Belichick Organizational Notes by Offensive Position from 1991

[VrabelMayeWin]

Some interesting stuff. Some obvious.

 

[Sully]

The holy grail!!!

 

[DropKickFlutie]

This is so good.

 

[slam]

The last line of the TE section shocks me. "Don't let the lack of blocking ability eliminate a good player."

We haven't had many TE's in Name Only types on this team. Tim Wright is the only one that comes to mind as a good receiver/poor blocker TE. I know the TE section delineates a #1 TE that's a receiving threat and #2 and #3 TEs who are more situational blockers, but I would've expected the opposite note given the team's history with TEs.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The last line of the TE section shocks me. "Don't let the lack of blocking ability eliminate a good player."

We haven't had many TE's in Name Only types on this team. Tim Wright is the only one that comes to mind as a good receiver/poor blocker TE. I know the TE section delineates a #1 TE that's a receiving threat and #2 and #3 TEs who are more situational blockers, but I would've expected the opposite note given the team's history with TEs.

Watson wasn’t a great blocker. Hernandez is the prototype he’s referring to. Hollister was an attempted project to build a pass catching TE.

Team hit a grand slam with Gronkowski. Best tight end ever.

 

[JayNM]

Damn, if that BB finds the QB he wants, Im looking at 5, possibly 6 championships

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

So who are the best WRs in this class at getting off the LOS?

 

[cmasspatsfan]

OL can use a slightly dumber guy

 

[jah]

The last line of the TE section shocks me. "Don't let the lack of blocking ability eliminate a good player."

We haven't had many TE's in Name Only types on this team. Tim Wright is the only one that comes to mind as a good receiver/poor blocker TE. I know the TE section delineates a #1 TE that's a receiving threat and #2 and #3 TEs who are more situational blockers, but I would've expected the opposite note given the team's history with TEs.

We tried again with LaCosse. I wouldn't say the failure is in the philosophy but that the "TE in name only" players we sign aren't even that good at receiving. I agree with 1991 Bill; there's little functional difference between a TE who can receive but not block and a wide receiver.

 

[Betterthanmost]

It will be amazing if he will write a book after he is done and compare his thoughts back then to now. It appears not a lot has change. He says the right thing about WRs but i am taken aback by his claim that a WRs can improve hands to some degree over time. Quickness of the LOS, then why Harry? However, he goes on to say good leap and timing more important than speed so I guess that answers my question.