they can be solid #2/#3 WRs like Coles, Holt. Reed, Kevin Curtis, etc. Odds are still good that the Seahawks get Brandon Marshall and Deion Branch is a Patriot again too. Also, the Pats are working out Dez Bryant in Foxboro and could end up taking him. Other decent veterans could be cut after the draft. There is still plenty of time to improve the offense.

 

[supafly]

Seriously, the offense is exactly the same as last year minus Welker (maybe for only part of the season). Yes, the loss of Welker is big, but Edelman has done a very good job filling in for him being 80% or so of Welker. Yes, the Pats lost Watson, but Watson was a JAG last year and has been for a few years since the Patriots.

I know Randy Moss could never be half the WR that Reche Caldwell was in 2006, but your argument that this is the worst offense the Pats have had since 2001 is laughable. You could argue that Edelman could possibly be the primary WR over anyone the Pats had in 2006 at WR. That how bad the offense was that year minus Brady and maybe Watson. The running game was crap too that year.

While I think you make a point that Edelman can soften the blow of the loss of probably the best WR in the game, 80% is a bit of a crazy stretch, IMO. I'd be very happy if Edelman caught 65 balls, about 1/2 of Welker's numbers.

In a perfect world, Edelman and Tate can take over about 80% of Welker's numbers. Here are his "80%" from last year:

Career NFL statistics as of 2009
Receptions 37
Receiving yards 359
Receiving touchdowns 1

 

[wilfork is beastin']

While I think you make a point that Edelman can soften the blow of the loss of probably the best WR in the game, 80% is a bit of a crazy stretch, IMO. I'd be very happy if Edelman caught 65 balls, about 1/2 of Welker's numbers.

In a perfect world, Edelman and Tate can take over about 80% of Welker's numbers. Here are his "80%" from last year:

Career NFL statistics as of 2009
Receptions 37
Receiving yards 359
Receiving touchdowns 1

to be fair Edelman missed 5 games with an injury and wasn't a starter for most of the season.

 

[supafly]

to be fair Edelman missed 5 games with an injury and wasn't a starter for most of the season.

Regardless, he has not produced 80% of Welker, and he likely will never be 80% of Wes Welker. So far he is a very good late rd draft pick, who has shown great upside--but Welker is a dominant NFL superstar.

You have a valid and fair point, had he not missed 5 games etc, he may have caught 50-55 balls.

No one can predict the future, so Rob0729 very well could be right. Maybe Edelman catches 100 balls next year. I think it'll soften the blow of Welker very nicely, and can even see him catching 70-75 passes--but any comparison to the NFL's best WR is a bit premture.

While we are high on Vollmer and Edelman, comparison's to Light and Welker are a bit of a stretch after 1 yr of serivce--Just to be fair too.

 

[DW Toys]

We need more than that to beat the Jets and win the division, if you think simply adding one of these 3 opposite Moss against that revamped Jets defense is the solution, forget about it.

Boldin was the guy we dropped the ball on, PERIOD ! Shame on BB on that one. But to pick up one of these remaining FA scrubs (aside from TO who I would fully endorse) and/or draft a raw rookie and expect to play competitive football against that Rex Ryan defense with Alge Crumpler as our starting TE and Welker out for 8 games, is not realistic. The Jets will kick our arse, PERIOD !

We need a legitimate WR, our ground game sucks, there is still no effin TE, we need LEGITIMATE help opposite Moss if we expect to compete with NY and legit at this point comes down to 4 players in my mind (RFA - VJackson, FA - TO, Deal for BMarshall or having Dez Bryant fall into our laps at #22). Anything else aside from one of these guys with our current TE and RB situation is NOT going to get it done. The Jets will beat the piss out of us if we walk out there with anything less. But who am I to question the great BB, he never makes mistakes...........I'm sure he'll have a solution !

I agree with you on most you say although remember SD wants a 1st and a 3rd for RFA Jackson. Way too expensive. At that point I would say Bryant or Demaryus Thomas would be the better move Cousin. Some good points though.

