2017 Training Camp - Day 6 (8/2/17)

[BobDigital]

@patfanken While I agree 50 receptions and 850 yards could be a good year for the team I would certainly not be happy with it.

The Pats gave up a first round pick for this player which they will have for sure only 2 years. Considering that if he is not at least a 1000 yard WR (health provided) then I would say it will have been a bad trade. The value they invested in him is to be an impact player. Not just a good player.

If the team wins that is all the matters but if he comes in here to be just another piece then I would be mad what they gave up for him.

 

[PScottman]

I would say it will have been a bad trade.

Return on Investment doesn't just have to be the numbers the principal of the trade puts up. If Cooks get doubled every snap...Edelman and Gronk's numbers go up. Or the running game expands with extra yards. Or you get Hogan, Mitchell or Amendola on a usually pretty beatable 3d or even 4th opposing CB.

Longer offensive drives refresh a defense across the entire game - if he's worth just one additional first down for every two series that anywhere between 5-15min of possession differential that can facilitate keeping a lead, expanding it or a comeback (see Falcons, Atlanta, 4th Qtr Super Bowl)

So if Cooks gets Ken's number example, but Gronk's, Edelman's and Mitchell's numbers all increase...still a bad trade? Not in my team focused mind it aint.

 

[Tony2046]

Return on Investment doesn't just have to be the numbers the principal of the trade puts up. If Cooks get doubled every snap...Edelman and Gronk's numbers go up. Or the running game expands with extra yards. Or you get Hogan, Mitchell or Amendola on a usually pretty beatable 3d or even 4th opposing CB.

Longer offensive drives refresh a defense across the entire game - if he's worth just one additional first down for every two series that anywhere between 5-15min of possession differential that can facilitate keeping a lead, expanding it or a comeback (see Falcons, Atlanta, 4th Qtr Super Bowl)

So if Cooks gets Ken's number example, but Gronk's, Edelman's and Mitchell's numbers all increase...still a bad trade? Not in my team focused mind it aint.

It's truly a complimentary game. From offense to defense and from position to position.

 

[goheels22002]

Thanks to everybody posting observations and tweets. You are the best. Going down to Foxborough on Thursday - will give you all some comments on who's doing what.

Until the linebackers not named Hightower show that they can be dependable, LB is still an issue, even more so because DH has only played a full 16 game regular season one year out of five.

The good news for Patriots fans (and players, coaches and owner(s)) is that there aren't a lot of areas of such concern.

LB
DE
OT depth
Slot CB
TE (health standpoint, this issue won't go away all year)


Relative to the rest of the league, that's a "no worries" situation. Internally, so to speak, those are still areas to watch.

Slot corner isn't really an issue. Butler, Gilmore and Rowe can match up with any combination of top three receivers.

Everybody is so focused on Cyrus Jones as a kick returner, they're forgetting his maturation as an NFL cover man will continue. He's getting reps against the best slot receivers in the league and will learn quickly. If it's a big guy in the slot, Eric Rowe will do fine. Coleman is a capable #4 or #5 CB. This is the best CB group in the Brady era. There have been better individual CBs, but this is the best group top to bottom.

 

[Bruins29]

@patfanken While I agree 50 receptions and 850 yards could be a good year for the team I would certainly not be happy with it.

The Pats gave up a first round pick for this player which they will have for sure only 2 years. Considering that if he is not at least a 1000 yard WR (health provided) then I would say it will have been a bad trade. The value they invested in him is to be an impact player. Not just a good player.

If the team wins that is all the matters but if he comes in here to be just another piece then I would be made what they gave up for him.

So you want the team to win but only under your conditions regarding what the players "stats" should be. You sound like the posters here who complain that Danny Amendola sucks because as a 6th or 7th receiving target he isnt putting up 500 yards etc.

Get your head out of your ass.

 

[stephen12q]

TBrady 'LE'TS GOOOO!!!' t-shirt

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Hasn't been much of a gamer either. May be time to start admitting he's bad. McClellin, Grissom, Wise, and Rivers all appear to be above him at the moment.

There's always at least one surprise cut in trading camp.
In Ealy's case it might not be much of a surprise. Him on the 53 might be a surprise.

FWIW, I really liked the potential rehab move to take him. In process of re-evaluating my opinion based on non-performance.

 

[patfanken]

@patfanken While I agree 50 receptions and 850 yards could be a good year for the team I would certainly not be happy with it.

The Pats gave up a first round pick for this player which they will have for sure only 2 years. Considering that if he is not at least a 1000 yard WR (health provided) then I would say it will have been a bad trade. The value they invested in him is to be an impact player. Not just a good player.

If the team wins that is all the matters but if he comes in here to be just another piece then I would be made what they gave up for him.

I think you are focusing too hard on that number 1000 as opposed to the offense in general. Instead of looking at what individuals are doing look at what the pass offense as a whole is doing. 45-4800 is a reasonable goal for this team. How that is spread out really doesn't matter.

