We Do Not Need Any More Receivers

[GoWhalers]

Looking at our current WR roster:

Caldwell: He was here at the start of TC, and played well and consistent throughout the year. I think we know what we have with Caldwell. Future upside may be limited.

Gaffney: Mid-season pickup, not much production during the season but came on strong during the playoffs. Could he improve with a full TC with Brady? Maybe.

Brown: Has played with Brady for years, and is beloved by all. His downward production since 2001 is undeniable. Let him go? Absolutely not -- the guy is nothing but reliable. Still, we know what we have with Brown.

Jackson: Missed most of TC, not much production during the regular season, invisible in the playoffs. A complete unknown. Could be a bust, could be great.

The rest (Childress/Kight/Smith/etc): Obviously they're not ready to crack the starting lineup -- and there was no better opportunity for them than this season.


What does this all add up to? Going into next season with 2 known quantities at WR, one on the back end of his career, and 2 uncertain quantities, with hopes for improvement. If Gaffney and Jackson pan out, then we've hit the jackpot. If it goes 50/50 or worse, then I think we're in trouble.

Either way, I think it all adds up to a Day 1 WR pick -- not necessarily 1st round, but Day 1 for sure.

 

[upstater1]

And if that player who is capable of a #1 spot on the roster asks for what Branch wanted, Dont count on us getting one.

Well, I'll say it again, the Patriots were fully prepared to pay Branch the money he wanted. It ewas the bad blood which ruined things.

 

[upstater1]

As I said before, I could care less about passing records. I am addressing the complaint by some people about how our offense couldn't generate first downs in the playoffs, and how it was somehow the receivers' fault more than the coordinator's fault.

Yet, I thought I replied to that. With the same coordinator, we doidn't have the problems in the passing game last year that we had this year.

 

[maverick4]

Yet, I thought I replied to that. With the same coordinator, we doidn't have the problems in the passing game last year that we had this year.

Actually, our offense did have major problems in the playoffs last year.

Let's not forget that Weiss won in 2001/2003 as well with a bunch of newbie or cast-off receivers. So we do know that it can be done.

 

[DaBruinz]

We had 5 3 and outs in that game. We had another 3 playe drive that ended with a pick. We had a 2 play and pick drive. Three of our scoring drives were 33 yards or less. With the exception of the end of the first half and the last drive of the game did you really think we showed anything on offense all day?

So, let me get this straight. I should penalize the offense because they didn't have to get more than 33 yards to get points on the board? OK. Thanks for the info.

As I said, it was a damn good defense. People like you insist on looking at things in a vacuum and not considering the defense that the Pats went against.

The Pats offense did enough to win the game. That is what I said. Where you got your interpretation is beyond me because its got nothing to do with what I posted..

Why does "we need to improve our WRs" always get spun into "we need to get TO or Chad Johnson, etc."?

Maybe because people like yourself over-react to what is really written. I didn't say the Pats needed T.O. or Chad Johnson. What I said was that people seem to be over-rating the need for a bonifide #1 receiver. And I gave examples of how few teams actually have the talent of a bonifide #1 receiver.

MOST people are saying that the Pats need a #1 receiver. Very few are saying that the Pats just need an upgrade. The other this is what is the "upgrade"? Half the people screaming for an improvement want the Pats to spend a 1st round pick on a WR. Most people know that 1st round WRs rarely make a huge impact in their 1st year.

There is a balance between what the Patriots currently have at WR and going out and investing the $ that the Colts or Bengals invest at the position. It is the level of WR we have played with for the past few years prior to this one. Why would anyone be against getting our WRs back to that level?

Really? There is a balance? What receiver would be an UPGRADE to the Pats receivers? The only one I can think of that is a UFA is Stallworth and as PatsfaninPA mentioned, the news out of Philadelphia is that Stallworth is supposedly going to re-sign with the Eagles.

Sorry, but what was the level of receivers that we played with over the last few years?

In 2001: Brown and a bunch of trash-heap guys.
In 2002: Brown and Patten. Branch was a rookie and so was Givens. Branched ended the season on IR.
In 2003: Brown and Patten started the season. Branch took over when Patten went down. Givens showed up when Brown went down.
In 2004: Branch and Givens started, but Branch missed 7 games due to injury. Patten ended the season with 4 catches in the play-offs and basically riding the bench.
2005: Branch and Givens with Brown and Co. This was the only season we had Branch for its entirety.

