Most Overrated - Our Wide Receivers

[Titanium Coate Hanger]

Brady was the best player in the nfl in 2010. He could win with almost any set of receivers, as he has shown in the past. Two of his most dependable receivers were tight ends - Good thing that!

Unfortunately, the jets figured this out. They simply covered our wide receivers one on one and used the extra defenders inside. We then needed to play much better htan we did to win.

However, we were exposed.

Going to disagree here, during the Superbowl winning years, yes, the Patriots had arguably less WR talent, however they also had much better defenses and could run the ball more effectively in pressure situations.

Mark Sanchez was at risk of being benched during the regular season. The Patriots D made him actually look like a credible QB back there. Which will happen if you can't stop 3rd down and you can't consistently hit the QB and your run game can't keep the opponents O off the field.

All better WR play might have done is temporarily, IMHO, covered the deficiencies in the Pats defense and running game.

This was a game that needed to be won in the trenches, on 3rd down on D and with a power rushing attack. If your QB is off, you have to be able to find another way to produce and win.

The Patriot have become very one dimensional offensively, hate to say it, but they look an awful lot like the Colts in the pre SB win stage with Manning ( pass heavy, QB driven, questionable D, no commitment to the run, early playoff flameouts, etc)

Hate to say it, but I think some folks need to put their homer glasses away on occasion. Rex Ryan, IMHO, is a loudmouth, but an elite defensive guru loudmouth. People keep talking about how the Patriots gave this game away, give the Jets some credit, they won the game.

Time and time again, NFL history has shown that strong violent opportunistic defense and power rushing wins you championships. Gunslinging with aerial attacks as the primary focus just won't do it.

 

[jczxohn1]

Against the only opponent where the Pats' WRs weren't good enough, the Packers put up 9 points. Something tells me that's not the answer.

Not fair; b/u QB--

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/98/539543-predict-2010-patriots-season-record-merged.html

Look at how many voted vs contributors.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Going to disagree here, during the Superbowl winning years, yes, the Patriots had arguably less WR talent, however they also had much better defenses and could run the ball more effectively in pressure situations.

Mark Sanchez was at risk of being benched during the regular season. The Patriots D made him actually look like a credible QB back there. Which will happen if you can't stop 3rd down and you can't consistently hit the QB and your run game can't keep the opponents O off the field.

All better WR play might have done is temporarily, IMHO, covered the deficiencies in the Pats defense and running game.

This was a game that needed to be won in the trenches, on 3rd down on D and with a power rushing attack. If your QB is off, you have to be able to find another way to produce and win.

The Patriot have become very one dimensional offensively, hate to say it, but they look an awful lot like the Colts in the pre SB win stage with Manning ( pass heavy, QB driven, questionable D, no commitment to the run, early playoff flameouts, etc)

Hate to say it, but I think some folks need to put their homer glasses away on occasion. Rex Ryan, IMHO, is a loudmouth, but an elite defensive guru loudmouth. People keep talking about how the Patriots gave this game away, give the Jets some credit, they won the game.

Time and time again, NFL history has shown that strong violent opportunistic defense and power rushing wins you championships. Gunslinging with aerial attacks as the primary focus just won't do it.

Did you watch the Super Bowl last night? Where was the Green Bay power rushing?

Or Super Bowl XLIV?

Or Super Bowl XLIII?

Or Super Bowl XLII?

Or Super Bowl XLI?

Or basically every Super Bowl since about 1975.

The history of the Super Bowl has shown power rushing and opportunistic defense never wins championchips. Outside of maybe likeSuper Bowl IX, when did this lethal combination produce a Lombardi?

Well, like never.

Yet somehow people show up here every year with this completely idiotic statement.

The reality is the passing/secondary combination is the key to championchips. Pass well and stop the pass and you win.

Ofcourse, after a night of Packers secondary vs William Gay Island, the clamour will also not deviate from "a pass rusher".

 

[satz]

The question you should ask is how many of our outside guys can start in nfl now in a top 10 team

tate and deion do not. !!!
that is the end.

after the loss every tv commentor and radio said no WR where open.
non could separate.

the problem is brady can find the open guys IF SOME ONE IS OPEN.

 

[ivanvamp]

Did you watch the Super Bowl last night? Where was the Green Bay power rushing?