Does anyone on this site feel we need not one but two WR? I am not sure Patten makes it. Tate report said great KR mediocre WR. Aiken is a 5 catch per year ST guy.

I will get blasted for this and I am shielding my loins for battle, but here goes. Think about this before you whip me. Don't "pig-pile" me without reading further. I have mentioned this a few weeks ago.

Perhaps the best hands on any running back in the NFL last year and the last few years has been FA Brian Westbrook. He has been a Team leader and seems to be a class act. He is only 30 but his RB days seems to be over for a full game carries because of concussions and a knee which are both reported by his people as mended and ready. Since 2004, his receptions have been 73, 61, 77, 90, 54 and last year in only seven starts, 25.

I feel we need two credible WRs until Welker is back. Westbrook goes 5' 10" and 203 which is light for a RB but decent size for a WR. He split out wide many times in Philly from the backfield. His hands are top shelf. His RAC would be phenomenal. His veteran leadership would be valuable. He could spell Faulk for a few third down snaps and an emergency RB (had a 4.5 Y P Carry last year). He is three years younger than Faulk and also younger than Morris or Taylor. How ironic.

I could see him as a 35+ catch guy in a WR role here even as a #4 WR (after say Bryant, Marshall, Jackson or whomever you pencil in here) but he can bring positional diversity if we don't give him into too many carries and just split him wide.

Obviously he is a cheaper add than a Marshall or Jackson but I see him as a go-to guy from game one for TB. I believe Westbrook was not a bad pass blocker and quite a screen option.

We have seen Faulk split out in some of our formations. You could have plays where both are on the field doing underneaths. It would help Welker also when he returns. You can't double cover Welker, Faulk and Westbrook with Moss running free. This formation would be a nightmare for Defensive Coordinators. Maybe not the homerun hitter that a Marshall could be but reliable and a chain mover and a great locker room guy with a All Pro background. He does not drop the ball and his routes seem crisp. He still has decent speed. No DB will take him down one on one.

Just FYI, he had 7 catches for 60 yards in our Super Bowl win against the Eagles. He is a "big game" player.
DW Toys

 

[Metaphors]

I know it is scary Cousin Jack, but I agree with you. This is not a ploy to drag you in, but if you could get Olsen for the EXACT same Draft pick, and he is only 25 with 70 receptions last year, would you not make that play? The Bears are desperate for picks and they paid decent money to get Martz's binkie TE Brandon Manumaleuna on a five-year, $15 million contract, including $6.1 million guaranteed.
DW Toys

You obviously think Belichick should trade for Olsen and a handful of other veterans. Why do you think he hasn't? Don't want to assume the point you are making.

My perspective is that Belichick either doesn't want Olsen or doesn't want to pay what Olsen will cost right now. And yes, I'm explicitly saying that if Belichick considers Olsen an option, he has explored the possibility and knows what it will currently take to get him. Same for all the other players you've mentioned.

I can understand if you are saying that Belichick is overvaluing the draft picks and undervaluing these veterans. I don't generally agree given the depth of this draft and the fact these players are still available. What I absolutely don't agree with is that Belichick is either uninformed, lazy or stupid. Not suggesting this is your perspective, but many people posting on this thread and others are certainly implying it.

 

[Rob0729]

While I think you make a point that Edelman can soften the blow of the loss of probably the best WR in the game, 80% is a bit of a crazy stretch, IMO. I'd be very happy if Edelman caught 65 balls, about 1/2 of Welker's numbers.

In a perfect world, Edelman and Tate can take over about 80% of Welker's numbers. Here are his "80%" from last year:

Career NFL statistics as of 2009
Receptions 37
Receiving yards 359
Receiving touchdowns 1

In games Edelman started in place of or came in for most of the game for Welker due to injuries (the Jets, Atlanta, Houston, and Baltimore), Edelman had 27 receptions. That averages 6.75 catches a game. If he did that for a full season, he would have 108 catches. If you want to count his overall season where he was out for 5 games and the #3 or lower receiver for another 7 games, that is fine but not what I am talking about. BTW, 37 catches over 11 games would be 53.8 catches if he played all 16 games and kept his average. And that was as a rookie learning a position he had never played before.