Pats have only had #2 receivers in the past 6 years. Yes, Branch was the "GO TO" guy, but that doesn't make him a bonifide #1. Teams weren't scared of him. They were scared of the entire offense because Brady knew someone would get open and Brady would find them. Brady is having to learn his receivers all over and his receivers are having to learn Brady. That takes time. It doesn't happen over-night. Branch wasn't an INSTANT success. It wasn't until the middle of 2003 that he really took over and never looked back. So, why would ANY of us expect Gaffney or Caldwell to be up to Branch's level after just half a season?

 

[mikiemo83]

Actually, our offense did have major problems in the playoffs last year.

Let's not forget that Weiss won in 2001/2003 as well with a bunch of newbie or cast-off receivers. So we do know that it can be done.

who were with the team for training camp unlike Gaffney and Injured Jackson.


so where should they have ranked with those WR's

here is points per game for last season
San Diego 30.8
Indianapolis 26.7
Chicago 26.7
Dallas 26.6
New Orleans 25.8
Philadelphia 24.9
New England 24.1


7th place in th eNFL is not good enough for you?

 

[DaBruinz]

Very good defenses? That Colts defense is a crap defense that plays incredibly aggressive. They are daring every team to throw on them. And guess what, as far as winning playoff games go, the Colts D did their job, winning over offenses from KC, to Baltimore, to New England and the Bears. The problem is, I don't like the company we're keeping.

How many safety blitzes did the Colts run? Please, if you are going to try and pick apart my reply to you, try and keep it in context.

 

[DaBruinz]

Yet, I thought I replied to that. With the same coordinator, we doidn't have the problems in the passing game last year that we had this year.

The Pats DID have problems in the passing game last year during the game against Denver. Givens had a couple of critical drops in last year's game aganst Denver. So did Branch and Brown.

I remember people talking about it afterwards.

 

[Kdo5]

Well, I'll say it again, the Patriots were fully prepared to pay Branch the money he wanted. It ewas the bad blood which ruined things.

Yeah, but I thought Branch was all angry that he couldnt get his pay day right away but the Pats wanted to end the season and THEN give him 6 million a year which I think was what he wanted.

 

[patsox23]

Yes, Branch was the "GO TO" guy, but that doesn't make him a bonifide #1. Teams weren't scared of him. They were scared of the entire offense because Brady knew someone would get open and Brady would find them. Brady is having to learn his receivers all over and his receivers are having to learn Brady. That takes time. It doesn't happen over-night. Branch wasn't an INSTANT success. It wasn't until the middle of 2003 that he really took over and never looked back. So, why would ANY of us expect Gaffney or Caldwell to be up to Branch's level after just half a season?

DaBruinz nails it. The whole thing is right on. This last paragraph in particular said it perfectly.

 

[dhamz]

So, let me get this straight. I should penalize the offense because they didn't have to get more than 33 yards to get points on the board? OK. Thanks for the info.

So when the offense takes over at the opponents 35 yard line and can't produce a TD it is good offense and we should praise them for it? How about when it takes over there and can only produce a FG solely because a SD defender decided to punch Daniel Graham in the head? Without that moronic play by a poorly coached team that drive gets no points. Is that good offense?

As I said, it was a damn good defense. People like you insist on looking at things in a vacuum and not considering the defense that the Pats went against.

I'm assuming we will need to play that same defense or a team with the same type of defense again next year. It would be nice to have a better offense to combat it.

Really? There is a balance? What receiver would be an UPGRADE to the Pats receivers? The only one I can think of that is a UFA is Stallworth and as PatsfaninPA mentioned, the news out of Philadelphia is that Stallworth is supposedly going to re-sign with the Eagles.

Drew Bennett would be an upgrade to our WR corp. So would Stallworth. So would Kevin Curtis. As of right now, we have exactly two WRs who you can say with any certainty will be any factor on the team next year - Gaffney and Caldwell. Both are posession guys who no one fears going upfield. Jackson hasn't shown he can even stay on the field and Brown isn't a lock to be back. The idea that we can't upgrade our WR spot is nonsense.