Your overall point is excellent, but GB ran the ball just fine, when they actually tried. Starks had 11 carries for 52 yards for a 4.7 average. He only had one negative run. Nothing huge or game-breaking, but that's ok.

Clearly the Packers won the game on turnovers and Rodgers' arm.

 

[ThePatriotWay]

Green Bay won the game for two reasons

1. Pittsburgh had 3 turnovers that led to 21 Green Bay Points
2. Green Bay was able to do what the Patriots did in week 10 spread them out only difference patriots did it with the tight ends and green bay did it with thier slot receivers

 

[Shelterdog]

The question you should ask is how many of our outside guys can start in nfl now in a top 10 team

Hate to break it to you but the Pats were a top 10 team by any definition you can think of (regular season record, seeding based on playoff results, power rankings, point differential, DVOA) so by definition all our starting wideouts can start on a top 10 team.

There's no question there's at least some room for improvement with the wideouts but lets not get overboard. They're a decent unit.

 

[Sciz]

Heck, they were the starting WRs for a top-10 ALL TIME OFFENSE, not just a top-10 nfl team right now.

 

[mgteich]

We used to say that our best receiver is the open receiver. That slogan works well when we are winning. When receivers don't get open all game, then it may be time to consider the quality of the receivers.
======================================================

BTW, you shouldn't quote media or commentators here. Almost everyone here seems to know that our wide receivers were wide open, and it was only that dufus Brady who couldn't find the receivers. And many think that the OL didn't give Brady enough time to find the open receivers, as if the 6 or 7 seconds that he usually got wasn't enough. And those with the deepest tinted rose-colored glass point out that if only 4 plays had gone differently, we would have won.

Each of us lives in his own world, and will mold facts and stats to fit in with his view of the world. So, for some, the wide receiver corps was good enough for 14-3 on a top passing team, so it must be an A quality wide receiver corps. And it will be even better in 2011 with Price and Tate developing. Sure, we could add a top receiver, but it's just not necessary. I overstate some. Many on this thread suggest that THEY certainly don't think of our receivers as better than average.
================================================

For some of us, the question is indeed whether we have wideouts that are good enough to start for a top 5 offense in the nfl, and what we need to do to get there. Obviously, many disagree; they will settle for far less even in this, the first day of the offseason.

For others, it seems to be whether our wideouts are as good as what we had in 2001, 2004 or 2005. After all, we won the SB in those years, so if our wideouts are as good as then, we are all set to win another SB.

For others, the question is whether the wideouts are adquate enough for Brady to win the SB if he has another MVP year.

IMHO, others have positions more nuanced, but in the end, they seem willing to settle for a very average wide receivers, considerably below average for top passing teams.
========

MY ANALYSIS AND VIEWS

For me, this is a discussion of the quality of our wideouts, an integral component of our passing offense. We will evaluate every position in the months before the draft and then again in the months beofre the season starts.

Against that backdrop,

Q1) Given roster tradeoffs, do we as a top 5 passing team consider it important to have A quality receivers, B quality receivers, or are 3 average receivers adequate?

Q2) Evaluate Branch, Tate and Price with regard to both where they are and their LIKELY potential (how much should we count on them in 2011 and 2012).

Q3) Having done the first two steps, consider what if any needs we have for upgrade of this position. What do we need to reasonably expect a top 5 offense? What do we need to reasonably be able to game plan against any team in the nfl, without being restricted by the quality of our wideouts?

BOTTOM LINE
I would think that a B level receiver would start for all but a couple of teams. I don't think any of our three would start for very many top teams, especially top passing teams. Do you all disagree?

I think that a top passing team should aim higher.

The question you should ask is how many of our outside guys can start in nfl now in a top 10 team

tate and deion do not. !!!
that is the end.

after the loss every tv commentor and radio said no WR where open.
non could separate.

the problem is brady can find the open guys IF SOME ONE IS OPEN.

 

[Shelterdog]

BOTTOM LINE
I would think that a B level receiver would start for all but a couple of teams. I don't think any of our three would start for very many top teams, especially top passing teams. Do you all disagree?

I think that a top passing team should aim higher.

1) I don't think the right question is whether the guy could start on other teams, how they did at the combine, how they'd do in a mock draft, or anything like that. It's "how productive are they going to be in NE."

2.) The last two super bowl champs show us that continuity is really important in the passing game. Jordy Nelson and Brandon Jackson and James Jones aren't amazing talents but they're all in their third or fourth year in GB and that lets them perform at a very high level.

