Since 2010: The Importance Of The 5th and 6th Receiving Target

[mgteich]

Since Gronk arrived, 4 of top 5 receivers have been 2 WR, 1 TE and 1 RB.

Rounding out the top 6 are an additional WR and TE.

The 2nd TE has had more receptions than the 3rd WR in every year but 2013. Wright is continuing that trend.

I think that we overestimate the importance of the 3rd WR and 2nd TE. They are INDEED important, but primarily as backups in case of injury and to produce the occasional catch. The 3rd WR has never had 40 catches in a season since Gronk arrived (37, 24, 15, 21, 37). Lat's year's #3 was Dobson.

The 4th and 5th WR are only important in case of injuries, and maybe one catch a game. There is certainly no reason to have more than 4 active. The 3rd TE is a blocking TE, who like the FB can make the occasional reception, probably more than the #4 WR.

BOTTOM LINE
We need occasional production from our #3 WR and #2 TE. More importantly, we need them to run their routes and be available for the occasional reception. Amendola is not worth what he is being paid, but he is a reasonable #3 WR.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think that we overestimate the importance of the 3rd WR and 2nd TE.

I don't think that's the case at all. I think the numbers display what we've seen to be the obvious problem, which is that the team's depth at the WR/TE positions has been poor. The lack of talent at WR3 has been a major problem.

The 3rd WR has never had 40 catches in a season since Gronk arrived

1. In 2010, Moss was traded away, and a stiff (Brandon Tate) was WR3
2. In 2011, Chad Johnson was brought in. He was a bust. The lack of WR3 production was certainly not part of the plan
3. In 2012, Lloyd was brought in. Branch's clear decline left him as the WR3 with just 16 catches, while Edelman had 21 catches in 9 games
4. In 2013, The WR3 in catches (Dobson) was a rookie WR who was the WR1 for part of the season. The WR4 in catches (Thompkins), was also a rookie WR who was the WR1 for part of the season. They had 37 and 32 catches, respectively, and each of them missed 1/4 of the season with injuries.

The poor WR3 production during Gronk's time has not been a feature, it's been a bug.

 

[oldrover]

BOTTOM LINE
We need occasional production from our #3 WR and #2 TE. More importantly, we need them to run their routes and be available for the occasional reception. Amendola is not worth what he is being paid, but he is a reasonable #3 WR.

I FEEL IT!!! THIS WILL BE AMENDOLA'S GAME!!! FINALLY!!!








(I think I'll start a new thread...)

 

[Oswlek]

Gotta agree with Deus here. Certainly no one would say that WR3 was overrated back in the Branch/Brown/Givens days. The time period you are reviewing just happens to have had consistently poor Wr3 options.

 

[Bruins29]

I FEEL IT!!! THIS WILL BE AMENDOLA'S GAME!!! FINALLY!!!








(I think I'll start a new thread...)

He already had a "game" but we will take another.

 

[Brewskies]

I FEEL IT!!! THIS WILL BE AMENDOLA'S GAME!!! FINALLY!!!


He is the last player I want to depend on, I want to win this game.

 

[Ring 6]

Not sure how to determine if anyone overrated expectations, but the production we have been getting from #3 WRs is awfully normally, especially for a team with a great TE.
I mean how much production are people expecting from the 3rd WR to conclude that WR3 has been bad?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Gotta agree with Deus here. Certainly no one would say that WR3 was overrated back in the Branch/Brown/Givens days. The time period you are reviewing just happens to have had consistently poor Wr3 options.

I don't particularly think Amendola is a poor WR3 option. If you throw to DA 60 times within 15 yards of TB, he'll catch 40 or so balls a season..

I think it has more to do with a sight shift in playcalling philosophy.

Thought that this article shed some light on perhaps why things are a little different this year.

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/98577/patriots-new-look-offense-working-2

From Reiss' Groupings article after Broncos.

This highlights the value of slot receiver Danny Amendola to the offense, because when the Patriots put three receivers on the field, he's almost always the third option. While he was part ofTom Brady's first interception since Sept. 29 (that's still a tough catch based on the deflection and high throw), Amendola delivered a couple of critical third-down conversions.

3-WR/1-TE/1-RB -- 44 of 86
2-WR/2-TE/1-RB -- 21 of 86
2-WR/1-TE/1-FB/1-RB -- 10 of 86
1-WR/2-TE/1-FB/1-RB -- 7 of 86
3-WR/1-FB/1-RB -- 3 of 86
3-TE/1-FB/1-RB -- 1 of 86

The usage of the three-receiver package had dipped between Week 2 and Week 7, with an average of about 25 snaps per game.

When the Patriots call on more three-receiver packages, the trickle-down effect is less playing time for tight end Tim Wright, whose 12 snaps Sunday were his lowest total since playing five against Oakland in Week 3.

 

[Oswlek]

I don't particularly think Amendola is a poor WR3 option. If you throw to DA 60 times within 15 yards of TB, he'll catch 40 or so balls a season..

I think it has more to do with a sight shift in playcalling philosophy.

Thought that this article shed some light on perhaps why things are a little different this year.

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/98577/patriots-new-look-offense-working-2

From Reiss' Groupings article after Broncos.

Last year, Amendola was the #2 option, and a strong case could be made that he was for the first month of this year. Only in the past few weeks has he really been a true #3 option.... and perhaps not coincidentally, he's started producing again. If he was the same guy who tore up Buffalo in week one last year, you'd see a slight decrease in balls thrown to Edelman/Gronk and a few more his way.

All the evidence seems to suggest that NE's decreasing reliance on a #3 WR is because of talent distribution, not a scheme change to minimize its use.