If Edleman started all year in place of Welker, I would be unhappy if he didn't catch at least 80 balls. Against the Jets (his first start of his career and third game of his career), he had 8 catches for 98 yards. When Welker went down vs. the Texans on the first drive, Edelman had 10 catches for 104 yards.

In fairness, as I said with Shonn Greene, we are going on a limited sampling and teams gameplanning for Welker and Moss and potentially sliding additional coverage to Moss when Welker was out. But going on what we know, Edelman was probably about 80-90% of Welker when he went in for Welker. Now the question is whether he can do it all year. But if he plays like he did in his rookie year when Welker was out, 80 catches should be his low end of expectations barring injury or more receivers emerging so Brady spreads the ball around more.

 

[supafly]

to be fair Edelman missed 5 games with an injury and wasn't a starter for most of the season.

And Welker missed 3 games too, so he would've caught about 140-145 balls instead of 123.

Any way you look at it, Welker is going to tower over Edelman is comparison, maybe not here on this forum, but he certainly should.

But we're all on the same page regarding Edelman's high upside, and ability to make Welker's injury lessened--to what degree remains to be seen. We'll all likely have our own opinion, so there's no 'right' answer (as usual).

I'm hoping he catches 70-75 balls, that would be tremendous for a 2nd yr player--especially considering Moss should catch 85+, and we should hopefully see production from Tate, WR4, etc.

 

[Deus Irae]

I guess I'm one of the few who don't see the big deal of going into the season with Crumpler and a rookie at TE.

I'm not sure about the Boldin rumors, myself. Michael Lombardi (whom people seem to respect) has claimed the Patriots were never involved in attempting to sign him.

Who was their reported #1 TE prospect? Fells?

Yes, fells.

As for the Boldin situation, that's why I've repeatedly mentioned the reports and framed my position based upon a "what if" situation. The reports were that the Patriots were in the hunt and were the 'leaders' for the deal. The reports then claimed that the Patriots bowed out because of Boldin's contract demands. As I've noted before, it's one thing not to be going after him at all. It's another, though, to be going after him and then bowing out because of his contract when he's been screaming about wanting the big deal for years. The former is a rational and legitimate, if questionable, course of action to take. The latter is asinine.

Lastly, regarding Crumpler.... I see more Kyle Brady than Christian Fauria in that situation. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Rob0729]

Regardless, he has not produced 80% of Welker, and he likely will never be 80% of Wes Welker. So far he is a very good late rd draft pick, who has shown great upside--but Welker is a dominant NFL superstar.

Again, who said he did? Edelman WHEN HE WAS REPLACING Welker, gave the Pats 80% of Welker. Not the entire year. Hard to have 80% of the production of the QB's target when you are the #3 WR. The only way we can compare how Edelman will do replacing Welker is looking how he played last year when he actually replaced Welker and in those situations he gave the Pats about 80% of Welker maybe more.

 

[Deus Irae]

Again, who said he did? Edelman WHEN HE WAS REPLACING Welker, gave the Pats 80% of Welker. Not the entire year. Hard to have 80% of the production of the QB's target when you are the #3 WR. The only way we can compare how Edelman will do replacing Welker is looking how he played last year when he actually replaced Welker and in those situations he gave the Pats about 80% of Welker maybe more.

80% of the numbers is not 80% of the player. I think the first Jets game is an excellent example of that.


Then again, bandying about percentages in this manner is a futile exercise anyway.

 

[Rob0729]

And Welker missed 3 games too, so he would've caught about 140-145 balls instead of 123.

Any way you look at it, Welker is going to tower over Edelman is comparison, maybe not here on this forum, but he certainly should.

But we're all on the same page regarding Edelman's high upside, and ability to make Welker's injury lessened--to what degree remains to be seen. We'll all likely have our own opinion, so there's no 'right' answer (as usual).

I'm hoping he catches 70-75 balls, that would be tremendous for a 2nd yr player--especially considering Moss should catch 85+, and we should hopefully see production from Tate, WR4, etc.

