Camp Battle at WR - Kenbrell Thompkins vs Josh Boyce

[RayClay]

It seems that we could really use that 6th WR spot that Slater occupies. If Galleon can produce a few 20+ yard catches (something he did often in Michigan), could that be worth more than the incremental value Slater brings over next replacement on special teams.

Just thinking about how we could try to move on from Slater. Could his ST play be picked up by the combination of speedy players at WRs (KT/Boyce/Gallon), RBs, DBs(Ryan, Harmon, Dennard) or LB (Anderson)? The reason is that our ST was average to begin with. It's not like we are going from #1 to #20 in ST without Slater; probably more like going from 20 to 25th. On the other hand, Galleon has proven ability to make big plays down field in high level D1 play (he had several 200 yard games last season), and that is something this offense could really use.

All I'll say is, you quoted a post meant in sarcasm. Slater is a special teams super star.

 

[Deus Irae]

What I take from all these comments is that despite the clear lack of a "true #1 WR" (and who the F cares)...

Most people with even a cursory knowledge of football would care, because it makes a big difference.

 

[Danger Zone]

Most people with even a cursory knowledge of football would care, because it makes a big difference.

I wonder if Deus carries around a katana around in real life and beheads everyone that walks by his cubicle?

"Your knowledge of football is inadequate!" - WHACK!


EDIT: Agree with the value of having a #1 WR.. really dislike the phrasing.

 

[Brady6]

Slater doesn't represent incremental value over the next guy in line. Slater is a top 1-3 ST player in the league and a team captain. If the team keeps Gallon, it will because they are keeping seven receivers (though they'll only really be keeping six since Slater is only a receiver in name only).

You could just as easily call Slater a safety as you could a wide receiver, he has taken as many snaps at safety as he has at wide receiver during his tenure.

 

[Brady6]

Most people with even a cursory knowledge of football would care, because it makes a big difference.

It does, unfortunately unless Dobson develops we are unlikely to have a true #1 WR. That role in the offense is primarily Gronkowski, which is fine but if you could pair him with a true #1 WR we would have an unstoppable offense.

 

[Brady6]

I wonder if Deus carries around a katana around in real life and beheads everyone that walks by his cubicle?

"Your knowledge of football is inadequate!" - WHACK!

I think he is simply a no nonsense type of person who doesn't sugarcoat his message. It comes across abrasive but if you can see past that he offers good insight and is as knowledgable a poster as there is on this board.

 

[Danger Zone]

I think he is simply a no nonsense type of person who doesn't sugarcoat his message. It comes across abrasive but if you can see past that he offers good insight and is as knowledgable a poster as there is on this board.

I don't discount the value of Deus when he is in his Dr Jekyll mode.

Its his Mr Hyde moments that I take issue with.

I don't read the sentence he wrote and see "no nonsense". I see 11 extra words that serve no purpose other than to be insulting. Anyone with a cursory understanding of the English language would understand this.


That last sentence I wrote. What purpose does it serve? Is it just my "no nonsense" posting style or did it come across as needlessly insulting?

 

[RayClay]

Most people with even a cursory knowledge of football would care, because it makes a big difference.

I think Ken has at least a cursory knowledge of football.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think Ken has at least a cursory knowledge of football.

I think the word "most" was in my post for a reason.

 

[Joker]

You seem more "gun hoe" than usual today, Deus...be careful as you navigate this field as it seems you picked up a tick in the last dozen posts.

 

[BobDigital]

People need to get off the band wagon of trying to cut Slater cause it will never happen. Just ask yourself what is more valuable if it comes down to it. A 6th (or 7th) WR that will likely not see the field but be good emergency depth or one of the best STers in the NFL?

I mean just is not a contest.

