Most Overrated - Our Wide Receivers

[Shelterdog]

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.

Well you were incredibly vague about it so you didn't suggest anything other than the nostrum of aiming higher. That's why I asked you to be more specific.

 

[Sciz]

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

They were a problem for two games. Branch was playing hurt for one of them. From the time when Branch was healthy again on (weeks 9-16), the Patriots scored more points than anybody else has in NFL history. Yes, they're adequate. One game against the Jets don't make them suddenly suck.

 

[JackBauer]

They were a problem for two games. Branch was playing hurt for one of them. From the time when Branch was healthy again on (weeks 9-16), the Patriots scored more points than anybody else has in NFL history. Yes, they're adequate. One game against the Jets don't make them suddenly suck.

That's kind of like saying the 2007 offensive line was just fine, except for that one game in the playoffs where they completely crapped the bed.

You may think that Welker and Branch are good enough to consistently beat teams like the Packers and Jets in the playoffs; I would respectfully disagree with that assessment.

 

[Sciz]

That's kind of like saying the 2007 offensive line was just fine, except for that one game in the playoffs where they completely crapped the bed.

You may think that Welker and Branch are good enough to consistently beat teams like the Packers and Jets in the playoffs; I would respectfully disagree with that assessment.

If Crumpler could catch, Chung could hold onto the snap, and Brady doesn't throw a blind pass into Harris' arms, we're not having this discussion. There were three plays that screwed the Pats over against the Jets, and I don't blame the WRs for any of them.

Sure, the WRs are far from ideal, and I know we'd all love to add Fitz or AJ, but they are good enough to win any given game and therefore are adequate.

 

[patsinthesnow]

That's kind of like saying the 2007 offensive line was just fine, except for that one game in the playoffs where they completely crapped the bed.

You may think that Welker and Branch are good enough to consistently beat teams like the Packers and Jets in the playoffs; I would respectfully disagree with that assessment.

Could you give your suggestion on how you would replace Branch as #1 WR. I agree he can be upgraded but by which FA?

 

[JackBauer]

If Crumpler could catch, Chung could hold onto the snap, and Brady doesn't throw a blind pass into Harris' arms, we're not having this discussion. There were three plays that screwed the Pats over against the Jets, and I don't blame the WRs for any of them.

Sure, the WRs are far from ideal, and I know we'd all love to add Fitz or AJ, but they are good enough to win any given game and therefore are adequate.

I have a hard time believing they would have had any more success against a secondary like Green Bay.

Upgrading the WR corps isn't a matter of finding our own Fitz or AJ. Even someone like Jabar Gaffney would be tremendously helpful.

 

[JackBauer]

Could you give your suggestion on how you would replace Branch as #1 WR. I agree he can be upgraded but by which FA?

Vincent Jackson
Santonio Holmes
Sidney Rice
Braylon Edwards
Malcom Floyd
Steve Smith
Terrell Owens

...off the top of my head. Obviously not all of these players will be available.

 

[mgteich]

I'm not sure waht you asking. I've posted many, many times on priorities. My top 10 highest priorities arelisted again below. The keys to the draft are whether we re-sign one or both of Mankins and Light. The re-signing of G. Warren would remove some pressure, but we still need a top DE.

TOP TEN PRIORITIES
OG or re-sign Mankins
OT or re-sign Light
RB since we have only Green-Ellis, Woodhead and Clayton
RB since we have only Green-Eillis, Woodhead and Clayton
DE at minimum we need a veteran like G. Warren;my preference is also a top 35 draftee
OLB we have 4; we could use a 5th, hopefully in the 1st 3 rounds of the draft
OG since I'm not convinced Neal will play much, and Connolly should be a solid backup
S since only Chung and Brown are signed for 2012 and it takes a year to develop a S
WR Branch in our #1 WR; we need to add at least a couple of midllevel WR's for camp
(of course, we're set at slot receiver, both starter and backup)
OC since Koppen is in his last year

Well you were incredibly vague about it so you didn't suggest anything other than the nostrum of aiming higher. That's why I asked you to be more specific.

 

[Shelterdog]

I'm not sure waht you asking. I've posted many, many times on priorities.
...
WR Branch in our #1 WR; we need to add at least a couple of midllevel WR's for camp
(of course, we're set at slot receiver, both starter and backup)
OC since Koppen is in his last year

Thanks for clearing it up.