Only 70-75 balls without a viable 3rd WR? Aiming low aren't you. Again, in Welker's role, the guy averaged 6.75 catches a game. That is 108 catches a year. If he only has 70-75, he would have a huge drop off in production from his rookie season.

 

[Rob0729]

80% of the numbers is not 80% of the player. I think the first Jets game is an excellent example of that.


Then again, bandying about percentages in this manner is a futile exercise anyway.

I am estimating production, not catches. I wasn't the one who brought up the number of catches when talking about Edelman. The number of catches he had or could possibly have has nothing to do with my estimate of 80%. I am just trying to put some quantifiable measure on the guy. I threw out the 80% because he can do everything that Welker can, but he misses some of the intangibles that makes Welker a cut above the rest.

 

[supafly]

In games Edelman started in place of or came in for most of the game for Welker due to injuries (the Jets, Atlanta, Houston, and Baltimore), Edelman had 27 receptions. That averages 6.75 catches a game. If he did that for a full season, he would have 108 catches. If you want to count his overall season where he was out for 5 games and the #3 or lower receiver for another 7 games, that is fine but not what I am talking about. BTW, 37 catches over 11 games would be 53.8 catches if he played all 16 games and kept his average. And that was as a rookie learning a position he had never played before.

If Edleman started all year in place of Welker, I would be unhappy if he didn't catch at least 80 balls. Against the Jets (his first start of his career and third game of his career), he had 8 catches for 98 yards. When Welker went down vs. the Texans on the first drive, Edelman had 10 catches for 104 yards.

In fairness, as I said with Shonn Greene, we are going on a limited sampling and teams gameplanning for Welker and Moss and potentially sliding additional coverage to Moss when Welker was out. But going on what we know, Edelman was probably about 80-90% of Welker when he went in for Welker. Now the question is whether he can do it all year. But if he plays like he did in his rookie year when Welker was out, 80 catches should be his low end of expectations barring injury or more receivers emerging so Brady spreads the ball around more.

Again, if you say so.

I think we're in general agreement on where we see Edelman's production this upcoming year, so any discussion is probably unneeded.

If we're getting 80-90% of Wes Welker from a late rd rookie on the extreme cheap, it's likely that Welker never gets another deal here--at least according to 'the Patriot Way,' which has been quite successful. There simply isn't room for 2 slot receivers who both mirror each other exactly (or 80-90%), and why pay Welker the big money he'll be looking for? There were already rumors that he was looking for a raise already. Why keep one of the NFL's elite, when we have Julian Edelman? If it's the system of underneath routes, coupled with a shifty player, then I'd suspect we can find production and save a ton of money.

Or, it could be that Wes Welker is a freaking beast, and dosen't deserve any comparison to a late rd rookie.

And we continue to wonder why expectations are so ridiculously high here, yet we're already expecting Edelman to be 80-90% of Wes Welker. Like I said, hopefully you are right, the glass is half full, and Edelman has a hell of a year--I think expecting him to catch 108 balls like you claim is a pretty high expectation. While I hope you're right, I'm setting mine a bit lower.

 

[Deus Irae]

I am estimating production, not catches. I wasn't the one who brought up the number of catches when talking about Edelman. The number of catches he had or could possibly have has nothing to do with my estimate of 80%. I am just trying to put some quantifiable measure on the guy. I threw out the 80% because he can do everything that Welker can, but he misses some of the intangibles that makes Welker a cut above the rest.

Your last sentence makes no sense at all, and there are clearly things that Welker is able to do that Edelman could not last season.

 

[supafly]

Only 70-75 balls without a viable 3rd WR? Aiming low aren't you. Again, in Welker's role, the guy averaged 6.75 catches a game. That is 108 catches a year. If he only has 70-75, he would have a huge drop off in production from his rookie season.

You're cracking me up. You are the first guy to state that it's only April, and why be concerned about any team positions now?

Yet you then talk of how we don't/won't have a viable 3rd WR--as good of a poster as you can be, you often have double standards that are crazy.

