Likely Receiving core: What do you think?

[Brady2Moss]

Those loses were defensive collapses. The problem with the offense in the playoffs is that it became too predictable and easy to stop by top defensive teams. Because the Patriots did not commit to running the ball, players could not get off the LOS and once the field shrunk, it was much easier to defend Welker...That and the defense couldn't get pressure on the QB and the secondary couldn't cover.

Now, the offense is going to be based around a 2 TE set with a single RB and 2 WRs. Patriots have depth at the TE position, they have their starting 2 WRs if Sanders sticks, and they have some backups.

That offense is much more flexible, able to do many different things, like run the ball in nickel, throw the ball deep to either Amendola or Sanders (both can get deep and get off press coverage) and of course work the middle of the field with the TEs or put Hernandez int he slot.

Again, I agree, to have a big WR that can play jump ball and put the fear of god into DBs about getting beat deep, would be awesome. However, that guy is really hard to find, usually goes in the top half of the first round or doesn't play consistently enough to gain Brady's trust.

I think you are overrating our current receivers even if we get Sanders. The whole argument here is that some think drafting a receiver isn't necessary when it absolutely is given the injury concerns with the top 3 targets.

 

[Nunchucks]

Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is how you write good comedy!

lol, if I knew how to use ignore you would be on it, you don't add anything but quips, tricks, and whine.

 

[JackBauer]

I can't see anyway people feel better about the WR/TE than they did last year. Where exactly did they improve? At best ammendola is 75-80% of welker. Who replaces Lloyd's 900 yards? Sanders? I'm skeptical. I think the group has taken a step backwards but that's not to say the offense still won't put up 28+ points a game.

It wasn't good enough last year, but since we have Edelman, Jones, Jenkins, Hooman, and Fells, if any of the top guys get injured we're covered!

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

That's a pretty silly position, considering they need a wideout regardless of health, but you're certainly entitled to it.

Again, my point is being argued from the perspective of adding Sanders. If Sanders isn't added, then, yes, they need to draft a wideout ..... and also re-sign another vet or two or three or four (ie Lloyd).

In such a case, however, I'm not expecting any rookie to come into this complicated offense and be a very productive player for us this year.

 

[Nunchucks]

I think you are overrating our current receivers even if we get Sanders. The whole argument here is that some think drafting a receiver isn't necessary when it absolutely is given the injury concerns with the top 3 targets.

Any player can get injured at any time. Rookies appear to get injured the most.

 

[Brady2Moss]

Again, my point is being argued from the perspective of adding Sanders. If Sanders isn't added, then, yes, they need to draft a wideout ..... and also re-sign another vet or two or three or four (ie Lloyd).

In such a case, however, I'm not expecting any rookie to come into this complicated offense and be a very productive player for us this year.

How good do you think Sanders is?

 

[Brady2Moss]

Any player can get injured at any time. Rookies appear to get injured the most.

What is your point? We've seen what happens when certain players get injured and its a **** show in the playoffs. You and others harp on a 2 tight end offense, well you cannot run it when 1 tight end is usually hurt or playing injured or just coming off injury and is ineffective. That is why you need more receivers and good ones.

 

[Nunchucks]

How good do you think Sanders is?

Read what Bedard learned from a tape review of him

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

 

[Nunchucks]

What is your point? We've seen what happens when certain players get injured and its a **** show in the playoffs. You and others harp on a 2 tight end offense, well you cannot run it when 1 tight end is usually hurt or playing injured or just coming off injury and is ineffective. That is why you need more receivers and good ones.

So your answer is to trot out a rookie WR to replace Gronk/Hernandez/Amendola?

 

[Brady2Moss]

Read what Bedard learned from a tape review of him

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

Seems like Bedard is a bit on the negative side of things. I think Sanders will be a fine addition, just not one that justifies not adding a receiver in the draft.

 

[50-yard-line]

How good do you think Sanders is?

Right now Sanders > Lloyd, in my opinion. He's cheaper, good team guy by all accounts, is much faster and runs great routes. And hey, I don't hate Lloyd at all, like some people here seem to. But if I had to pick one for next year, it isn't close.

