Likely Receiving core: What do you think?

[Ring 6]

Really because in 12 games having 41 catches, 443 on 67 targets in 670 snaps in 2012 isn't mediocre.

Umm, yes it is

 

[Ring 6]

This team is held hostage to the fact that we never replaced Randy Moss when he departed.

Since Randy Moss left the Patriots have had the #3, #10 and #12 all time leading scoring offenses.

In Moss' 3 years here the Patriots were 2-2 in the playoffs with:
SB loss
No playoffs and
One and done

In the 3 years since he left they are 3-3 in the playoffs and had:
SB loss
AFCCG loss
one and done

Reg season 37-11 with Moss, 39-9 without

By all measures the Patriots have been better since Moss left.
Argue causation if you wish but to say they have suffered due to Moss going and who replaced him is just flat out wrong.

 

[State]

Since Randy Moss left the Patriots have had the #3, #10 and #12 all time leading scoring offenses.

In Moss' 3 years here the Patriots were 2-2 in the playoffs with:
SB loss
No playoffs and
One and done

In the 3 years since he left they are 3-3 in the playoffs and had:
SB loss
AFCCG loss
one and done

Reg season 37-11 with Moss, 39-9 without

By all measures the Patriots have been better since Moss left.
Argue causation if you wish but to say they have suffered due to Moss going and who replaced him is just flat out wrong.

great points.

I'm wondering if we haven't replaced the vertical threat, which allows teams to have safeties come closer to the line, is an indication that Tom Brady can't throw deep as well when he was younger.

And the perception is--we plays the Jests, Finns, and Buffalo Macaronis each twice a year--that when we play an elite team with a very good defense to a great defense, that's when our lack of vertical threat comes into play. Last year Seattle and the AFC game against Baltimore were two good examples.

And Brady has gotten even better at the short to intermediate passing. But at some point we're going to have to do what analysts like Boomer Esiason and the former Giants QB have said, challenge deep.

\ADDED THOUGHT: And in the last two years the AFC has been displaced by the NFC as the most dominant. So when we were doing it with Moss we had I think stiffer competition.

 

[JackBauer]

This team is held hostage to the fact that we never replaced Randy Moss when he departed.

And a perfect opportunity presented itself a couple of years ago. But Belichick made perhaps the biggest mistake in his coaching career, taking the oft-injured Ras-I Dowling when a beautiful situation presented itself: Torrey Smith, WR, Maryland. The speed burner who has burned us on more than one occasion.

But it's harder to get top-flight talent at the secondary from free agency than it is receivers.

Donte' Stallworth, do you have your bags packed? How are you doing with those burns?

How are you legs, Deion? Ready to go another season?

First Golden Tate, now Torrey Smith? Have we really sunk this low?

 

[Rob0729]

Because he kills the Patriots.

Really?!? He did during the season, but he was pretty quiet in the playoffs. I think a physical man CB like Talib will shut him down. Dennard did a pretty good job on him. It was Boldin who killed the Pats in the AFCCG, not Smith.

 

[Rob0729]

Since Randy Moss left the Patriots have had the #3, #10 and #12 all time leading scoring offenses.

In Moss' 3 years here the Patriots were 2-2 in the playoffs with:
SB loss
No playoffs and
One and done

In the 3 years since he left they are 3-3 in the playoffs and had:
SB loss
AFCCG loss
one and done

Reg season 37-11 with Moss, 39-9 without

By all measures the Patriots have been better since Moss left.
Argue causation if you wish but to say they have suffered due to Moss going and who replaced him is just flat out wrong.

Yeah, I don't get this insanity. Besides, Gronk creates just as many match up problems as Moss did. Just in a different way.

 

[State]

It's not insanity.

The AFC has steadily regressed since 2007-09 compared to the NFC. So the comparison, while being valid, isn't the same.

 

[Rob0729]

It's not insanity.

The AFC has steadily regressed since 2007-09 compared to the NFC. So the comparison, while being valid, isn't the same.

The regression still doesn't account for near historic offenses by the Patriots since 2007. Personally I would take last year's offense at full strength than 2007's offense at full strength.

 

[State]

Me too.

But it's obvious that we have a missing threat, which Brandon Lloyd was supposed to solve.

If we face a team that bring a lot of pressure on Brady, it's also because they aren't worried about being burned deep.

Thank goodness we have a much better running attack than the Maroney years.

The deep ball was never Brady's strength. Maybe less now that his arm is getting older. I sure remember the excitement Moss brought in his first year here. He slowed down during his tenure here, though. We've never reloaded.