Also i want to say about the lack of a true #1 WR. It doesn't matter and here is why in one word; Seattle. Unless we got Calvin Johnson or Josh Gordon (a true top WR in the nfl) he is going to get taken away 1v1 just like Thomas was for Denver. Then you have a lot of your invested money in your WR core being cancelled out. However the thing about shutdown corners is they can only take away 1 guy. So isn't it better to have a good #2, 3 4 and 5 and test their depth as opposed to trying to win a battle that does not favor you?

Side note - Gronk is a guy who if he is healthy can not really be covered 1v1 by anyone so he is an exception to this if we have him. But we are talking WRs.

Personally i welcome Seattle to dedicate a lot of their top flight resources to cover Dobson and Edelman if they want. We will test their reserves will guys who are not huge drop offs.

 

[Deus Irae]

You seem more "gun hoe" than usual today, Deus...be careful as you navigate this field as it seems you picked up a tick in the last dozen posts.

The parasite would have no reason to live if I quit posting here, so I seem to be stuck with it. However, with regards to gun hoe, how's about a little eye candy? My Father's day gift to you....

 

[Joker]

now THAT is a gun ho....

 

[Danger Zone]

The parasite would have no reason to live if I quit posting here, so I seem to be stuck with it.

Actually, I quite enjoyed your annual post-draft vacation. I remember thinking, its so mature and friendly around here.. until of course, Gymrat decided to dip his perfectly nutriton-ed toe with its perfect ratio of toe-fat to toe-muscle into our waters..

I have 1300 posts in three years of being a member here. I figure 5% to 10% of my posts are calling you out for something bullying and needlessly insulting you've said.

I'm not seeing a lack of will to live on my part between the facts that you post dozens of times in every thread and I end up rolling my eyes and not responding to a far greater number of them than you (and others) might suspect.

Personally, I think Patsfans.com is a much better place in having you share your knowledge and perceptions of football with others.

I just think Patsfans.com would be a MUCH better place if you would just deign to use a touch of diplomacy in how you adress those others.

Not to drag his name in here, but Supafly is an example worth learning from... and for me too.

 

[Bruins29]

This forum deserves a better class of ***hole, and I'm gonna give it to 'em

 

[patfanken]

Most people with even a cursory knowledge of football would care, because it makes a big difference.

Well I guess I don't have a cursory knowledge of the game. I mean, if having a true number 1 was a "big difference" then the Texans, Falcons, Cowboys, Cardinals, Lions, Bears, Titans, Dolphins, Steelers, etc ALL would have been in the playoffs last January instead of on the Golf course. I mean they ALL have #1 WRs.

If having a #1 WR was as important as YOU think they are, why was it that ONLY 2 of the 12 playoff teams that had "true #1" WR's (Bengals and Broncos). There is absolutely NO correlation between having a #1 WR and winning football games. In fact the overwhelming evidence suggests the exact OPPOSITE.

But if you were as smart as you think you are,you'd know that. Instead you'd rather make inaccurate snarky responses, that are designed only to inflate your well known ego even further.

BTW- Personally I'd love to HAVE a #1 WR, but its a luxury, NOT a necessity. Given the choice, I'd much rather have an elite OL, DL, QB, LB, DB, or TE than an elite WR. Everyone one of those positions would have a bigger impact on winning than ANY WR. Yet WR's get infinitely more attention by both the media and the fans....which often frustrates the sh!t out of me.

There is no question that you DO need good skilled WR's to have a successful offense, but you DON'T need to expend huge resources in FA and in the draft to find them. They are EVERYWHERE, as we have seen ourselves

 

[Brady6]

People need to get off the band wagon of trying to cut Slater cause it will never happen. Just ask yourself what is more valuable if it comes down to it. A 6th (or 7th) WR that will likely not see the field but be good emergency depth or one of the best STers in the NFL?

Slater will turn 29 years old on opening day of the Patriots season; his game is built on speed, getting down the field faster than the other players, if he loses a step, which is possible as he approaches 30 it is very possible that he could be released. Anytime you are a one trick pony, which Slater and that one trick is special teams your job is at risk every season.