Sanders can turn a 10-yard slant into a 40-yard gain. Much more dynamic.

I hope the Steelers don't match.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

I think you are overrating our current receivers even if we get Sanders. The whole argument here is that some think drafting a receiver isn't necessary when it absolutely is given the injury concerns with the top 3 targets.

You can't plan for injury contingencies in this league. The roster limitations and sal cap simply don't allow for it.

And, even if it was possible, I'm not so sure it would be at the receiver position that BB would exercise said plan. Unless, he believed they were truly injury prone. Which I highly doubt is the case.

 

[Brady2Moss]

So your answer is to trot out a rookie WR to replace Gronk/Hernandez/Amendola?

What is your alternative? Signing someone in free agency? Can't do that FA WR are way overpriced. Rookies can be fine if you draft a good one. At some point the team needs to add an outside guy that can be here for a long time instead of stop gaps. Sanders isn't that guy he's a good #2 probably.

Basically you are saying a rookie won't do much so we should never draft a WR. What should we do? Act like Donald Jones is good?

 

[Brady2Moss]

You can't plan for injury contingencies in this league. The roster limitations and sal cap simply don't allow for it.

And, even if it was possible, I'm not so sure it would be at the receiver position that BB would exercise said plan. Unless, he believed they were truly injury prone. Which I highly doubt is the case.

So now we should not plan for injuries for players that are known to be injured? It's not about only planning for injuries its about getting better as an offense and not relying entirely on 2 tight ends that get banged up often. Add a true outside guy and have Amendola play slot/outside with the tight ends the offense becomes nearly unstoppable when fully healthy and still functional when injured.

 

[belichick010405]

Overall, while Sanders was an inside player for the Steelers, his skill set would indicate an outside "x" receiver role for the Patriots. He can do a lot of things Brandon Lloyd did, but better and faster. With Wallace and Antonio Brown on the outside -- both are more explosive than Sanders -- there wasn't a need for him outside. But for the Patriots, he could fill that role. That being said, Sanders' immense versatility could allow him to play anywhere -- even Aaron Hernandez's role as a hybrid TE/WR in case of injury.

Yes - that is a negative outlook.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

How good do you think Sanders is?

Good enough to be an immediate and viable threat in the offense long before any draftable wideout would be.

 

[Kontradiction]

Again, my point is being argued from the perspective of adding Sanders. If Sanders isn't added, then, yes, they need to draft a wideout ..... and also re-sign another vet or two or three or four (ie Lloyd).

In such a case, however, I'm not expecting any rookie to come into this complicated offense and be a very productive player for us this year.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people to understand. Let's assume the team gets Sanders...

Split End - Sanders
Slot - Amendola/Edelman
TE1 - Gronk
TE2 - Hernandez
Flanker - Jenkins/Jones

The flanker, is currently being manned by a guy that probably won't make it out of camp or a guy that hasn't done much of anything in the league. Even if Lloyd is brought back, he was not what the team was looking for at that position (especially being that this offense dictates that WR's need to create YAC). AGAIN, he would be best suited in Branch's role. That means that the team still needs to draft a WR. In a deep draft at that position, it doesn't have to come in the first round.

 

[JackBauer]

You can't plan for injury contingencies in this league.

You can't? That's what I thought depth was.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

So now we should not plan for injuries for players that are known to be injured? It's not about only planning for injuries its about getting better as an offense and not relying entirely on 2 tight ends that get banged up often. Add a true outside guy and have Amendola play slot/outside with the tight ends the offense becomes nearly unstoppable when fully healthy and still functional when injured.

Keep in mind my original point:

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?

 

[Nunchucks]

What is your alternative? Signing someone in free agency? Can't do that FA WR are way overpriced. Rookies can be fine if you draft a good one. At some point the team needs to add an outside guy that can be here for a long time instead of stop gaps. Sanders isn't that guy he's a good #2 probably.

Basically you are saying a rookie won't do much so we should never draft a WR. What should we do? Act like Donald Jones is good?

I think that with Tom Brady's window closing, the Patriots want to be able to add players that can produce right away.

I could be very wrong, like I said, I would enjoy watching a new reason in the mix.