For example if you broke it down like this: 850 for Cooks, 850 for Edelman, 550 for Hogan, 450 for Mitchell, 35o for Amendola, 850 for Gronk, 500 for Allen, 850 for all the RB's combined, you'd have around 5200 passing yds without anyone being a 900 yd receiver. It's all about how many targets they get. It doesn't have anyting to do with how good they are individually. They are all good.

BTW- I see the run game being utilzed more, which will take away potential snaps from the receivers this season for the following reasons.

1. While I believe our OL is merely OK in pass protection, they have the potential to be elite in the running game. Everyone except Andrews, are all plus run blokers who can create seems.

2. All the Pats runners are quick hitting explosive types who can take advantae of that movementm, power and athletism of the OL to gash the smaller. quicker DL's that are in vogue these days

3. We have seen over the years an every increasing movement in the league to more and more passing. Bad QB's throw for 3500 yds, So it wouldn't surprise me a bit to see BB, even with all that receiving talent, to go against the grain and start the pendulum turning back to the run game.

Now I'm not looking for a quantum change in offensive philosophy. This will still be a passing first team, but whatever the pass/run percentage was last year, I wouldn't be surprised to see the run game percentage grow 5%.

Just a thought

 

[BTTA]

"are all plus run blokers who can create seems"

ah, the many ways this can be interpreted outside the context of the paragraph.

 

[long distance]

There's always at least one surprise cut in trading camp.
In Ealy's case it might not be much of a surprise. Him on the 53 might be a surprise.

FWIW, I really liked the potential rehab move to take him. In process of re-evaluating my opinion based on non-performance.

The paradox of Time w Ealy . early days but the clock is ticking..

 

[long distance]

3. We have seen over the years an every increasing movement in the league to more and more passing. Bad QB's throw for 3500 yds, So it wouldn't surprise me a bit to see BB, even with all that receiving talent, to go against the grain and start the pendulum turning back to the run game.

The big change in the last years is lighter LB units. Many experts project the rise of run heavy game leaguewide to exploit it. BB was way ahead, again. LGB was already clear BBs answer to that trend. The big (relatively) investment in RB position is the next step. Excited to see it unfold..

 

[primetime]

There's always at least one surprise cut in trading camp.
In Ealy's case it might not be much of a surprise. Him on the 53 might be a surprise.

FWIW, I really liked the potential rehab move to take him. In process of re-evaluating my opinion based on non-performance.

I have a friend who's a Panthers fan and is extremely knowledgeable about football and spends a lot of time breaking it down as a hobby. He told me Ealy was plain bad when this trade went down, so this isn't too surprising to me. (On the other hand, he also thought the Patriots made a decent gamble by trading for him, since it cost them next to nothing and he may be better in a different system. Not looking like the case right now.)

I assume most people don't watch many Panthers games so all we remember is his name being called on draft day and the Super Bowl, though, which is why much of the forum expected more than this.

 

[maineman209]

@patfanken While I agree 50 receptions and 850 yards could be a good year for the team I would certainly not be happy with it.

The Pats gave up a first round pick for this player which they will have for sure only 2 years. Considering that if he is not at least a 1000 yard WR (health provided) then I would say it will have been a bad trade. The value they invested in him is to be an impact player. Not just a good player.

If the team wins that is all the matters but if he comes in here to be just another piece then I would be made what they gave up for him.

Personally, I want to see the Pats get another ring this season. If Cooks contributes "only" 850, instead of 1000, I won't consider that to be a bad trade.

But then, I'm not interested in fantasy football.

 

[Deus Irae]

Slot corner isn't really an issue.

Of course it is.

 

[BobDigital]

People talking about fantasy football and me being obsessed with stats have the wrong idea. This is not at all about that. This is about a player you invested a lot in preforming they way you expect them too and I think stats in this offense should reflect that. This is not a DeAndre Hopkins situation where you can not judge a player by his statistical impact.

A very good WR who comes here should perform like one and that means him personally getting big plays and TDs. I am not much of a believe in the idea of "a player opens up others and is doubled all game so if he doesn't catch a lot of balls it doesn't matter". In a single game this might be the case but not over a season. Elite players produce in the NFL because they generally can't be doubled all time.

The idea that Cooks getting 850 yards and 5 TDs is okay is just not true to me. A player like Cooks should be better if he plays 16 games with a QB like Brady.

When you look at the top WRs in the league they produce over 1000 yards (in a 16 game sample) and more like 1100-1400 depending on how good they are. If the idea that a really really good WR like Cooks take pressure off other guys so it would be okay if he has a lower amount of catches, TDs and big plays were true then we would expect to see that with the other best WRs in the league. We don't. The best WRs (given decent QBs) tend to put up the best numbers year in and year out. There is nothing wrong having that expectation for Cooks and being dissapointed if he doesn't reach that.