 

[maverick4]

We have enough talent on offense; this is evident through our points per game and other stats. If you think our offense under-performs, then point the blame at the coordinator for not generating first downs at key moments.

 

[Rob0729]

We have enough talent on offense; this is evident through our points per game and other stats. If you think our offense under-performs, then point the blame at the coordinator for not generating first downs at key moments.

I'm sorry. But that just doesn't make sense. The Coordinator doesn't get credit for the points, but gets the blame for first downs? Execution and playcall are just as impactful in both cases.

What happens if McDaniels calls the right play on 3rd and 4 and a receiver is wide open six yards down the field and he either drops the ball or Brady overthrows him? The Pats don't convert. The call right. But is it McDaniels' fault?

Or how about the play in the AFCC where McDaniels called the right play on 2nd and 8 and the Pats pick up ten yards, but Troy Brown away from the play gets a pass interference call because he blocks the ability of the defender to come back for the ball and makes a 1st and 10 to a 2nd and 18. Is that McDaniels' fault?

Or there was a play against the Chargers I think on third down where Brady hits an open Gaffney and he could just extend for the first down, but he comes back to avoid the defender and is tackled well short of the first down. Is that McDaniels' fault?

The offensive coordinator is only do so much. The players have to execute too. There are plenty of times this year where you can point directly to players' poor execution ending drives over poor play calling.

 

[maverick4]

The offensive coordinator is only do so much. The players have to execute too. There are plenty of times this year where you can point directly to players' poor execution ending drives over poor play calling.

Poor execution is indicative of poor coaching. Think Pete Carroll on the '97-99 Pats. It is possible to put up great stats but have poor coaching.

Another example of coaching vs. execution is the LA Lakers. Under Del Harris, the players put up huge points but had "execution"-type mistakes in crunch time. Under Phil Jackson, with the exact same team, Kobe and Shaq won the championship and the next 2.

 

[DaBruinz]

So when the offense takes over at the opponents 35 yard line and can't produce a TD it is good offense and we should praise them for it? How about when it takes over there and can only produce a FG solely because a SD defender decided to punch Daniel Graham in the head? Without that moronic play by a poorly coached team that drive gets no points. Is that good offense?

All offenses have their spells where they don't succeed. And that includes Peyton Manning and the Colts. If you want to look at things in a vacuum and focus on just one game, go ahead. You won't have any credibility though.

And just what was the reason behind the offense not getting things done? Was it strictly play-calling? Was it the players talent? or was it execution? If you are certain that it was any single one of those, please, go to Foxboro and tell BB what an offensive messiah you are and have him replace either the OC, the QB, or the scouts because you obviously are smarter than them.

I'm assuming we will need to play that same defense or a team with the same type of defense again next year. It would be nice to have a better offense to combat it.

The Pats don't need more talent on offense to have a better offense. That is what you are missing. If the Patriots work on their execution of plays, and then execute them during the game, they will be better. That include Brady hitting the open man, Caldwell, Watson, and Gaffney holding on to passes and Jackson being on the field for more than blocking on running plays. Then the Pats offense will be better.

Drew Bennett would be an upgrade to our WR corp. So would Stallworth. So would Kevin Curtis. As of right now, we have exactly two WRs who you can say with any certainty will be any factor on the team next year - Gaffney and Caldwell. Both are posession guys who no one fears going upfield. Jackson hasn't shown he can even stay on the field and Brown isn't a lock to be back. The idea that we can't upgrade our WR spot is nonsense.

Stallworth isn't going anywhere if you believe PatsfaninPA who lives in Philadelphia. Kevin Curtis? Drew Bennett? Really? Are you 100% certain of this? I'm not. Kevin Curtis wasn't able to supplant an old and tired Isaac Bruce this year. Don't get me wrong, I like Curtis, but what's to say he will be an UPGRADE over Gaffney or Caldwell? Bennett is a possession receiver. Has been every year with the Titans. Even when he was their #1 because Mason and McCareins were gone. Having 3 #2 type receivers wouldn't be a bad thing, but most people are talking upgrades over Caldwell and Gaffney. I just don't see a WR of that caliber being available.

