Likely Receiving core: What do you think?

[Kontradiction]

Okay. So it's become apparent that, on top of possibly being a troll, your reading comprehension is weak (because we've already gone over this), you don't follow college football (because you're apparently unaware of how deep this draft is at positions of need), and you have no concept of just how bad the current WR corps currently is (because you think we're fine). So let's take this baby step by baby step...

Not sure what your point is. You clearly stated that having amendola Lloyd sanders Edelman Jenkins jones is not enough at wr which is completely absurd. Spending resources on a wr when we have those guys and junk at lde and in the secondary is just incredibly stupid, espn highlight driven opinion.

Again, Sanders and Lloyd are not currently on the team. The team is fielding a receiving corps featuring an injury prone slot receiver, a guy that hasn't done anything of note in the NFL, and a slow, taller receiver that I can probably outrun. The latter two will most likely be training camp casulaties. So let's go from there. As of right now, the team has one NFL starting caliber WR. That's Amendola. That means they have at least three more needs at the WR position. If Lloyd is brought back, he offers no YAC ability and is best suited to replace Branch, which would be an upgrade. That means we need X and Y receivers. If the team secures Sanders, they have the Y figured out, though he has been injury prone himself. That would mean they need at least one more guy in the draft. That guy needs to be able to work outside the hashes, go over the middle, catch bubble screens, and force the safeties to respect the deep ball. That need has to be filled in the draft unless, once again, you're comfortable with either Jones or Jenkins in that role. If you are, all the power to ya...

Maybe I should switch from reading comprehension and tell you to watch a few games first. Teams that invest tons in skill players and neglect the trenches and defense are asking to be awful.

You must have been asleep. The team has added Armstead and Kelly in the trenches and will probably be looking for a DE, either through the draft (where there are a good number of them) or through what is remaining in FA. You seem to be unaware that it's possible for a team to fill multiple needs in one offseason.

On top of that we have tom freaking Brady. He took welker and hooman an piloted the third best offense of all time. He created a dynasty with junk at wr. Gronk and Hernandez alone are a million times better than anything he had before 2007, let alone throwing in amendola, Edelman, Lloyd, sanders. Sorry we can't have six receivers and a running back on the field at once.

Tom Freaking Brady also lost the 2006 AFCCG particularly because of the garbage he was given to work with at the WR position. And that was with a better defense. The fact that we have Tom Freaking Brady doesn't change the fact that WR is still a need, even if the team brings in Sanders and brings back Lloyd.

Ridley gronk and hern need to be on the field on every down (swap Ridley with vereen on third and long).

You are a very confused young man.

That leves two spots. One is for amendola and the other is for Ballard/hooman/Edelman/fb and then if you throw in sanders and Lloyd, you want to spend a high draft pick on a we? LOL I'm glad you don't run the team.

The team goes into a 3WR, 2TE, empty backfield set, one of it's favorites. Even assuming Lloyd is brought back, you're looking at Sanders (maybe), Amendola, Gronk, Hernandez, and either one of Lloyd/Jenkins/Jones right now. That line-up, regardless of who you put at X would have the same issues vs. good defenses as our previous offenses have had. The X needs to be upgraded. I'm good with it being in the second round because there's going to be a lot of guys available that fit that bill. But WR is still a need... and that's IF Lloyd and Sanders are both brought into the fold. If they aren't, we need two.

Now since I assume you won't respond to this, have a nice day.

 

[Brady2Moss]

Okay. So it's become apparent that, on top of possibly being a troll, your reading comprehension is weak (because we've already gone over this), you don't follow college football (because you're apparently unaware of how deep this draft is at positions of need), and you have no concept of just how bad the current WR corps currently is (because you think we're fine). So let's take this baby step by baby step...



Again, Sanders and Lloyd are not currently on the team. The team is fielding a receiving corps featuring an injury prone slot receiver, a guy that hasn't done anything of note in the NFL, and a slow, taller receiver that I can probably outrun. The latter two will most likely be training camp casulaties. So let's go from there. As of right now, the team has one NFL starting caliber WR. That's Amendola. That means they have at least three more needs at the WR position. If Lloyd is brought back, he offers no YAC ability and is best suited to replace Branch, which would be an upgrade. That means we need X and Y receivers. If the team secures Sanders, they have the Y figured out, though he has been injury prone himself. That would mean they need at least one more guy in the draft. That guy needs to be able to work outside the hashes, go over the middle, catch bubble screens, and force the safeties to respect the deep ball. That need has to be filled in the draft unless, once again, you're comfortable with either Jones or Jenkins in that role. If you are, all the power to ya...



