Never meant to suggest the obvious isn't true that plays aren't called, defenses aren't read before the snap, and primary targets/initial intended targets don't exist. As well, if the (as I will call it) the prime target/targets are open it likely doesn't matter if Dorsett also got open (unless the unlikely and become extremely unlikelier case Dorsett is a primary).
I was speaking to, as an example, last week in Miami where the defense-coverage-situation required Brady to move in the pocket, buy extra time, hold onto the ball and look for every option and even a receiver to become open via what I'll call an ad lib (obviously this assumes the pass rush hasn't gotten to him -- certainly the case sometimes). Yes, the passing game is definitely rolling when the drop and pop target is frequently in a position Brady feels comfortable throwing the ball to (whatever triggers that comfort level that the pass is a high% comp/low% int). That just isn't going to be the case always and with Jules out it has been more frequently not the case. Jules being one of those extremely good drop and pop targets has pretty obviously been missed.
Once holding onto the ball/buying time occurs there will become, as each extra tick happens, a greater element of looking at any&all possible targets/the whole field, eventually even an "ad lib" between Brady & the receiver.
Under these circumstances it is an impossible standard for a QB to be able to see the whole field and be able to hit every open receiver/developing to be open. And my ultimate point in the last post (pardon the rambling here), what a receiver does, and even if he does get open or some separation, it doesn't mean it will trigger the "throw here" process that is going on with Brady. How Brady sees the FOV and how it will elicit a pass to that receiver may not jive between the two.
To be clear, in no way was this a knock on Brady. This was my take on the reality that Brady (again under the circumstances pointed out above) will see it as A and any receiver that is trying to get open in a B way is unlikely to trigger Brady's 'throw here' thought process. And as stated before, this is my best spin
on Dorsett getting something like 2 or 3 targets in 6 games (especially as the WR group was pretty thin over that span).
I agree that Dorsett's lack of targets is somewhat "on Brady", and not necessarily in a bad way.
There's almost certainly a pre-set progression of post-snap target reads for Brady on every play. Most of the time, that progression is designed into the framework of the play, and it's sometimes adjusted by Brady's (and the potential receivers') pre-snap reads of the defense (coverage and rush).
Under most circumstances, I'd guess that Brady fairly rarely gets past his second designed/expected target read, because one of his talents that makes him extraordinary is his ability (and his confidence in that ability) to hit a target who's barely open. By that I mean, a target who's "acceptably open" for Brady, but who might be considered "covered" by the majority of NFL QBs - who might, then, go on to the next read in their progression (a guy like Dorsett, for instance). But Brady throws it to that first "acceptable" read and, way more often than not, is successful. And then, the other, unused targets on that play get to block for the guy who caught the pass.
So, the potential targets on the field who may be the designed-in #3, #4 in Brady's progression for that play call, are simply less likely to see the ball under most circumstances. Brady just doesn't get that far into the progression very often because he doesn't usually need to (although he also screws up once in awhile).
If you go through the Pats history with Brady on Pro-football-reference, season-by-season, and sort the player receiving stats by number of tgts, you'll find that, on average, 3-4 players (5 this season) get 75%-80% of Brady's tgts. Also typically, two of those players are NOT WRs. That means that 1-3 of the other WRs on the roster are typically among the group of other offensive skill-position players (7 this season) who are left to divvy up the other 20%-30% of Brady's tgts (Dorsett is among those this season).
----------
"Dorsett isn't putting numbers up ..."
Here, I'll take issue.
According to who? And compared to what objective, quatifiable standard? And in what context?
In seven games in 2015, Lewis saw 7 tgts/game (72% catch rate).
In seven games in 2016, Lewis saw 3.5 tgts/game (71% catch rate).
In 13 games in 2017, Lewis has seen 1.6 tgts per game (95% catch rate) and has produced 137 receiving yards (Dorsett has 140).
In just nine games active in 2017, Burkhead has already seen 35 tgts (83% catch rate).
Have Lewis' receiving skills declined? Has he "lost Brady's trust"? Has he been phased out of the passing attack? Or could there be some other, situation/strategy specific reasons?
Dwayne Allen, in spite of the substantial receiving numbers he posted in Indy over several years, and in spite of having had a full off-season and Camp with the Pats, has caught 7 of 18 tgts (39%) for 50 yds. Hollister (roughly the same size as Britt) has caught only 3 of 7 (43%) for 37 yards, in spite of having had a full off-season and Camp with the Pats.
Dorsett has caught 7 of 11 (64%) for 140 yards (20.0 ypc) with three 20yd+ receptions, including a 38-yarder in the first Miami game just a couple weeks ago. How is that "nothing" (as some posters have been claiming)? How is that not "putting up numbers"? What kind of numbers are folks expecting? And based on what?
Dorsett actually has a better catch rate and has produced more yards on fewer tgts/game and in fewer snaps/game than almost any of the #4 WRs on the other leading passing teams this season, all of whom have been with their current teams longer (in some cases, FAR longer) than Dorsett has been with the Pats.
And, how much bigger would Dorsett's numbers need to have been by now to make fans happy? Would he need to have made 7 more catches? Had 21 or 31 tgts by now instead of 11 (Lewis has only 21)? Would he need to have gained another 60 yards? Another 100? Scored a TD? Seriously, what's the performance standard here that would qualify Dorsett as "not ****"?
And HOW could he have been putting up bigger numbers with the Pats at this stage? Would they have had Brady attempting more than his current 37 passes/game? Would they have had McD running the ball fewer than the current 27 times/game? In order for Dorsett to have been significantly more productive, SOMETHING would have had to give somewhere else. So, who would he have been taking snaps and tgts from to do so? Cooks? Gronk? Amendola, White, Hogan? Those five have accounted for 78% of Brady's tgts this season. Would Dorsett have been taking snaps or targets (or carries) away from Burkhead, Lewis or Gillislee?
So, could the Pats ultimately de-activate Dorsett in favor of Britt for Sunday? Sure! Would that constitute a "clear indication" that the Pats think Dorsett is worthless or would it be an admission that they "made a mistake" in trading for him? LOL! I have no idea what they'll actually do, or why, or how they'll internally evaluate Dorsett's (or Hollister's or Britt's) ability to contribute in this Sunday's game specifically, much less in the long term. I don't have a bug planted in BB's office and I don't read minds.
Almost certainly, many posters will interpret this lengthy argument as exclusively a defense of Dorsett, it's not. I don't think he's the greatest thing to come along since the twist-off beer cap. But, I also don't think he's **** or a "huge mistake", either. I don't think his stats support either extreme point of view. What I've been trying to do is to reel things back to a reasonable middle ground. So, what I'm defending here is a rational perspective based on reasonable expectations within the context of the current situation.