Breer: Welker at OTAs, in uniform, brace on

[pats1]

83 catches, 1264 yards, 13 TDs - while playing with a separated shoulder - that's more than just being a decoy. He's still a beast, production wise.

Yet the offense still struggled on third downs and in the red zone, when teams focused on Moss more. As Breer discussed in a blog post over the weekend about the spread offense, the Patriots had a lot of production from 20-to-20 last season, just not where it counted. Some of that certainly can be chalked up to the running game. But it also can be attributed to there not being a #3 WR or TE, and Brady trying to force too many balls to Moss when he should be spreading it around.

Now, you can certainly say that the Pats now have a #3 WR and a TE that can solve the problem. You can also say that Moss will still put up pretty good numbers this season, not anything like 2007. What I'm saying is that given Moss' age and comments, it is unlikely he returns to the Patriots in 2011. You also have an excess of capable WRs, it would appear. So if you have the future in mind, then you get some future asset out of Moss, and give more of your excess WRs playing time.

Therefore, you get the most out of a tradeable, expendable asset (a quality WR who will act mostly as a decoy with improved 3rd-5th options) and get something back that will help you long-term (2nd round pick?).

 

[Its_The_Patriots]

That is really great news that he's at OTAs this early. I didn't expect that at all. This is awesome! Welker is one tough good looking cookie! Can't wait to see him back in the line up where he belongs.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

The full goods:

The lowdown on Welker - Extra Points - Boston.com

He looked swift and agile during a cone drill, cutting and weaving in a "W" shape.

Then, came passing lines. Welker ran routes with his teammates, and you could see him running in-cuts and squirrel routes and slants. He rounded off his cuts and breaks, which is certainly to be expected, and dropped a ball or two, which is no reason for alarm in May.

I'm just glad he's on OUR side

 

[RussFrancis]

I never disagreed with anything you're saying, hence why I called those players "fat" to be trimmed. The fact of the matter is, they are all being replaced with young players (Cunningham, Gronkowksi, Hernandez, McCourty, Butler, Crable) who will take time to develop. If the Patriots had gone out and signed Darren Sharper, Karlos Dansby, and traded for Anquan Boldin, then that would be different.

You are only making my point. Drafting Gronkowski and Hernandez is an obvious improvement over Watson and Baker, but those players aren't necessarily going to come in Day 1 and perform up to their full potential. They re-tooled the position in order to make it better in the long term.



I don't think the team makes "Super Bowl pushes" any year. I don't think the team makes any year a "rebuilding year." The team does not operate in "windows" and it never has. It makes balanced decisions based on both the present and the future. Not trading Moss when he still has trade value and there is sufficient depth at the position, all in the name of "making a SB push" would not be considering the future, and thus is not something the team would do.

The team has spent the past two drafts "consdering the future". They'll spend next year's draft with two 1sts and two 2nds doing the same. Theyre living in the present with Moss. Hanging onto him one final season, Brady's contract season no less, will in no way be at a cost to the team's future plans.

And to be clear, when I say 'make a push', I mean compete. This team is ready to compete for a title, imo. Losing all of the above mentioned veterans wont hinder that effort imo, because they'll all be replaced by other veterans more than capable of surpassing their efforts. Im not talking about replacing Watson and Thomas with Hernandez and Cunningham.

But if you dont think this team didnt view the past 2 seasons as 'rebuilding' windows, with Brady out a full season, then re-bounding and cutting the team's defensive anchor, than I dont think we're viewing the past 2 seasons in a similar light. Were they doing their best on the field to compete? Of course. Did they approach those seasons from a management perspective as if they were playing for a title? Not in my opinion.

 

[WhiZa]

If Wes can fully return by early September (three months away), then I think you might have to give serious thought to at least sending out trade feelers for Moss.

If Moss was going to net a first rounder I could see it happening, but I don't see better than a 3rd at this point. He has more use to the Pats for one year then getting a 3rd next year in a potential lockout.

 

[Ring 6]

Yet the offense still struggled on third downs and in the red zone, when teams focused on Moss more. As Breer discussed in a blog post over the weekend about the spread offense, the Patriots had a lot of production from 20-to-20 last season, just not where it counted. Some of that certainly can be chalked up to the running game. But it also can be attributed to there not being a #3 WR or TE, and Brady trying to force too many balls to Moss when he should be spreading it around.