What is non-sense is people saying the Pats can upgrade the offense by getting a draft pick or adding some WR whose never been in the system before. It took Deion Branch a season and a half to supplant David Patten in this offense and that is only because Patten got injured. Givens didn't move into the starting slot until 2004 on a full time basis. It took Caldwell 6 games to start making a difference consistently. Gaffney finally started making a difference as the post season came around.

So, why should I believe that any receiver out there will magically upgrade the Pats from day 1? Could it happen? Yes, anything is possible. But I don't feel its probable and I don't feel that there really are that many receivers out there who would be upgrades over Gaffney and Caldwell. Over Brown, Kight, and Childress, yes. But not necessarily Gaffney and Caldwell.

 

[DaBruinz]

Poor execution is indicative of poor coaching. Think Pete Carroll on the '97-99 Pats. It is possible to put up great stats but have poor coaching.

Another example of coaching vs. execution is the LA Lakers. Under Del Harris, the players put up huge points but had "execution"-type mistakes in crunch time. Under Phil Jackson, with the exact same team, Kobe and Shaq won the championship and the next 2.

If its indicative of poor coaching, then you also have to include BB because he DOES have a hand in the offensive and defensive drills. So, what you are saying is that the entire Offensive Coaching staff is to blame.

 

[mb6592]

I think PFnV and Kdo have it right: our offense is based on getting the ball to whoever is open, or to exploit the defensive matchups. To this end, it makes more sense to have 3-4 guys who are solid versus 1 superstar receiver who the defense can key on.

Dude, did you see the San Diego game? We need a receiver that can consistently create separation. I can't believe I’m saying this, but a Terry Glen type. We don't have one on this team, and as a result Brady (good soldier that he is) became uncharacteristically frustrated at times this year. He's the franchise, let's get him someone (by "top flight" I mean/meant someone that can get consistently open). And by the way, you can thank Brady for all those "value" receivers we've picked up, now it's time to get him a bonifide threat.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Gaffney particularly came out of nowhere. I for one can not wait to see whether he's got it long term, or whether he played over his head.

Correction to my Drew Bennet rambling:

1) The Branch "bad blood" point is stipulated to, though not accepted. After all, it did drag out all pre-season, so the sides must have been moderately close. "It was widely reported" doesn't do it for me, but why belabor it. Let's accept that they were close, and that therefore they were in the 6M APY neighborhood.

2) I'll also drag in the fact that expectations within the Value system need to be adjusted upward, and will be, reflecting the cap's upward movement.

3) This one's not really a correction, so much as an expectation. The market is determined every year by who is on the market. Every year some middling starter gets paid like a pro-bowler, and the rush is on. The Pats tend to lag the market, looking for diamonds in the rough, cast-offs, etc. So I would not be surprised if he signs elsewhere for a nice chunk of change, based on hopes of a repeat of his one standout season. If this is the lay of the land, we can not compete for him.

One other point, regarding Branch: Assuming he'd established his value in the neighborhood of $5-6M APY by the Pats' reckoning, I think we have to look at part of that as an "in this system" bonus. In other words, as another poster pointed out, he's trained to be a Pats receiver, and proven he can excel in the system. This would increase his value relative to the Pats, moving him into the "upper middle class" of receivers. That's still in the range of "first among equals", not superstar. You can still consider the return on your investment good, if you are factoring in that you do not lose a year of "getting on the same page," and if you are factoring in that he really was a "Patriots type player." You pay something for those certainties -- a player might perceive it as loyalty, though I firmly believe that the Pats seldom make an altruistic personnel move.

And I am still gonna try to find out what was "widely reported," and what the source was. So there.

PFnV

 

[upstater1]

Yeah, but I thought Branch was all angry that he couldnt get his pay day right away but the Pats wanted to end the season and THEN give him 6 million a year which I think was what he wanted.

No, they were going to rip up his contract and give him what he wanted. IF HE FIRED his agent first.

 

[upstater1]

Actually, our offense did have major problems in the playoffs last year.

Let's not forget that Weiss won in 2001/2003 as well with a bunch of newbie or cast-off receivers. So we do know that it can be done.

Our offense didn't have a healthy RB in 2005.