B

 

[Ring 6]

great points.

I'm wondering if we haven't replaced the vertical threat, which allows teams to have safeties come closer to the line, is an indication that Tom Brady can't throw deep as well when he was younger.

Its just the philosophy. When safeties come up, we run deep routes. ANY WR going deep needs to be covered. There is no real evidence that our scheme makes it harder to throw underneath, in fact the evidence is that our scheme creates it

And the perception is--we plays the Jests, Finns, and Buffalo Macaronis each twice a year--that when we play an elite team with a very good defense to a great defense, that's when our lack of vertical threat comes into play. Last year Seattle and the AFC game against Baltimore were two good examples.

The perception is not accurate. The perception is this:
The Pats didnt win the SB
The Pats should win the SB
I want to *****
What do other teams have that we don't?
A few have a deep WR, ooo thats sexy.
We suck because we don't have a deep threat
That must mean we struggle to pass to the rest of the field even though the facts dispute that.
Oh and that was a good defense, so I will ignore the good defenses we do well against and say the deep threat is why we get killed by good defenses (except the good ones we didnt and I'll figure out an excuse later

And Brady has gotten even better at the short to intermediate passing. But at some point we're going to have to do what analysts like Boomer Esiason and the former Giants QB have said, challenge deep.

We do

\ADDED THOUGHT: And in the last two years the AFC has been displaced by the NFC as the most dominant. So when we were doing it with Moss we had I think stiffer competition.

07 vs 11 each team went to SB. Competition seems equivalent
09 vs 10 1st round loss/ competition seems irrelevant
08 vs 12 no playoffs vs AFCCG loss at home. Again seems unrelated to competition

 

[Ring 6]

It's not insanity.

The AFC has steadily regressed since 2007-09 compared to the NFC. So the comparison, while being valid, isn't the same.

We have done better offensively and overall.
Its ridiculous to chalk that up to a perceived power shift.
The straws have been firmly grasped

 

[Ring 6]

Me too.

But it's obvious that we have a missing threat, which Brandon Lloyd was supposed to solve.

If we face a team that bring a lot of pressure on Brady, it's also because they aren't worried about being burned deep.

Thank goodness we have a much better running attack than the Maroney years.

The deep ball was never Brady's strength. Maybe less now that his arm is getting older. I sure remember the excitement Moss brought in his first year here. He slowed down during his tenure here, though. We've never reloaded.

B

Im curious. What current NFL WRs do you consider a deep threat and how many deep passes do you suppose they catch compared our guys?

 

[State]

That's not the proper question.

The proper question is do opposing defenses load up on us in the box in order to try to contain our short- to intermediate-range incredibly effective passing attack?

Yes.

With a deep threat like the guy I mentioned--and Belichick made a big mistake not trading down and still could have gotten him, but hey, no one's perfect--that becomes problematic.

Because then we take our most effect, most efficient offense in league history--and we add another variable.

We win SB's in the process.

Which we haven't done in eight years with the best QB to have ever played the game. The most important position is QB, right?

So, perhaps I should have said something like "it's a variable lacking in our otherwise record-setting offense."

Ras-I Dowling has been a bigger disappointment than Chad Jackson.

Not only did we take him earlier, but the common wisdom has been proven correct. Remember what Mel Kiper said at the time? Injury plagued.

I want our team to win super bowls. Not merely set records.

What are we, the San Diego Chargers and Dan Fouts?

 

[Huckleberry1]

Remember what Mel Kiper said at the time?

Yes, Ryan Leaf > Peyton Manning.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I want our team to win super bowls. Not merely set records.

So true, the rest of us simply want records, we apologize, you have your priorities right.

 

[State]

Ever heard of denial? You're in denial. Ever heard of rationalization? You're rationalizing. Ever heard of "retroactive regression"? It's a cool little phrase denoting those whose biased knowledge interferes with evaluating the present. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

We. Haven't. Won. A. SB. in. Eight. Years.

Are you okay with that, when we have the best QB who has ever played the game--by far, I might add--with a rapidly diminishing window of opportunity?

 

[tonyto3690]

That's not the proper question.

The proper question is do opposing defenses load up on us in the box in order to try to contain our short- to intermediate-range incredibly effective passing attack?

Yes.

With a deep threat like the guy I mentioned--and Belichick made a big mistake not trading down and still could have gotten him, but hey, no one's perfect--that becomes problematic.