3.) Could you be more specific about what you mean by aim higher? Yeah I want someone better than 2010 Tate as the third receiver, and I want to make sure I'm ready to replace Branch and Welker in 2011 or 2012 as they get older and become free agents. But you've got big issues at LT, LG, and both OLB spots (Cunningham may be a solution to one of them). C and RG could use help, you have a lot of bodies but a lot of question marks at both DE spots, and you've got two average running backs, and you have one halfway decent safety signed after 2011. It's hard for me to make upgrading wide receiver anythingmore than the fourth or fifth priority on the team.

 

[Deus Irae]

Look at how many voted vs contributors.

The poll we do have shows your claim to be completely wrong. It's really that simple.

 

[JMarr]

Hate to break it to you but the Pats were a top 10 team by any definition you can think of (regular season record, seeding based on playoff results, power rankings, point differential, DVOA) so by definition all our starting wideouts can start on a top 10 team.

By definition? Really? Does that mean that Mark Sanchez is "by definition" a top ten QB because the of the Jets' team statistics? Your logic holds no water whatsoever.

Too early to tell on the rookies, but as of right now, Wes Welker is the only legitimate target the Patriots' arsenal. And no, Deon Branch is not the answer.

 

[Run DMC]

Lotta blame being put on my homie, TFB. Do you realize the man was playing with a stress-fractured foot? Do you understand that medically speaking, you cannot put any pressure on your foot at all when you have this type of injury? Even more ironic, rumor has it that TFB suffered that injury late in the Miami game. Yah, you know, the game we had sealed but continued to play our starters in. BB's hubris may have cost us our season.

 

[Shelterdog]

By definition? Really? Does that mean that Mark Sanchez is "by definition" a top ten QB because the of the Jets' team statistics? Your logic holds no water whatsoever.

Too early to tell on the rookies, but as of right now, Wes Welker is the only legitimate target the Patriots' arsenal. And no, Deon Branch is not the answer.

Yes. By definition. Learn to read better.

I didn't say they were good or bad, that they were a top receiving group or not, just that they can start for a top ten team-because the Pats are a top ten team. I was responding to a meaningless statement: you can be pretty bad and be good enough to start for a "top 10 team" or a super bowl winning team or whatever if the rest of the team is good enough. Trent Dilfer and Antowain Smith say hello.


It's not like saying Sanchez is a top 10 quarterback, it's like saying Sanchez is a good enough quarterback to play in the AFC Championship two years in a row. He clearly is, it's just a stupid question.

 

[bucky]

SLOT RECEIVER
We are in fine shape with the best starter in the nfl in WELKER and a strong backup in EDELMAN. These two positions are set for the year.

WIDE RECEIVER
Is this not a critical position when considering the potential production of a passing team?

BRANCH is the leader for the next 2 years.
TATE is our kick returner
PRICE

Do these three scare anyone?
This is the weakness of our offense (yes our #1 offense has a weakness)

The Pats are a 2 TE team now, not a 3 WR team. So if you consider Welker as a starting WR, that leaves 1 starting spot. Branch is good enough when healthy. Hopefully, Price or Tate can make a jump. When the Pats go to a 1 TE/3 WR package, Hernandez is a guy who can actually fill the 3rd WR role.

By the way, it is commonly said that it takes more than a full calendar year to recover 100% from reconstructive knee surgery. So it's entirely conceivable that Welker will be better in 2011 than he was in 2010.

 

[JackBauer]

So if you consider Welker as a starting WR, that leaves 1 starting spot. Branch is good enough when healthy.

Just to clarify: You believe a Welker and Branch starting tandem is adequate?

 

[bucky]

Just to clarify: You believe a Welker and Branch starting tandem is adequate?

Given the talent at TE and youth behind them - yes they're adequate.

 

[mgteich]

Did I anything I posted suggest that I consider WR a 4th or 5th priority or higher? The team can easily handle 10 priorities in the offseason through re-signings, free agency and the draft.

1). It's hard for me to make upgrading wide receiver anythingmore than the fourth or fifth priority on the team.

 

[sbpatfan]

Welker still being the best slot receiver in the NFL is questionable. And I hope to god Price / Tate / Edelman can supplant Branch this offseason, I love Branch and he was worth the 4th but I'm tired of watching him slide or fall to avoid contact.