Likely Receiving core: What do you think?

[Bobs My Uncle]

First rule of holes...

Planning for injuries does NOT mean your backups are as good as your starters. It means you have backups that are as close in quality to your starters (so that when the latter get injured, the former can step in with the minimum decline in performance) as is financially practicable.

Yet, people are screaming that the Pats need to have a "better" contingency in place for when Amendola and Sanders and Gronk and Hern gets injured.

 

[Kontradiction]

Yet, people are screaming that the Pats need to have a "better" contingency in place for when Amendola and Sanders and Gronk and Hern gets injured.

Literally nobody has said that. It's *IF* they get injured again. Further, even if they don't get injured, the Pats still need at least one WR.

 

[JackBauer]

Yet, people are screaming that the Pats need to have a "better" contingency in place for when Amendola and Sanders and Gronk and Hern gets injured.

For the billionth time: NO.

Foremost: we/they are arguing we need more talent at WR REGARDLESS of injury. There's also bearing in mind the ancillary consideration that IF Gronkowski gets injured again, we're WORSE OFF than we were last year, when our offense laid a steaming pile in the playoffs.

 

[Deus Irae]

So then the Pata are screwed ....... because they have to have a contingency plan for not just Amendola (and Sanders too should he be signed) but also for Vollmer, Gronk, Hern, Ballard, Talib, Jones, Mankins, etc because they have been injured previosuly and "may" get injured again.

Obviously, the Pats aren't planning for these guys to get injured again. Nor should, or can they. They are planning on having a contingency in place should the marginal starters not work out.

No matter how many times you claim otherwise, you're not going to be right on this. Teams plan for injuries. It's what they do.

Roster depth is critical and some teams have done a better job of building up the back end of their roster in hopes of surviving the injuries and making a run in the postseason.

As one GM I interviewed said, "It is impossible to have perfect roster depth and hit on all the critical areas. But to be a team ready for the 16-game season, it must really hit on most of the areas listed below."

Right way to build roster depth? Patriots, Steelers, Bears, Cowboys, Lions do it best - NFL - CBSSports.com News, Rumors, Scores, Stats, Fantasy

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

My point is the Pats aren't going to build their depth as a result of predicting who specifically might get injured next season unless, of course, it's involving someone with a chronic issue.

In the case of Amendola and Sanders (should he end up here) the Pats will have planned their roster for them to be healthy contributors this season. Despite the fact they both have injury history following them.

Ditto, also for guys like Vollmer, Jones, Gronk, Hern, Talib, etc. The Pats won't be prioritizing their roster depth behind them presuming that they'll get injured.

 

[Deus Irae]

My point is the Pats aren't going to build their depth as a result of predicting who specifically might get injured next season unless, of course, it's involving someone with a chronic issue.

In the case of Amendola and Sanders (should he end up here) the Pats will have planned their roster for them to be healthy contributors this season. Despite the fact they both have injury history following them.

Ditto, also for guys like Vollmer, Jones, Gronk, Hern, Talib, etc. The Pats won't be prioritizing their roster depth behind them presuming that they'll get injured.

You made a claim. You were wrong. That's been shown repeatedly. Either admit it or let it die and move on.

 

[belichick010405]

You made a claim. You were wrong. That's been shown repeatedly. Either admit it or let it die and move on.

Mr. Know It All.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

You made a claim. You were wrong. That's been shown repeatedly. Either admit it or let it die and move on.

My claim is the same. Go back and check.

 

[Deus Irae]

Mr. Know It All.

I've got a new stalker. How cute.

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not the only one noting the obvious here. I've Kirwan quoting a GM, and I quoted a GM. Other posters here have posted in agreement with me, or at least in disagreement with Bobs.

 

[Deus Irae]

My claim is the same. Go back and check.

Your claim is wrong, as has been pointed out time and again. You've tried modifying it instead of just admitting your error or letting it drop.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

Your claim is wrong, as has been pointed out time and again. You've tried modifying it instead of just admitting your error or letting it drop.

As I said ..... read my previous responses. Go back to around #170.

 

[belichick010405]

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.

Bob - are you talking about this post? If so - then that would be a valid and rational point, especially in this offense.

 

[Deus Irae]

As I said ..... read my previous responses. Go back to around #170.

I've read your posts. I've read them all. Since you picked the number, let's start with your first post about backups and injury that's around #170. It's #172, and it's the one I began responding to you about:

Here's your opening sentence:

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

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/1019579-likely-receiving-core-what-do-you-think-page5.html#post3423473

That's clearly not a true statement.

After Jack responded to you, you came back with this:

Planning for depth is different than planning around predicting the need to replace an injured player. Are you worried that BB hasn't added a viable option at QB since Brady has missed 15 games these last 5 years?