You must have been asleep. The team has added Armstead and Kelly in the trenches and will probably be looking for a DE, either through the draft (where there are a good number of them) or through what is remaining in FA. You seem to be unaware that it's possible for a team to fill multiple needs in one offseason.



Tom Freaking Brady also lost the 2006 AFCCG particularly because of the garbage he was given to work with at the WR position. And that was with a better defense. The fact that we have Tom Freaking Brady doesn't change the fact that WR is still a need, even if the team brings in Sanders and brings back Lloyd.



You are a very confused young man.



The team goes into a 3WR, 2TE, empty backfield set, one of it's favorites. Even assuming Lloyd is brought back, you're looking at Sanders (maybe), Amendola, Gronk, Hernandez, and either one of Lloyd/Jenkins/Jones right now. That line-up, regardless of who you put at X would have the same issues vs. good defenses as our previous offenses have had. The X needs to be upgraded. I'm good with it being in the second round because there's going to be a lot of guys available that fit that bill. But WR is still a need... and that's IF Lloyd and Sanders are both brought into the fold. If they aren't, we need two.

Now since I assume you won't respond to this, have a nice day.

Great post this guy is acting like Hooman was the #2 option last year? What the hell is going on here. Gronk and Hernandez won't play every game that is a given with them.

Giselle said it best "My husband cannot throw the ball and catch it himself".

We need receivers BAD, Jenkins and Jones aren't anything more than camp fodder, everyone else is injury prone.

I would also like to add that Gronk is not better than 2007 Randy Moss and Hernandez is nowhere close to 2007 Welker.

 

[Nunchucks]

I don't believe it was lack of offense that lost the 2006 AFC Championship game...it was giving up a ridiculous amount of points in 1 half of football.

 

[Wilfork#75]

Not sure what your point is. You clearly stated that having amendola Lloyd sanders Edelman Jenkins jones is not enough at wr which is completely absurd. Spending resources on a wr when we have those guys and junk at lde and in the secondary is just incredibly stupid, espn highlight driven opinion.

Ninko is better than every single player you just mentioned at WR. Some may have more potential, but no WR on that list has proven as much in the NFL as Ninko. We are also likely to get one of Abraham/Freeney and lets not forget Jake Bequette, so LDE isn't as big a need as you make out. In terms of the secondary:

Aqib Talib
Alfonzo Dennard
Kyle Arrington
Ras-I Dowling

Devin McCourty
Adrian Wilson
Steve Gregory
Tavon Wilson

Those groups are much more proven then those WRs. Can we upgrade them? Absolutely. But lets not pretend we have such dire needs elsewhere that we cant take a WR in the first 2/3 rounds.

Maybe I should switch from reading comprehension and tell you to watch a few games first. Teams that invest tons in skill players and neglect the trenches and defense are asking to be awful.

On top of that we have tom freaking Brady. He took welker and hooman an piloted the third best offense of all time. He created a dynasty with junk at wr. Gronk and Hernandez alone are a million times better than anything he had before 2007, let alone throwing in amendola, Edelman, Lloyd, sanders. Sorry we can't have six receivers and a running back on the field at once.

What happened before 2007 means absolutely nothing to this team now. That was a different NFL with different rules that allowed defenses to be much more competitive. Now you cannot win in the NFL without scoring points, and while we can do that against crappy teams in the regular season, we have really struggled against good defenses when it counts. Why? Because we have had a far too great a reliance on 3 players, one of which is gone and two of which have battled injuries over the past 2 years. That approach doesn't work, we need greater and varied weapons to take the burden away from Gronk and Hernandez and also give us adequate cover for inevitable injury.

Ridley gronk and hern need to be on the field on every down (swap Ridley with vereen on third and long). That leves two spots. One is for amendola and the other is for Ballard/hooman/Edelman/fb and then if you throw in sanders and Lloyd, you want to spend a high draft pick on a we? LOL I'm glad you don't run the team.

This is the kind of thinking that leaves teams with no backup plan if a key player gets hurt in a big game. What we really need to do is reduce the roles for Gronk and Hernandez in the regular season to try and keep them fresh and healthy for more important games. This also allows the guys lower on the depth chart to get significant snaps and allow us adequate backup plans in case of injury. The big guns still play the key snaps, but we also have guys ready to step up that have had game experience. Why do Gronk and Hernandez really need to play the majority of snaps against Buffalo and Miami? If we can't beat those teams with them two only playing 50% of the snaps each then we have no chance of beating a good team if injury strikes.