 

[Ring 6]

Just using 2013 as the example, there were only 10 teams that had a wr3 catch 40+ passes, and only one more than 47.
The average was 36.
Given that the numbers listed above include having Hernandez pretty much taking the place of WR3, some of those years mgteich listed actually represent what is more realistically WR4.

 

[Ring 6]

Last year, Amendola was the #2 option, and a strong case could be made that he was for the first month of this year. Only in the past few weeks has he really been a true #3 option.... and perhaps not coincidentally, he's started producing again. If he was the same guy who tore up Buffalo in week one last year, you'd see a slight decrease in balls thrown to Edelman/Gronk and a few more his way.

All the evidence seems to suggest that NE's decreasing reliance on a #3 WR is because of talent distribution, not a scheme change to minimize its use.

I think its Tom Brady. Why would Brady throw more to his #3 WR at the expense of 1, 2 and the TEs.
The idea that we used to throw a lot to the #3 is really incorrect. There were season when we rotated players and they shared the 2/3 role, but that is hardly the same thing.

 

[RayClay]

What would message boards be without 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th wide receivers?

 

[Ring 6]

Gotta agree with Deus here. Certainly no one would say that WR3 was overrated back in the Branch/Brown/Givens days. The time period you are reviewing just happens to have had consistently poor Wr3 options.

Those 3 played together for 4 seasons and the #3 WR on the team caught 39,35,43,34 while the entire TE group caught only 58,66,56,54.

 

[Oswlek]

I think its Tom Brady. Why would Brady throw more to his #3 WR at the expense of 1, 2 and the TEs.
The idea that we used to throw a lot to the #3 is really incorrect. There were season when we rotated players and they shared the 2/3 role, but that is hardly the same thing.

No, Brady used to throw to the #3 receiver quite a bit more. The difference is that the talent gap between the #3 receiver and the #1 was less. Some of the difference now is that the top options are better than they were back then (even more so if we include the TEs in the entire picture), and some is that the #3 options are a little worse. But if the gap narrowed, we'd Tom spread it around more.

Basically, I agree with everything you said except the bold line.

Those 3 played together for 4 seasons and the #3 WR on the team caught 39,35,43,34 while the entire TE group caught only 58,66,56,54.

I'm a little confused. This in no way contradicts the comment you quoted.

 

[Ring 6]

No, Brady used to throw to the #3 receiver quite a bit more. The difference is that the talent gap between the #3 receiver and the #1 was less. Some of the difference now is that the top options are better than they were back then (even more so if we include the TEs in the entire picture), and some is that the #3 options are a little worse. But if the gap narrowed, we'd Tom spread it around more.

Basically, I agree with everything you said except the bold line.

I just posted those numbers and really, we didn't.

 

[Oswlek]

I just posted those numbers and really, we didn't.

You are missing the point. The number of receptions by the #3 receiver might not have gone down much, but how much have the receptions by the top option increased by?

Relatively, the #3 option is used less. Your numbers don't dispute this, they demonstrate it.

EDIT: FWIW, I agree with you that there is little reason to spread the ball around if the talent is so concentrated at the top. I just think if NE had a Troy Brown in 2003 type guy, he'd have gotten more looks. NE loves exploiting matchups against weaker defensive depth.

 

[RobertWeathers]

All the evidence seems to suggest that NE's decreasing reliance on a #3 WR is because of talent distribution, not a scheme change to minimize its use.

The article suggests slightly different but logically speaking, are you going to throw to DA more then JA, Gronk, Vereen and LaFell?

 

[Oswlek]

The article suggests slightly different but logically speaking, are you going to throw to DA more then JA, Gronk, Vereen and LaFell?

Of course not! That's my point.

Back in the "Tom throws it to the open guy" days he had a bunch of comparable talents running around, so the targets were going to be more even. In recent years, it was Gronk, Wes, Ahern and a bunch of guys who aren't nearly as good, creating a top heavy situation.

My contention isn't that NE should be throwing it to the #3 guy more, just that if they had a better #3 they would target him more. The apparent lack of importance is really just a lack of recent talent.

 

[Ring 6]

You are missing the point. The number of receptions by the #3 receiver might not have gone down much, but how much have the receptions by the top option increased by?

Relatively, the #3 option is used less. Your numbers don't dispute this, they demonstrate it.

EDIT: FWIW, I agree with you that there is little reason to spread the ball around if the talent is so concentrated at the top. I just think if NE had a Troy Brown in 2003 type guy, he'd have gotten more looks. NE loves exploiting matchups against weaker defensive depth.

I'm not sure what you mean here. First you said we threw more to the #3, now you are saying we threw less to the 1 and 2? I'm confused at what point you are trying to make.
As I pointed out, in the timeframe listed we didn't have much at TE to throw to, so it seems to me we are distrubiting the ball the same way we always have (Moss years are probably an exception) where the #1 and #2 targets get a lot of passes, because they are #1 and #2, the #3 is not far behind whether is a TE or WR, and #4 and RBs get what they get and thats about it.
I don't see much change other than better or worse TEs, and situations where we have guys sharing the #2 WR role.

 

[Ring 6]

Of course not! That's my point.

Back in the "Tom throws it to the open guy" days he had a bunch of comparable talents running around, so the targets were going to be more even. In recent years, it was Gronk, Wes, Ahern and a bunch of guys who aren't nearly as good, creating a top heavy situation.

My contention isn't that NE should be throwing it to the #3 guy more, just that if they had a better #3 they would target him more. The apparent lack of importance is really just a lack of recent talent.

But you are missing the point that the WR catches were spread further because the TE wasn't getting the ball.
Gronk (and Hernandez also) changed that. Call Gronk the #1 WR and the "WR3" the TE and the comparison become obvious.
We just traded out a WR for a TE.