Here's how I see it: unless you hit the jackpot in the draft you can't improve on Branch in 2011 unless you make upgrading at WR a major, major priority. I don't think a couple of midlevel free agents (Chancey Stuckey? Brad Smith?) do the job. You've got to add a big free agent, AJ Green, Julio Jones, or make a trade for someone like Fitzgerald to have a high chance you're getting better at the spot.

 

[IcyPatriot]

We lead the league in scoring and our receivers are overrated ...

I'm missing something there.

Our receivers were:

8th in total yards

22nd in pass attempts

5th in yards per pass

1st in passing TD's

I don't see where there's overrating there - they were above average due to the elite QB passing to them - most of the experts saw it that way.

I don't think we need a top heavy WR unit - our passing is spread out, only 1/2 to the WR group.

331 pass receptions this year.

177 - 53.5% WR's

97 - 28.1% TE's

61 - 18.4% - RB's

 

[mgteich]

Are these the totals for WIDE RECEIVERs? My concern with the need to upgrade the production of our wide receivers: Branch, Tate and Price.

I'm 100% fine with our slot receivers and our tight ends, and even with our running backs out fo the backfield.

We lead the league in scoring and our receivers are overrated ...

I'm missing something there.

Our receivers were:

8th in total yards

22nd in pass attempts

5th in yards per pass

1st in passing TD's

I don't see where there's overrating there - they were above average due to the elite QB passing to them - most of the experts saw it that way.

I don't think we need a top heavy WR unit - our passing is spread out, only 1/2 to the WR group.

331 pass receptions this year.

177 - 53.5% WR's

97 - 28.1% TE's

61 - 18.4% - RB's

 

[Don Kipines]

That's kind of like saying the 2007 offensive line was just fine, except for that one game in the playoffs where they completely crapped the bed.

You may think that Welker and Branch are good enough to consistently beat teams like the Packers and Jets in the playoffs; I would respectfully disagree with that assessment.

The 2007 offensive line was just fine. It was better than fine; it was outstanding. It not only performed well all year, it had above-average players at every position save right tackle. They allowed 21 sacks for the entire season. They had maybe one or two shaky games all year, and it wasn't like they only played one team with a good pass rush all season. They were outstanding against Pittsburgh, San Diego, Dallas, even Baltimore. And yes, they had a bad game in the Super Bowl, but they were essentially the same guys who'd won Super Bowls before: Light, Neal, Koppen. The newbies were Mankins and Kaczur. Are you suggesting they needed an upgrade from Logan Mankins? From Kaczur? Remember they had Brandon Gorin playing right tackle in the 2004 Super Bowl.

By your logic, any unit that isn't outstanding every single game for an entire season needs to be upgraded. I mean, obviously, any unit could stand improvements. Maybe the 2007 Patriots would have won it all if they had Jonathan Ogden, Bruce Matthews, Anthony Munoz, Jackie Slater and Art Shell on the offensive line. But that's a very different thing from saying that the line was a team weakness. If you want to say that the team needed speed on defense or depth in the secondary, I doubt anyone's going to disagree. But the offensive line? That team set practically every team offensive record there is. They were clearly good enough to win it all. They just didn't.

That's why this whole argument about the receivers is crazy. Were they perfect? Of course not. But they were definitely good enough to get the job done. They averaged 34 points against the two Super Bowl defenses. It's not like Larry Fitzgerald wouldn't help, but they're pretty far from sucking, too.

 

[JackBauer]

The 2007 offensive line was just fine. It was better than fine; it was outstanding. It not only performed well all year, it had above-average players at every position save right tackle. They allowed 21 sacks for the entire season. They had maybe one or two shaky games all year, and it wasn't like they only played one team with a good pass rush all season. They were outstanding against Pittsburgh, San Diego, Dallas, even Baltimore. And yes, they had a bad game in the Super Bowl, but they were essentially the same guys who'd won Super Bowls before: Light, Neal, Koppen. The newbies were Mankins and Kaczur. Are you suggesting they needed an upgrade from Logan Mankins? From Kaczur? Remember they had Brandon Gorin playing right tackle in the 2004 Super Bowl.

Well, Mankins did have the worst game out of all the offensive linemen that day. But to answer your question, probably not. At least, it wouldn't be worth the cost of upgrading him at the expense of some of the weaker positions on the line. Kaczur is not a very good RT, which is likely why they chose to upgrade him through the draft (as well as in preparation to replace Light).