In terms of the personnel you listed, none of them really fixed the issues we had last season. There still isn't a physical receiver that can stand up against press coverage. There still isn't a true outside threat that can demand double coverage and spread the defense. And perhaps most importantly, there isn't any WR on the roster that has any real connection with Brady and can be counted on as a consistent performer. Every single WR under contract is a huge question mark, so I would think that greater competition in camp would be a good thing, and not just for WR. I would look to trade down and add depth at other offensive positions too. Marcus Lattimore would be a perfect compliment to Ridley and Vereen in the 4th round. Michael Williams would be a perfect upgrade over Hooman in the later rounds. Marquess Wilson could certainly compete with Jones and Jenkins (face it, Lloyd ain't coming back) in the 5th round. To put it simply, there isn't a single WR on the Patriots roster that should stop them from drafting a WR early in the draft.

 

[tonyto3690]

Jenkins and Jones are not guys to be counted on to be anything more than Branch and Stallworth of this years team. That leaves 2 slot guys that can sometimes play outside. The FRANCHISE tight ends are always hurt, you need a contingency plan for when they inevitably are not on the field. We just lost the one guy who was always on the field to keep the offense moving.

If you don't think WR is a need, I don't know what to tell you.

And they're not. They'll be solid #3, #4 or #5 receivers when on the once every 8 games we go spread for a series or two.

Amendola is locked into one spot, Edelman and Sanders can man the other.

The contingency plan is Ballard, Hooman, and Fells. Not going into 2007 mode and playing 5 WRs at all times.

This moronic belief of "well this player could get hurt on a freak PAT as a blocker where his man doesn't even go hard, therefore we need to sign at least 4 starting WRs" is just beyond any sort of basic logic.

Sorry, we can't have a loaded position at every position of the team. You need to balance and weigh priorities. Right now our WR corps is far better than anything pre-2007 and that is without Sanders. We don't need to invest a ton of money in WRs when you have Brady who can make garbage work.

The goal is not to have Brady throw 50 TDs. The goal is to win a SB and investing a boatload of resources and money into skill position receivers is just stupid stupid stupid stupid. We have very obvious needs on the DL and secondary that need to be handled first.


EDIT:
Wilfork:

Ninkovich is a solid role player. He occasionally gets some splash plays which makes casual fans love him. Sure he'll get you a sack, but that doesn't make up for the other 85% of downs where teams run at him at a 6YPC clip. We were elite at defending the run in all the gaps except off left end. Hmm, I wonder why that might be.

He's a nice role player that has a good story and we all want to succeed but he is horrendously overrated by casual fans.


We have zero depth at CB. Dowling is more likely to be cut than anything this season and Talib will be lucky to play 12 games. On top of that Dennard had a nice season, but we've seen in past years how promising a rookie CB has looked for us, only to be garbage his sophomore year.

CB is a massive liability right now that is riding on a whole lot of "everything has to go perfectly".

Honestly I'd rather put McCourty back at CB and draft a Safety who doesn't suck and isn't either a liability in coverage, takes terrible angles and/or can't tackle. But given the dearth of talent at S and unless Vacaroo falls to us, I don't see that happening.

We need to draft a CB, and the other pick should go to replacing Ninkovich or giving us a long term prospect at DT instead of a stop gap like Kelly.


You win in the trenches, not with flashy receivers. Otherwise the Saints would have been a playoff team last season.

 

[Brady6]

I disagree I think Jones can be counted on to line up at SE the majority of the snaps and catch 50-60 balls for 700-800 yards. Jenkins will not make the team.

 

[Kontradiction]

I don't believe it was lack of offense that lost the 2006 AFC Championship game...it was giving up a ridiculous amount of points in 1 half of football.

Not being able to cover Dallas Clark eventually did the Pats in. The point stands that they were one score away from winning and couldn't do it. Then they got the ball back to win with the last drive and Brady threw a pick because he had to force it to Troy Brown due to the fact that nobody else was open.

 

[Kontradiction]

I disagree I think Jones can be counted on to line up at SE the majority of the snaps and catch 50-60 balls for 700-800 yards. Jenkins will not make the team.