Is it unlikely that he is released this year? Yes, I would say it is unlikely, but I would not say, “it is never going to happen”.

 

[Bruins29]

I would say it is unlikely, but I would not say, “it is never going to happen”.

I think it was hyperbole re "never gonna happen" Yes, when 18 cant do it anymore or they find someone that can do it as well or better for less money - like every other player who has played here, he wont be here anymore either.

 

[Brady6]

Well I guess I don't have a cursory knowledge of the game. I mean, if having a true number 1 was a "big difference" then the Texans, Falcons, Cowboys, Cardinals, Lions, Bears, Titans, Dolphins, Steelers, etc ALL would have been in the playoffs last January instead of on the Golf course. I mean they ALL have #1 WRs.

If having a #1 WR was as important as YOU think they are, why was it that ONLY 2 of the 12 playoff teams that had "true #1" WR's (Bengals and Broncos). There is absolutely NO correlation between having a #1 WR and winning football games. In fact the overwhelming evidence suggests the exact OPPOSITE.

But if you were as smart as you think you are,you'd know that. Instead you'd rather make inaccurate snarky responses, that are designed only to inflate your well know ego even further.

BTW- Personally I'd love to HAVE a #1 WR, but its a luxury, NOT a necessity. Given the choice, I'd much rather have an elite OL, DL, QB, LB, DB, or TE than an elite WR. Everyone one of those positions would have a bigger impact on winning than ANY WR. Yet WR's get infinitely more attention by both the media and the fans....which often frustrates the sh!t out of me.

There is no question that you DO need good skilled WR's to have a successful offense, but you DON'T need to expend huge resources in FA and in the draft to find them. They are EVERYWHERE, as we have seen ourselves

Is there a wide receiver on the Patriots you would take over Percy Harvin?

 

[mayoclinic]

Well I guess I don't have a cursory knowledge of the game. I mean, if having a true number 1 was a "big difference" then the Texans, Falcons, Cowboys, Cardinals, Lions, Bears, Titans, Dolphins, Steelers, etc ALL would have been in the playoffs last January instead of on the Golf course. I mean they ALL have #1 WRs.

If having a #1 WR was as important as YOU think they are, why was it that ONLY 2 of the 12 playoff teams that had "true #1" WR's (Bengals and Broncos). There is absolutely NO correlation between having a #1 WR and winning football games. In fact the overwhelming evidence suggests the exact OPPOSITE.

But if you were as smart as you think you are,you'd know that. Instead you'd rather make inaccurate snarky responses, that are designed only to inflate your well known ego even further.

BTW- Personally I'd love to HAVE a #1 WR, but its a luxury, NOT a necessity. Given the choice, I'd much rather have an elite OL, DL, QB, LB, DB, or TE than an elite WR. Everyone one of those positions would have a bigger impact on winning than ANY WR. Yet WR's get infinitely more attention by both the media and the fans....which often frustrates the sh!t out of me.

There is no question that you DO need good skilled WR's to have a successful offense, but you DON'T need to expend huge resources in FA and in the draft to find them. They are EVERYWHERE, as we have seen ourselves

I too must plead guilty to not having a cursory knowledge of the game. Heck, I'm not even sure what a "#1 WR" is. To me, that's just a guy who you can game plan to take away and cripple the opposing team's passing offense. We won 3 SB's without anyone obviously meeting that description. We had a terrific pair of WRs in 2009 in Moss and Welker, and BB noted that "if you just take Moss away on the deep part of the field and get down on Welker, we’re done. We’re done. We can’t run the ball, we can’t throw the ball to anyone else. We’re done." If that's what having a #1 WR means, I don't want one. I'd much rather have a running game (especially with backs who can catch out of the backfield), a versatile TE, and 4-5 solid WRs. Heck, Chip Kelly cut his #1 WR and replaced him with a rookie WR and a scat back. I guess he doesn't have much knowledge of the game, either.