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/1019579-likely-receiving-core-what-do-you-think-page5.html#post3423490

You have backups for 2 reasons (3 if you assume a strictly developmental role for some). One is to play in case of incompetence on the part of the starter or superiority of the backup in some areas, and the other is in case of injury. The Patriots clearly don't need a "competence" backup for Brady, so the players behind him are obviously there in case of an injury to Brady.

After I responded to your post, you followed up with post 206, which is clearly destroyed by the backup QB reality:

Teams plan for quality depth in case of non performance not because of predicting injuries.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/1019579-likely-receiving-core-what-do-you-think-page6.html#post3423585

I followed that up with quotes from GMs stating that they do precisely what you claimed they don't do, and several others here also called you on your claim.

Since then, you've made really silly posts like #215, where you said, in part:

If the Pats "planned" for injuries then they'd have backups who are as good as starters named Solder, Gronk, Hern, Ballard, Talib, and Amendola because these guys have shown themselves to be injury risks.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/1019579-likely-receiving-core-what-do-you-think-page6.html#post3423618

where you basically seemed unable to even grasp the concept of what a backup is, and why they are backups rather than starters.


You made a false claim, and you doubled down on the silly instead of just admitting your error. It is what it is.

 

[Brady6]

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.

Jones is a good player I think everyone is selling him short in this forum. He will start for us at the flanker receiver spot and produce. I know a lot about him and I would be shocked if he didn't have at least 50 catches and 700 yards in 2013.

 

[Pewsterbaby]

you doubled down on the silly instead of just admitting your error. It is what it is.

Deus been in the thread so long, he's channelling his inner Belichickian linguistics up there. It's a zone few can attain. Like getting to the last level in a difficult video game.

Hey Deus, got a link for that? Preferably one that send us to the front office rhetoric of a California meat packing plant?

 

[Brady6]

What are you basing this on?

I had a friend played ball with him in college, I followed him then and since he is a great guy, great talent and great worker. I assure you he will be a breakout player for us.

 

[mgteich]

Are you related to Jones? You expect him to start and have at least 50 catches and 700 yards, and would be shocked if this didn't happen?

1) He has never done this ever in his career.

2) He has a long-term injury and has missed half the games over the past 2 years.

3) The team that drafted didn't even think him worth a minimum tender.

4) The patriots brought him as competition since he cost exactly zero, no bonus whatsoever. Perhaps he had better offers that he rejected; that seems unlikely. Belichick took a no-cost flyer on Jones, pure and simple.

5) BTW, I would hope for more from my #2 receiver than 50 catches for 700 yards. That was not considered enough for last year's #2. But perhaps you do not expect our starting flanker to be our #2 WR.

My hope and expectation is that Jones replaces Branch. However, I would not be surprised if Jones doesn't make the 53 man roster.

Jones is a good player I think everyone is selling him short in this forum. He will start for us at the flanker receiver spot and produce. I know a lot about him and I would be shocked if he didn't have at least 50 catches and 700 yards in 2013.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

I had a friend played ball with him in college, I followed him then and since he is a great guy, great talent and great worker. I assure you he will be a breakout player for us.

Jones? A breakout player? HA

 

[Kontradiction]

I had a friend played ball with him in college, I followed him then and since he is a great guy, great talent and great worker. I assure you he will be a breakout player for us.

He may be a great guy and a great worker. But if he's a great talent, it hasn't shown yet. And it's not like he had a whole lot of competition to share balls with in Buffalo.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

Deus, here are my initial posts on the matter, including the relevant posts my responses were citing. Post #146 was my first response post and I have underlined/bolded the relevant info in that post which talks about the need to have a contingency plan in place due to injury which costs this team in the playoffs.

Post #146

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

I've said that myself. But he wasn't. Injuries to contributors have cost this team at least one Super Bowl victory. That's why a contingency plan needs to be in place. For the Pats, the best one to have would be that type of WR because he forces the defense to account for every level of the field, taking some of the heat off the TE's and slot WR's. When one of those TE's is injured, that WR would still be able to provide a threat in the red area.

My response:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having contingency plans in place. The reality is BB has to operate without one since limitations (ie max roster spots/salary cap $) doesn't allow for a perfect roster. I'm sure BB would love to have a viable backup plan at most positions on this team.

Post #172

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brady2Moss

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.

My response:

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.

Post #181

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackBauer

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

My response

Planning for depth is different than planning around predicting the need to replace an injured player. Are you worried that BB hasn't added a viable option at QB since Brady has missed 15 games these last 5 years?

The basis points made previously are no different than my last one

My point is the Pats aren't going to build their depth as a result of predicting who specifically might get injured next season unless, of course, it's involving someone with a chronic issue.

In the case of Amendola and Sanders (should he end up here) the Pats will have planned their roster for them to be healthy contributors this season. Despite the fact they both have injury history following them.

Ditto, also for guys like Vollmer, Jones, Gronk, Hern, Talib, etc. The Pats won't be prioritizing their roster depth behind them presuming that they'll get injured.

Which you claim has me changing my point which I clearly have not done.