Because then we take our most effect, most efficient offense in league history--and we add another variable.

We win SB's in the process.

Which we haven't done in eight years with the best QB to have ever played the game. The most important position is QB, right?

So, perhaps I should have said something like "it's a variable lacking in our otherwise record-setting offense."

Ras-I Dowling has been a bigger disappointment than Chad Jackson.

Not only did we take him earlier, but the common wisdom has been proven correct. Remember what Mel Kiper said at the time? Injury plagued.

I want our team to win super bowls. Not merely set records.

What are we, the San Diego Chargers and Dan Fouts?

The Patriots have been contenders for the past 13 years. Belichicks methods work.

If you're looking for a team to never make any mistakes or miss on any picks, you're never going to find a team that makes you happy.

Sorry, your completely asinine standards and expectations are just flat out idiotic. It's the NFL and parity has never been higher. It takes a ton of things to go right on top of having a great roster to win the SB. The fact the Patriots have been so competitive every year is a freaking miracle. I mean we consider a 10-6 year a down year. How completely insane is that? double digit wins is considered a bad year for Belichick.

About 80% of teams would celebrate having a 10 win season and if we don't it's a massive disappointment.

Get over yourself.

 

[Ring 6]

That's not the proper question.

Of course its the proper question because it quantifies the issue and removes it from a vague, rhetorical point. Thats why you won't answer it.

The proper question is do opposing defenses load up on us in the box in order to try to contain our short- to intermediate-range incredibly effective passing attack?

Yes.

If that were the case then how can we be the best ever at throwing in that range?

With a deep threat like the guy I mentioned--and Belichick made a big mistake not trading down and still could have gotten him, but hey, no one's perfect--that becomes problematic.

So your plan is to remove a productive role from what may be the best offense ever in order to have a decoy? What leads you to believe that would be an improvement?

Because then we take our most effect, most efficient offense in league history--and we add another variable.

And we alter the offense by removing a productive role and replacing it with a one trick pony.

We win SB's in the process.

See, this is why you want a rhetoric make believe discussion so you can make silly claims.

Which we haven't done in eight years with the best QB to have ever played the game. The most important position is QB, right?

As I have pointed out with the best deep threat of all time, and a better defense we were worse in those 3 years than we have been since. We were also more successful in the 3 years preceeding Moss than we were when he was here.
You cannont find a 3 year stretch in the BB where the team performed worse overall than the 3 we had what you call the solution.

So, perhaps I should have said something like "it's a variable lacking in our otherwise record-setting offense."

Perhaps our offense is record setting because it is designed to not need that variable, which, again, you are severely overrating.

I want our team to win super bowls. Not merely set records.

Then you probably shouldn't be asking for a deep threat because when we had the best ever, we won no SBs and set a lot of records.

What are we, the San Diego Chargers and Dan Fouts?

Wow, either you are joking or you simply have no concept off that team or this one.
Ironically what you are asking for would make us more like what you don't want us to be.

 

[State]

The Patriots have been contenders for the past 13 years. Belichicks methods work.

If you're looking for a team to never make any mistakes or miss on any picks, you're never going to find a team that makes you happy.

Sorry, your completely asinine standards and expectations are just flat out idiotic. It's the NFL and parity has never been higher. It takes a ton of things to go right on top of having a great roster to win the SB. The fact the Patriots have been so competitive every year is a freaking miracle. I mean we consider a 10-6 year a down year. How completely insane is that? double digit wins is considered a bad year for Belichick.

About 80% of teams would celebrate having a 10 win season and if we don't it's a massive disappointment.

Get over yourself.

Homework, tonight. Watch George C. Scott in the movie Patton.

george c. scott patton - Bing Videos

 

[Ring 6]

Ever heard of denial? You're in denial. Ever heard of rationalization? You're rationalizing. Ever heard of "retroactive regression"? It's a cool little phrase denoting those whose biased knowledge interferes with evaluating the present. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

We. Haven't. Won. A. SB. in. Eight. Years.

Are you okay with that, when we have the best QB who has ever played the game--by far, I might add--with a rapidly diminishing window of opportunity?

How does happiness or unhappiness with winning SBs have anything to do with whether what you think caused it is correct?

I think you are 100% correct that we should not be satisfied with not having won a recent SB, but 100% wrong in why we haven't.
Using 'we haven't won a SB' as your argument for why what you want to do is correct means you just don't have an argument.
See all the characterizations above, because you are the one in this thread that is out of touch with the discussion and facts.