What are you basing this on?

 

[mgteich]

You're correct. We don't need 4 starting receivers. We need an flanker, a split end, a slot receiver and a backup. Edelman is the backup. Amedola is our slot receiver. Edelman is our backup, especially in the slot. These guys might do damage downfield on a regular basis, or not.

We'll see if Sanders is on the team. Having Sanders and Jones going downfield in 3 wide receiver sets is not great. But we still have the rest of free agency and the draft to acquire players.

And they're not. They'll be solid #3, #4 or #5 receivers when on the once every 8 games we go spread for a series or two.

Amendola is locked into one spot, Edelman and Sanders can man the other.

The contingency plan is Ballard, Hooman, and Fells. Not going into 2007 mode and playing 5 WRs at all times.

This moronic belief of "well this player could get hurt on a freak PAT as a blocker where his man doesn't even go hard, therefore we need to sign at least 4 starting WRs" is just beyond any sort of basic logic.

Sorry, we can't have a loaded position at every position of the team. You need to balance and weigh priorities. Right now our WR corps is far better than anything pre-2007 and that is without Sanders. We don't need to invest a ton of money in WRs when you have Brady who can make garbage work.

The goal is not to have Brady throw 50 TDs. The goal is to win a SB and investing a boatload of resources and money into skill position receivers is just stupid stupid stupid stupid. We have very obvious needs on the DL and secondary that need to be handled first.

 

[Deus Irae]

And they're not. They'll be solid #3, #4 or #5 receivers when on the once every 8 games we go spread for a series or two.

Amendola is locked into one spot, Edelman and Sanders can man the other.

The contingency plan is Ballard, Hooman, and Fells. Not going into 2007 mode and playing 5 WRs at all times.

This moronic belief of "well this player could get hurt on a freak PAT as a blocker where his man doesn't even go hard, therefore we need to sign at least 4 starting WRs" is just beyond any sort of basic logic.

Sorry, we can't have a loaded position at every position of the team. You need to balance and weigh priorities. Right now our WR corps is far better than anything pre-2007 and that is without Sanders. We don't need to invest a ton of money in WRs when you have Brady who can make garbage work.

The goal is not to have Brady throw 50 TDs. The goal is to win a SB and investing a boatload of resources and money into skill position receivers is just stupid stupid stupid stupid. We have very obvious needs on the DL and secondary that need to be handled first.

The team has no WR1 and is stocked with china dolls in the receiver/te positions. You can talk about not being able to be loaded at every position, but that won't change the fact that, based on history, this receiving group needs to be added to.

 

[JackBauer]

word salad

This is amazing. You call Ninkovich a "garbage role player" (before calling him a nice role player ), while listing Hooman and Fells as part of your "contingency plan."

WR corps better than anything pre-2007? Are you high?

CB is a massive liability, but WR is not? Somehow cornerbacks who are oft injured like Talib and Dowling are a red flag, but receivers/tight ends who are oft injured like Amendola, Sanders, Gronk, Edelman, and Hernandez are all systems go?

Yeesh.

 

[Brady6]

And they're not. They'll be solid #3, #4 or #5 receivers when on the once every 8 games we go spread for a series or two.

Amendola is locked into one spot, Edelman and Sanders can man the other.

The contingency plan is Ballard, Hooman, and Fells. Not going into 2007 mode and playing 5 WRs at all times.

This moronic belief of "well this player could get hurt on a freak PAT as a blocker where his man doesn't even go hard, therefore we need to sign at least 4 starting WRs" is just beyond any sort of basic logic.

Sorry, we can't have a loaded position at every position of the team. You need to balance and weigh priorities. Right now our WR corps is far better than anything pre-2007 and that is without Sanders. We don't need to invest a ton of money in WRs when you have Brady who can make garbage work.

The goal is not to have Brady throw 50 TDs. The goal is to win a SB and investing a boatload of resources and money into skill position receivers is just stupid stupid stupid stupid. We have very obvious needs on the DL and secondary that need to be handled first.

I think you will see either 3 TE, 2 WR a lot of the time with AH splitting out sometimes. I think you can expect a lot more screen plays with the ball going to Amendola, Sanders to make plays with the 3 TE's and OL out in font clearing the way.

In the 3 WR, 2 TE sets I suspect it will be Jones will play X, Sanders at Z and Amendola in the slot.