Now, you can certainly say that the Pats now have a #3 WR and a TE that can solve the problem. You can also say that Moss will still put up pretty good numbers this season, not anything like 2007. What I'm saying is that given Moss' age and comments, it is unlikely he returns to the Patriots in 2011. You also have an excess of capable WRs, it would appear. So if you have the future in mind, then you get some future asset out of Moss, and give more of your excess WRs playing time.

Therefore, you get the most out of a tradeable, expendable asset (a quality WR who will act mostly as a decoy with improved 3rd-5th options) and get something back that will help you long-term (2nd round pick?).

How does getting rid of Moss make the offense better?
Also you keep using decoy to describe one of the most productive WRs in the NFL. Decoys dont lead the league in Td catches.
What you are doing is looking at a good offense, and attributing none of the strength and all of the weaknesses to Moss without reason.
I could take all of your arguments and say we should get rid of Brady because it was his fault we were only the #3 offense in the NFL.

 

[BradyManny]

Therefore, you get the most out of a tradeable, expendable asset (a quality WR who will act mostly as a decoy with improved 3rd-5th options) and get something back that will help you long-term (2nd round pick?).

I agree with your assessment of this offense last season - but the long term outlook for this team is as good as its ever looked, presuming Brady still has 5-8 years left in him. We've had such an influx of youth the past two years, and we are stacked in next year's draft. Why make ourselves weaker for 2010 when the future already looks bright? I wasn't huge on the Seymour trade and I would be even more reticent to move Moss. If some of the new weapons pan out & this offense starts to resemble the machine it was two years prior, then we're as likely as any team to compete for the Super Bowl. Take Moss away, and I'm not sure that happens, with or without Price/Tate/Holt working out the way we hope.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

Welker is the man.
Moss I would love to hold on to for another 3 years. I think he's going to have a huge year this year which hopefully will entice us to bite on for a new contract.

 

[Sivy]

Someone please go over to jetnation and bump the "wes welker, seriously?" thread.

 

[pats1]

I agree with your assessment of this offense last season - but the long term outlook for this team is as good as its ever looked, presuming Brady still has 5-8 years left in him. We've had such an influx of youth the past two years, and we are stacked in next year's draft. Why make ourselves weaker for 2010 when the future already looks bright? I wasn't huge on the Seymour trade and I would be even more reticent to move Moss. If some of the new weapons pan out & this offense starts to resemble the machine it was two years prior, then we're as likely as any team to compete for the Super Bowl. Take Moss away, and I'm not sure that happens, with or without Price/Tate/Holt working out the way we hope.

Making the offense look like 2007 is not the goal. Making the team as a whole look like 2003-04 in 2010-12 is the goal.

 

[JackBauer]

Making the offense look like 2007 is not the goal. Making the team as a whole look like 2003-04 in 2010-12 is the goal.

I'll take the offense from 2007 and the defense from 2003-04, please.

 

[Ring 6]

Making the offense look like 2007 is not the goal. Making the team as a whole look like 2003-04 in 2010-12 is the goal.

Making the team as successful is the goal. Its foolhardy to try to assemble a group of players to match a previous group.

The 2007 offense plus the 2003 defense is the goal. But no team can ever assemble the perfect roster, and after you come as close as you can, you adapt what you do to what you have.

 

[pats1]

How does getting rid of Moss make the offense better?
Also you keep using decoy to describe one of the most productive WRs in the NFL. Decoys dont lead the league in Td catches.
What you are doing is looking at a good offense, and attributing none of the strength and all of the weaknesses to Moss without reason.
I could take all of your arguments and say we should get rid of Brady because it was his fault we were only the #3 offense in the NFL.

Statistically it doesn't make the offense better, but I think it makes it better when it counts, in 3rd downs/red zone. But that's not the only angle to my opinion; the other is the fact that Moss probably won't be back next season (due to projected diminishing skills or otherwise) and thus now is the time to get something for him.

It's the same logic used in the Seymour trade; the problem with that is 3-4 DE is not a position where you can use multiple formations and players to fill the hole (although the Pats tried by going 4-3). With WR, you can use more than one player and a multitude of formations, as opposed to being stuck to using one player in a 5-technique. If the Pats had *one* guy they could have put in at DE to replace Seymour (say, a Brace rivaling a 2003 Warren), then that trade would have worked out better.