By your logic, any unit that isn't outstanding every single game for an entire season needs to be upgraded. I mean, obviously, any unit could stand improvements. Maybe the 2007 Patriots would have won it all if they had Jonathan Ogden, Bruce Matthews, Anthony Munoz, Jackie Slater and Art Shell on the offensive line. But that's a very different thing from saying that the line was a team weakness. If you want to say that the team needed speed on defense or depth in the secondary, I doubt anyone's going to disagree. But the offensive line? That team set practically every team offensive record there is. They were clearly good enough to win it all. They just didn't.

No. That's not my logic at all, and I'm dumbfounded how you could have interpreted that from what I wrote.

Any time you have a unit of perceived strength (or, at least, non-weakness) that gets singularly exposed in the playoffs, you have to look at potential upgrades in the offseason. So when you have a relatively slow, unathletic but overachieving offensive line get exposed by an extremely athletic and powerful defensive line, it would behoove you to consider upgrading areas of weakness. Likewise, when you have diminutive receivers and no real outside threat getting blanketed by a talented, physical secondary like the Jets (or Green Bay), you have to consider options for upgrading your talent.

That's why this whole argument about the receivers is crazy. Were they perfect? Of course not. But they were definitely good enough to get the job done. They averaged 34 points against the two Super Bowl defenses. It's not like Larry Fitzgerald wouldn't help, but they're pretty far from sucking, too.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up Larry Fitzgerald. It's not like the only prospect for upgrading the WR corps consists of bringing in a blue chip talent. You really don't think that a Malcom Floyd (for example) would constitute a modest but impactful upgrade?

 

[IcyPatriot]

Are these the totals for WIDE RECEIVERs? My concern with the need to upgrade the production of our wide receivers: Branch, Tate and Price.

I'm 100% fine with our slot receivers and our tight ends, and even with our running backs out fo the backfield.

I don't see Bill spending more money for a wide receiver. They account for 27.5% of the receptions on the team. We're not a top heavy WR team and the money will be spent elsewhere. I see a 3rd - 5th round draft pick this year.

 

[JackBauer]

By the way, it's entirely possible that Tate and/or Price could develop and preclude the need to bring in another receiver. Obviously that would be the ideal scenario when it comes to bolstering the receiving corps.

 

[JackBauer]

I don't see Bill spending more money for a wide receiver. They account for 27.5% of the receptions on the team. We're not a top heavy WR team and the money will be spent elsewhere. I see a 3rd - 5th round draft pick this year.

Yeah well you also see them drafting a CB at 2a

If BB brings in another WR, I see him coming through FA, not the draft. They've already got young developing talent in Tate and Price.

 

[Shelterdog]

You really don't think that a Malcom Floyd (for example) would constitute a modest but impactful upgrade?

He'll be pretty expensive-6'5" outside receivers get teams excited especially since he would have had about a thousand yards last year if healthy.

It's also unclear that he'll know the system well enough next year (particularly if there's a long lockout and a short off-seasoon) to be better than Tate or Price.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, the possibility that Tate or Price MIGHT develop could keep us from drafting another youngster.

However, we can't count on Tate or Price developing into a major 2011 contributer. Also, there is always the chance of injury.

We need some veteran alternatives and depth. I look to Belichick to look to free agency for a couple of veterans. As always, the question is what is out there and how much is belichick willing to spend.

BTW, we have a similar issue at RB. We have a need for more bodies, and they will likely come from free agency.

By the way, it's entirely possible that Tate and/or Price could develop and preclude the need to bring in another receiver. Obviously that would be the ideal scenario when it comes to bolstering the receiving corps.

 

[JackBauer]

Yes, the possibility that Tate or Price MIGHT develop could keep us from drafting another youngster.

However, we can't count on Tate or Price developing into a major 2011 contributer. Also, there is always the chance of injury.

We need some veteran alternatives and depth. I look to Belichick to look to free agency for a couple of veterans. As always, the question is what is out there and how much is belichick willing to spend.

BTW, we have a similar issue at RB. We have a need for more bodies, and they will likely come from free agency.

Agreed.

I see FA pickups at WR, RB.

I see the draft focusing on OLB, DE, and OL.