That being said as long as the Pats win I will be happy but if Cooks has a substantially worse year than his last 2 here I think it is more than fair to feel the trade was bad and be disappointed in it. It will have shown either the coaches didn't take fit or some other factor into their calculations enough and gave up a lot of value for someone who wasn't worth it. It is about impact not stats but his stats should reflect his impact here. It is not like he will not be targeted a lot. There should be no reason Cooks is not one of the 5 skill players on the field most of the time. He will get his chance to produce.

It is not unreasonable to ask Cooks to be better than Brandon Lafell or Brandon Llody did here.

 

[Bruins29]

That being said as long as the Pats win I will be happy but if Cooks has a substantially worse year than his last 2 here I think it is more than fair to feel the trade was bad and be disappointed in it. .

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read here. Then again I should consider the source.

 

[PScottman]

So it wouldn't surprise me a bit to see BB, even with all that receiving talent, to go against the grain and start the pendulum turning back to the run game.

Reading the future isn't just for psychics. If the league moves toward passing as the standard, what does that mean for the defensive rosters? They morph to combat that. The pendulum indeed swings and you get maybe an additional safety or CB or hybrid LB on the final roster. You stock up on a couple extra penetrators and pass rush move specialists on the DL and coverage guys at LB.

All of that adjustment leads to what? Opportunity to exploit through another facet of the game. Ken's spot on - has the league turned enough over the past 5-8 years where there's opportunity to capitalize and LEAD the new trend that takes advantage of that change?

Don't know, but it's a Helluva smart idea.

 

[PScottman]

...and gave up a lot of value

It appears we define value very differently. I understand what you're saying, and frankly think you're putting Cooks in the Moss context. I get that because that's the historical context right?

But what else is historical context for this team is the maximizing not just of talent, but of best matchup advantage and that advantage will not be Cooks every game (or even every quarter or half of games). Now the variable in your favor is, given that talent, he might get the ball anyway, just like Moss did even when not option 1 or 2.

You say value isn't statistical then go right back to statistical milestones to emphasize your point by using "other WRs" production. So what value statistically did the team sacrifice in the Cooks trade?

A draft pick. One regardless of the actual player picked that has no NFL background, no reputation, and surely only potential as the measuring stick. Would that value be more likely immediate...or delayed? How about statistically in terms of first year output (or even two to mirror Cooks' current deal), if a WR or other skill position was picked? Is it anywhere even near the hypothetical measuring stick you used to set Cooks value barometer?

Potential is a succubus. It be sexy as hell from a distance, but most times you get close and realize it was the mother of all beer goggles the whole time. Sometimes its the swimsuit model (yeah, I'm being misogynistic sorry), but usually not so much. Sure, the veteran signing isn't always the 10 either (Holy crap...it's...it's Chad Ochocinco's music!), but it's a higher hit percentage.

There's only so many balls to go around...even less than when Moss was here. And if injuries happen - you're going to likely come out great because Cooks' production almost certainly will go up and this whole discussion becomes moot, but if asked tomorrow to make the same trade and the stats you threw out were a KNOWN outcome I still measure the value in the entire teams' benefits reaped, not just Cooks' statistical line and make the trade.

 

[DaBruinz]

Wise has been getting a lot of early praise so I was trying to find a physical comp for him. He's bigger than pretty much any EDGE in the league. Chandler is close but he looks way skinnier to me.


Deatrich Wise Jr.

6'5"
274 lbs.
35 5/8" arms
4.92 40
1.70 10
33" Vert
10'04" Broad
3 cone 7.11

Joey Bosa

6'5"
269 lbs.
33 3/8" arms
4.86 40
1.68 10
32" Vert
10'00" Broad
3 cone 6.89

Coming off 2015:



Both with bad sack totals last year in college. Most other pass rushers are 250-260 lbs.

You want to know the person that I am reminded of when I see Wise' numbers? Willie McGinest.

6'5
255 lbs (played at 270-275 for the Pats)
in. arms
40 -4.68

I've tried to find the rest of McGinest's numbers, but to no avail.. I have reached out to someone in hopes of acquiring them to either further validate or debunk my thought on this..

 

[DaBruinz]

I don't think it is harsh. Look at the super bowl. The Falcons had 344 total yards.

Over 1/3rd were lost due to bad LB play by those not named Hightower.

Freeman first Falcons play 37 yard run. Due to the guy opposite Hightower misreading. (McClellin I think) Q1 13:37

Freeman 15 yard run (Van Noy in the wrong lane) Q2 13:11

Freeman 39 yards pass (Roberts I think) Q4 5:53


Just those 3 clearly blown plays make up 91 yards. Add in 3 or 4 more questionable plays (not going through them all) they made up over 1/3rd of Atlanta's yardage from easily preventable plays. I think we have every reason to be critical of them and claim they have a lot to prove. If you think I am being too harsh that is fine. I just disagree and think I am being just the right amount of it.

A lot of assumptions by you there. You come across as giving no credit to Freeman being an outstanding RB. The claim of "easily preventable plays" when you have no idea of the specific defense that was called or how the defense changed the alignment based on their reads leaves your synopsis very lacking.