If you trade Moss, then not only do you get that future pick, but you also get to free up your WR position to focus on 3-4 solid players, which has won Super Bowls, instead of 1-2 superstars, which has not.

 

[Rob0729]

Making the offense look like 2007 is not the goal. Making the team as a whole look like 2003-04 in 2010-12 is the goal.

I don't know about that. It is a different time where offenses are allowed to get away with much more. Besides, the 2010 defense would have to be close to what the 2003 or 2004 defenses were for the 2003 or 2004 offense to work.

Personally, I thought the 2003 offense was the worse of the Brady era (even possible than last year) and that offense was covered up with arguably the best defense in Patriots' history. I have no desire to go back to that offense. In fact, many of the problems that people complained about last year's offense were prevalent in that year's offense (problems converting third downs, problems scoring, etc.).

 

[Deus Irae]

Statistically it doesn't make the offense better, but I think it makes it better when it counts, in 3rd downs/red zone. But that's not the only angle to my opinion; the other is the fact that Moss probably won't be back next season (due to projected diminishing skills or otherwise) and thus now is the time to get something for him.

It's the same logic used in the Seymour trade; the problem with that is 3-4 DE is not a position where you can use multiple formations and players to fill the hole (although the Pats tried by going 4-3). With WR, you can use more than one player and a multitude of formations, as opposed to being stuck to using one player in a 5-technique. If the Pats had *one* guy they could have put in at DE to replace Seymour (say, a Brace rivaling a 2003 Warren), then that trade would have worked out better.

If you trade Moss, then not only do you get that future pick, but you also get to free up your WR position to focus on 3-4 solid players, which has won Super Bowls, instead of 1-2 superstars, which has not.

Repeating a bad trade scenario is not the way to go.

 

[Ring 6]

Statistically it doesn't make the offense better, but I think it makes it better when it counts, in 3rd downs/red zone. But that's not the only angle to my opinion; the other is the fact that Moss probably won't be back next season (due to projected diminishing skills or otherwise) and thus now is the time to get something for him.

It's the same logic used in the Seymour trade; the problem with that is 3-4 DE is not a position where you can use multiple formations and players to fill the hole (although the Pats tried by going 4-3). With WR, you can use more than one player and a multitude of formations, as opposed to being stuck to using one player in a 5-technique. If the Pats had *one* guy they could have put in at DE to replace Seymour (say, a Brace rivaling a 2003 Warren), then that trade would have worked out better.

If you trade Moss, then not only do you get that future pick, but you also get to free up your WR position to focus on 3-4 solid players, which has won Super Bowls, instead of 1-2 superstars, which has not.

Tossing away our best WR because when we won SBs our WRs were not as good is fauloty logic. Thinking that we would be better on 3rd down or in the red zone without the receiver who draws the most attention out of the picture is equally faulty.
I could counter with getting rid of Mankins, Vollmer, Warren, Mayo, Gronk, Bodden, etc because we won with lesser players.

If your argument is that you want a different brand of offense, thats one matter, but no matter then brand of offense we are better with Moss in it. The means to relying less on the pass is relying less on the pass not getting rid of good receivers, because your way we are FORCED to rely less on it, and weaker at it when we do it.

 

[pats1]

Making the team as successful is the goal. Its foolhardy to try to assemble a group of players to match a previous group.

The individual players themselves, no. But the overall scheme and philosophy is certainly attainable.

The 2007 offense plus the 2003 defense is the goal. But no team can ever assemble the perfect roster, and after you come as close as you can, you adapt what you do to what you have.

I agree. Keeping Moss does not mean you are any closer to having the 2007 offense. Moss is not the same player and the differences are only bound to become more clear as year after year passes.

I don't know if we were watching the same team last year, but that offense had a pretty damn similar roster to what it had in 2007.

So, like you said, it's time to adapt to what you have. What you have is an older Randy Moss and a group of WRs behind him who have generally the same style of play as a whole, which is a lot different than Moss. In a sense, those six guys - Welker, Edelman, Holt, Tate, Price, and Patten - are interchangeable parts in what you can do with them in your offense.