 

[Wilfork#75]

EDIT:
Wilfork:

Ninkovich is a garbage role player. He occasionally gets some splash plays which makes casual fans love him. Sure he'll get you a sack, but that doesn't make up for the other 85% of downs where teams run at him at a 6YPC clip. We were elite at defending the run in all the gaps except off left end. Hmm, I wonder why that might be.

He's a nice role player that has a good story and we all want to succeed but he is horrendously overrated by casual fans.

Yet he has proved more than every WR you listed. Amendola has flashed potential but hasn't stayed healthy. Sanders has never had more than 44 catches or 628 yards in a season, which is hardly impressive. Lloyd proved he didn't work in the system. Edelman is a nice role player but not a primary receiving option and cant stay healthy. Jones wasn't even tendered a contract by the Bills yet he can be a starter here. Michael Jenkins has been a bust of a top pick and mediocre receiver throughout his career. At least Ninko has proven he is a capable starter and proved he can stay healthy.

We have zero depth at CB. Dowling is more likely to be cut than anything this season and Talib will be lucky to play 12 games. On top of that Dennard had a nice season, but we've seen in past years how promising a rookie CB has looked for us, only to be garbage his sophomore year.

CB is a massive liability right now that is riding on a whole lot of "everything has to go perfectly".

You know, that sounds exactly like our WRs. Injury issues, hoping younger guys progress, more likely to be cut than make the roster, lucky to play 12 games. Its the exact same scenario except Dennard and Talib are proven in our defense. Does that mean we don't have issues? Absolutely not. But its completely hypocritical to say how big of a need CB is then say we don't have a need at WR when we are in a similar situation, just worse.

Honestly I'd rather put McCourty back at CB and draft a Safety who doesn't suck and isn't either a liability in coverage, takes terrible angles and/or can't tackle. But given the dearth of talent at S and unless Vacaroo falls to us, I don't see that happening.

We need to draft a CB, and the other pick should go to replacing Ninkovich or giving us a long term prospect at DT instead of a stop gap like Kelly.


You win in the trenches, not with flashy receivers. Otherwise the Saints would have been a playoff team last season.

Umm, the Saints won a Super Bowl not too long ago. In fact it was much more recent than the Pats Super Bowls when we won on defense. Green Bay, Indianapolis, hell even Baltimore won by scoring 34 points. The game has changed and the rules have changed, you need to score points to win the Super Bowl. That doesn't mean we don't need to address the defense also, but if we stick with Donald Jones and Julian Edelman as key contributors on offense then we won't be in the Super Bowl.

 

[tonyto3690]

This is amazing. You call Ninkovich a "garbage role player" (before calling him a nice role player ), while listing Hooman and Fells as part of your "contingency plan."

WR corps better than anything pre-2007? Are you high?

CB is a massive liability, but WR is not? Somehow cornerbacks who are oft injured like Talib and Dowling are a red flag, but receivers/tight ends who are oft injured like Amendola, Sanders, Gronk, Edelman, and Hernandez are all systems go?

Yeesh.

I realized I was overreacting. He's a solid starter when the other three DL are clearly better than him, much like having Anderson starter. But he's not some stalwart great DE and the Patriots staff clearly doesn't think so either given how much they've tried to replace him.

The difference is defense only needs to have one hole in it to completely fall apart- as evidenced by the Baltimore game. We can have several holes on offense and Brady will still make it work- as evidenced by Bradys entire career before 2007.

Also on top of that Talib is one player and if he gets hurt we are completely screwed. If two or even three of Gronk, Sanders, Edelman, Hernandez, Amendola are hurt we still have 2 or 3 others PLUS Ballard, Ridley, Vereen.


You're acting like depth at CB and TE/WR are the same thing and have the same value. It's simply not the case. Especially when you have a HOF quarterback who can make a corps of Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney work and score 28 points in the AFCCG.

 

[tonyto3690]

Yet he has proved more than every WR you listed. Amendola has flashed potential but hasn't stayed healthy. Sanders has never had more than 44 catches or 628 yards in a season, which is hardly impressive. Lloyd proved he didn't work in the system. Edelman is a nice role player but not a primary receiving option and cant stay healthy. Jones wasn't even tendered a contract by the Bills yet he can be a starter here. Michael Jenkins has been a bust of a top pick and mediocre receiver throughout his career. At least Ninko has proven he is a capable starter and proved he can stay healthy.

So your argument is every single one of them won't pan out, and we should assume that Tom Brady can't make any of them better and instead of improving our woeful defense, we should add more receiving options.