 

[DW Toys]

You obviously think Belichick should trade for Olsen and a handful of other veterans. Why do you think he hasn't? Don't want to assume the point you are making.

My perspective is that Belichick either doesn't want Olsen or doesn't want to pay what Olsen will cost right now. And yes, I'm explicitly saying that if Belichick considers Olsen an option, he has explored the possibility and knows what it will currently take to get him. Same for all the other players you've mentioned.

I can understand if you are saying that Belichick is overvaluing the draft picks and undervaluing these veterans. I don't generally agree given the depth of this draft and the fact these players are still available. What I absolutely don't agree with is that Belichick is either uninformed, lazy or stupid. Not suggesting this is your perspective, but many people posting on this thread and others are certainly implying it.

No it was just a rhetorical question of if we are shopping for a TE to Draft there is a young one out there that is NFL proven and if it costs the same pick why gamble.

You make a good point though. The Bears might have a deal on the table for him and are waiting until Draft day. It could be the Pats.

No about BB being that above, but there is an amount of arrogance that every F.O. maintains. It is hit and miss. A gamble at best. As an example (just an example please don't question my motives, life and religion) in 2007, I will give every poster on this site credit that they could have made a better Draft class than the Pats F.O. did without question. I would tell anyone that. I ask you Cousin, could YOU have come up with a better list of players in 2007 or not?

At the risk of sounding batso I will say that if you put a fish bowl out with Draft Choices in 2007 and we all pulled a pick out, each of us would have done as good or better. That is how much of a science it becomes after years of study on a player by a team.

I am just sayin.......
DW Toys

 

[Rob0729]

You're cracking me up. You are the first guy to state that it's only April, and why be concerned about any team positions now?

Yet you then talk of how we don't/won't have a viable 3rd WR--as good of a poster as you can be, you often have double standards that are crazy.

Again, I assume the Pats will have a far better #3 WR than they did last year, but I am trying to compare apples to apples. When Edelman was in last year, the #3 WR was Aiken.

I am talking about the roster right now. Again, if the Pats have a #3 WR who can catch around 40 balls solely as a #3 WR, then everything changes. Until they get that guy, we can only talk about what they have right now.

Do you think Welker would catch 130 or so balls if the Pats had a consistent #3 option? Welker has caught so many balls over the last few years partly because of the lack of depth at the position.

 

[Rob0729]

Your last sentence makes no sense at all, and there are clearly things that Welker is able to do that Edelman could not last season.

It does make sense. Edelman can do everything Welker can do, just not as well. It is Welker's intangibles that makes him able to avoid contact better than Edelman or bounce off defenders better, but Edelman can and did do all that just not as well.

And you got three responses and this is the last. I am tired of you just trying to start fights for your own amusement.

 

[supafly]

Again, I assume the Pats will have a far better #3 WR than they did last year, but I am trying to compare apples to apples. When Edelman was in last year, the #3 WR was Aiken.

I am talking about the roster right now. Again, if the Pats have a #3 WR who can catch around 40 balls solely as a #3 WR, then everything changes. Until they get that guy, we can only talk about what they have right now.

Do you think Welker would catch 130 or so balls if the Pats had a consistent #3 option? Welker has caught so many balls over the last few years partly because of the lack of depth at the position.

Yet you've stated that you see no reason why Tate can't do that.

Again, it hardly matters, so I don't want to get into a big disagreement about it. You see Edelman's production higher than I might. Big deal. No one here is going to agree on everything. Lately, no one is going to agree on much.

It's just that many times you'll argue one way, then later, you'll argue against what you were originally arguing about. You'll say there's no reason Tate can't produce, and argue for Tate to be the 2nd coming of Deion Branch-- then you'll say we don't have a viable #3 right now--and that it's up in the air?

You'll say we can re-sign both Wilfork and Seymour, then you'll say there was no way we were going to re-sign both Wilfork and Seymour. It seems as though your opinion changes due to various circumstances--which is fine too, but sometimes confusing.

I'm not saying I'll always be right/wrong, etc--but I can practically guarantee that I will likely have the same stance. Right, wrong, whatever.