In my ideal scenario, I would have at least five of those six interchangeable parts on my roster. Like Charlie Weis wrote in the Pats' souting manual, I want a mentally tough receiver who can run good routes, catch the ball consistently, and isn't a *****. I would put Welker, Edelman, and Patten in that category; Holt, Tate, and Price, we'll have to see. If I can have three or four of those guys on the field at once, the defense will have to pay attention to each one. That will either open up the running game or cause one of those receivers to be open, which is the receiver that Brady will throw to. That is how the Patriots' offensive system worked under Weis - "the favorite/#1 receiver is the open receiver." Keeping Moss as a part of that group and giving him the playing time that such an elite player deserves cuts off the ability for the offense to do that. Brady realizes the ability of Moss above all others and is tempted to throw to him more than he should to maintain a balanced, unpredictable offense.

What I'm trying to say is that the Patriots' offensive system which has seen the most success (not only for the Patriots, but also teams like the Saints who employ 3-4 solid but not spectacular WRs and mix up formations) is one which does not have a #1 receiver. Moss by his nature is never anything but a #1 receiver. So while the statistics and talent of having a #1 receiver is tempting, I do not believe it is in the best interest of the football team as a whole.

One of the Patriots' best games last season was against the Falcons, a week after the debacle against the Jets and when BB took over playcalling from BOB (or so it appeared). Instead of lining up in Gun 0 Out Slot every play and have "throw to Moss" or "throw to Welker" their idea of "mixing it up," BB called a great, balanced offense against the Falcons. There was a ton of play action, some screens, lot of motions, less gun, a lot of Taylor runs (his best game of the year), and even a deep TE touchdown pass to Baker, catching the defense off guard.

 

[pats1]

Tossing away our best WR because when we won SBs our WRs were not as good is fauloty logic. Thinking that we would be better on 3rd down or in the red zone without the receiver who draws the most attention out of the picture is equally faulty.
I could counter with getting rid of Mankins, Vollmer, Warren, Mayo, Gronk, Bodden, etc because we won with lesser players.

If your argument is that you want a different brand of offense, thats one matter, but no matter then brand of offense we are better with Moss in it. The means to relying less on the pass is relying less on the pass not getting rid of good receivers, because your way we are FORCED to rely less on it, and weaker at it when we do it.

I think you're mixing up players with philosophy. Randy Moss forces the team to use a specific philosophy on offense. Using, say, Warren instead of Hamilton does not change the defensive philosophy, nor does using Mayo instead of Bruschi. The only close comparison would be Bodden instead of Law, but rule changes also had a hand in that.

 

[pats1]

Repeating a bad trade scenario is not the way to go.

I just explained why it's a better trade scenario.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

So was Lawyer, so was Bledsoe, so was Seymour, so was Rodney, so was Bruschi, so was Willie, so was Vrabel, so was Troy, so was Dillon, so was Adam, so was Givens, so was Branch, so was Graham, so was Andruzzi, so was Asante, so was Woody...

Fans have short memories. The wide receiver who makes SportsCenter highlight catches and has legions of young fans thinking he is what made the Patriots' dynasty has won zero rings with the team.

The fact that the elementary schoolers and middle schoolers of today growing up thinking that Randy Moss and Tom Brady are what the "winning" Patriots are really all about is somewhat troubling. Someone needs to buy them a DVD and show "way back when" when the Patriots were actually winning Super Bowls by shutting down the Colts 20-3 or pounding the rock to beat the Titans in zero degree weather. Back then it wasn't about individual players, but about out-smarting and out-physicaling opponents.

Somewhere along the way fans have gotten away from the romanticism of that success and have gotten caught up in the star of Randy Moss and Tom Brady, when it was really that sort of thing that Patriots fans mocked seven or eight years ago (Peyton to Harrison? Warner to Bruce? LT?). An effective team and scheme-based strategy to winning has taken a back seat to sheer athleticism and talent.

Trying the same approach to another season will just lead to another disappointing January where Moss goes 3, 45, 0, the running game is ineffective, the defense can't stop a QB from throwing at will, and the offense can't pull through when it counts because it's too caught up in trying to force passes to that superstar WR who "is the man."

I for one did not enjoy the 2007 run, mostly for that reason. It seemed anti-Patriot philosophy to me and I had a sense of forboding that grew as in December teams like the Ravinz and Jints took advantage of our weaknesses.