Ninkovich is a decent role player. He should not be starting.

You know, that sounds exactly like our WRs. Injury issues, hoping younger guys progress, more likely to be cut than make the roster, lucky to play 12 games. Its the exact same scenario except Dennard and Talib are proven in our defense. Does that mean we don't have issues? Absolutely not. But its completely hypocritical to say how big of a need CB is then say we don't have a need at WR when we are in a similar situation, just worse.

I addressed this in my other post. Between Edelman, Amendola, Gronk, Hernandez, Ballard, Vereen, Ridley, Hooman, Sanders, Jones, Jenkins, if we lose 2 or 3 or even 4 during the season there are plenty of other guys to step up.

If we lose Talib we are done and will have a massive, unfixable hole in the secondary like we did the first half of last season.

Umm, the Saints won a Super Bowl not too long ago. In fact it was much more recent than the Pats Super Bowls when we won on defense. Green Bay, Indianapolis, hell even Baltimore won by scoring 34 points. The game has changed and the rules have changed, you need to score points to win the Super Bowl. That doesn't mean we don't need to address the defense also, but if we stick with Donald Jones and Julian Edelman as key contributors on offense then we won't be in the Super Bowl.

The Saints won a SB in a down year where their defense averaged almost 3 turnovers per game in the playoffs (not to mention an onside kick). Literally everything had to go perfect for them. They allowed a mere 19 PPG and in two games, including the SB allowed 14 and 17 points.

Our defense did fine in the regular season because we got turnovers. And then in the playoffs you know how our defense did when Talib went down and we weren't getting turnovers? They got rocked.

Having your defense predicated on turnovers and not 3rd down stops and stuffing the run is an incredibly risky way to do things.

And you know what that kind of line of thought does for them long term? They were BY FAR the worst defense in the entire NFL last season. It didn't matter how well Brees played, they were completely effed from the beginning because they continued to neglect the defense and kept pumping resources into an already great offense.

GB won the SB when they had the best defense in the NFL and a loaded offense. They were just a super dominant team on both sides of the ball, including defense. You know what they've done since their defense went down hill? NO WHERE. They've gone one and done and lost in the second round, and only made that second round because they got matched up against the Vikings (LOL)

Indianopolis won the SB off a great passing attack. 3 TDs and 7 INT in that SB run for Peyton. THe rushing game rushed for over 200 a game, and defense had 4 sacks, 3 turnovers per game in that playoff run. Yes, that was completely on having stud WRs and a great QB and nothing to do with anything else.

Baltimore barely beat the Broncos, and was losing to us until Talib had a freak injury. Yes they scored points, but they also stopped our #1 offense.

I mean if you'd really want to make a valid point you'd bring up the Giants in 2011, but really you picked everyone that proves me right.


EDIT:
All those teams either got insanely hot at the right time to cover for a mediocre defense (Ravens, Giants, Giants, Colts) or had an already juggernaut defense (Steelers, Packers), or just had a ton of things fall their way (Giants, Colts, Saints).

The point is to build a team that will be great at all times, not one that may or may not get hot at the right time.

 

[JackBauer]

I realized I was overreacting. He's a solid starter when the other three DL are clearly better than him, much like having Anderson starter. But he's not some stalwart great DE and the Patriots staff clearly doesn't think so either given how much they've tried to replace him.

I like Ninkovich. He's a solid player, though I think he'd be more effective in a rotation. I'd agree that LDE is an area of priority I'd like to see addressed through the draft.

We can have several holes on offense and Brady will still make it work- as evidenced by Bradys entire career before 2007.

2007 was six years ago. I think it's pretty apparent that having the same damn hole on offense has boned this team in the playoffs since then. That's what I'd like to see addressed.

Also on top of that Talib is one player and if he gets hurt we are completely screwed. If two or even three of Gronk, Sanders, Edelman, Hernandez, Amendola are hurt we still have 2 or 3 others PLUS Ballard, Ridley, Vereen.

You're acting like depth at CB and TE/WR are the same thing and have the same value. It's simply not the case. Especially when you have a HOF quarterback who can make a corps of Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney work and score 28 points in the AFCCG.

I don't know why we're comparing today's team to a team that played SEVEN YEARS AGO. We've had better talent on offense of late and yet we still struggle in the playoffs - for a very simple and glaringly obvious reason (and I think it's pretty apparent BB knows this, given his approach this offseason).

The fact is that the depth we currently have at CB > the depth we currently have at WR.

In all, though, I don't think we're too far apart. I want to see the team draft a DE/CB/WR. I don't particularly care where the players are chosen; I just want those positions addressed first.

 

[Nunchucks]

Bedard's review of Sanders game tape, this stood out.

The facet of Sanders' game that stands out the most is his blocking. He's excellent in that regard and is often used as the lead blocker on receiver screens.
This is likely why Sanders basically took over Hines Ward's role in the Steelers' system -- including a lot of motion -- when he was injured/retired.
Does a good job of beating press man coverage with his feet and hands.

Extra Points - New England Patriots News and Analysis - Boston.com

 

[Patsgofor4]

Feel free to go look at the posting history from back when the Patriots were cutting Galloway loose and people here were insisting that Aiken would be fine as the replacement, and then moving forward.

Be careful not to dislocate your shoulder while patting yourself on the back.

 

[Wilfork#75]

So your argument is every single one of them won't pan out, and we should assume that Tom Brady can't make any of them better and instead of improving our woeful defense, we should add more receiving options.

We should assume that any of them do work out? I would much rather bring in competition and make them earn a roster spot rather than giving it to the best of a bad bunch. And the same goes for CB. I'm not making a WR vs CB debate here because we can get both. I just think its ridiculous to rule out WR and point to CB when the situation is quite similar. They both lack depth, the difference is we actually have two starters at CB.

I addressed this in my other post. Between Edelman, Amendola, Gronk, Hernandez, Ballard, Vereen, Ridley, Hooman, Sanders, Jones, Jenkins, if we lose 2 or 3 or even 4 during the season there are plenty of other guys to step up.

If we lose Talib we are done and will have a massive, unfixable hole in the secondary like we did the first half of last season.

Actually, as history has shown us it only takes 1 hurt Gronk and our offense it in trouble. And that was with Welker on the team, who knows what would happen now. Once again, I'm not arguing we need more help at CB, but WR is just as big a need.

The Saints won a SB in a down year where their defense averaged almost 3 turnovers per game in the playoffs (not to mention an onside kick). Literally everything had to go perfect for them. They allowed a mere 19 PPG and in two games, including the SB allowed 14 and 17 points.

Our defense did fine in the regular season because we got turnovers. And then in the playoffs you know how our defense did when Talib went down and we weren't getting turnovers? They got rocked.

Having your defense predicated on turnovers and not 3rd down stops and stuffing the run is an incredibly risky way to do things.

And you know what that kind of line of thought does for them long term? They were BY FAR the worst defense in the entire NFL last season. It didn't matter how well Brees played, they were completely effed from the beginning because they continued to neglect the defense and kept pumping resources into an already great offense.

GB won the SB when they had the best defense in the NFL and a loaded offense. They were just a super dominant team on both sides of the ball, including defense. You know what they've done since their defense went down hill? NO WHERE. They've gone one and done and lost in the second round, and only made that second round because they got matched up against the Vikings (LOL)

Indianopolis won the SB off a great passing attack. 3 TDs and 7 INT in that SB run for Peyton. THe rushing game rushed for over 200 a game, and defense had 4 sacks, 3 turnovers per game in that playoff run. Yes, that was completely on having stud WRs and a great QB and nothing to do with anything else.

Baltimore barely beat the Broncos, and was losing to us until Talib had a freak injury. Yes they scored points, but they also stopped our #1 offense.

I mean if you'd really want to make a valid point you'd bring up the Giants in 2011, but really you picked everyone that proves me right.

Green Bay won with 31 points, 300 passing yards and 3 TD's from Aaron Rogers. Baltimore beat Denver because their offense brought them back after their special teams put them in a whole. One could argue it was New England's offense as much as Baltimore's defense that was responsible for that win. 2 picks and a fumble. Pats having opportunities to drive late in the game to keep them in it and making mistakes. And Baltimore's win in the Super Bowl wasn't built on their defense. Hell, San Fran's run to the Super Bowl was built around Kaepernick and their offense and not their defense.

Once again, I'm not trying to make an offense vs defense debate because we can improve BOTH. But for this team to win the Super Bowl, we need to improve BOTH.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

What if BB believes that he doesn't need much of an outside threat at wideout in this TE/inside focused offense?

Or, what if BB believe that Sanders, should he be acquired, or even Amendola, can fulfill that outside role when called upon?