Breer: Welker at OTAs, in uniform, brace on

[Deus Irae]

I just explained why it's a better trade scenario.

:confused2:

Your explanation fell short.

 

[Calciumee]

Anyway back on topic; I don't think this has been posted

 

[Ring 6]

I think you're mixing up players with philosophy. Randy Moss forces the team to use a specific philosophy on offense.

Thats just not correct

 

[pats1]

I don't know about that. It is a different time where offenses are allowed to get away with much more. Besides, the 2010 defense would have to be close to what the 2003 or 2004 defenses were for the 2003 or 2004 offense to work.

I said 2010-12, not just 2010, and I think getting a high pick (2nd?) for Moss would go to helping that 2011-12 defense.

Offenses can get away with a lot more, yet the Giants and Steelers are winning Super Bowls because of defense, and the Saints because they had an offense attack based on FOUR wide receivers - Colston, Meachem, Henderson, and Moore - and a constant barrage of different formations and other options (Shockey, D. Thomas, P. Thomas). It wasn't just one Superstar WR who "is the man."

Personally, I thought the 2003 offense was the worse of the Brady era (even possible than last year) and that offense was covered up with arguably the best defense in Patriots' history. I have no desire to go back to that offense. In fact, many of the problems that people complained about last year's offense were prevalent in that year's offense (problems converting third downs, problems scoring, etc.).

No doubt that there were, but when it mattered most that offense came through - think of Branch's catch on the final drive of the SB, or Bethel's catch in the playoffs against TEN, or Troy's catch against MIA. The 2004 offense was obviously an improvement, with a 1,500 yard back (Dillon) and a number of solid WRs (Branch, Patten, Givens, Troy).

 

[pats1]

Thats just not correct

It isn't? Then why haven't we seen them run the ball 35 times a game? Why haven't we seen them use 2 TEs and throw to them instead?

One reason: Because Moss is too good a player not to use him. THAT is the crux of the PROBLEM, not the solution. Everything revolves around getting the ball to Randy, because he's such a good player. So unless you can clone Randy and put five of him on the field at once, you're not going to be able to play any other offense than "throw to Randy."

I thought enough books were written on the Pats' success a half decade ago to realize that. I guess I was wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

What I'm trying to say is that the Patriots' offensive system which has seen the most success (not only for the Patriots, but also teams like the Saints who employ 3-4 solid but not spectacular WRs and mix up formations) is one which does not have a #1 receiver. Moss by his nature is never anything but a #1 receiver. So while the statistics and talent of having a #1 receiver is tempting, I do not believe it is in the best interest of the football team as a whole.

One of the Patriots' best games last season was against the Falcons, a week after the debacle against the Jets and when BB took over playcalling from BOB (or so it appeared). Instead of lining up in Gun 0 Out Slot every play and have "throw to Moss" or "throw to Welker" their idea of "mixing it up," BB called a great, balanced offense against the Falcons. There was a ton of play action, some screens, lot of motions, less gun, a lot of Taylor runs (his best game of the year), and even a deep TE touchdown pass to Baker, catching the defense off guard.

The Patriot offense has been better with Moss than it was before. Not really close.

You seem to think that having Moss means we have to call plays differently. Thats just not true.
We can run the Atlanta game plan with or without Moss, but it works better with him, because he must be accounted for.

The value of a strength in an offense is as much intangible as tangible. The ability to do things that do not involve the strength better because the defense is focussed on the strength is what offensive gameplanning is about.

 

[pats1]

The Patriot offense has been better with Moss than it was before. Not really close.

You seem to think that having Moss means we have to call plays differently. Thats just not true.
We can run the Atlanta game plan with or without Moss, but it works better with him, because he must be accounted for.

The value of a strength in an offense is as much intangible as tangible. The ability to do things that do not involve the strength better because the defense is focussed on the strength is what offensive gameplanning is about.

I thought you just said he was more than a decoy? Isn't that saying he's a decoy?

In my ideal world, I'd have 16 games a year with an Atlanta-style gameplan, where, like you just said, Moss is a "decoy."

So what you have is a past-his-prime WR, who is a decoy, has one year left on his contract, and little hope of sticking around past the current season. Why wouldn't you try to trade that asset for a more usable one in the long term?

 

[Kontradiction]

This is fantastic news. Without Welker, our receiving corps looks formidable on paper. With him, they look like one of the best in the league. I sincerely hope he doesn't go on PUP and is able to go by Week 1.

As for entertaining trade offers for Moss, terrible idea. Let him play out his last year.

 

[Ring 6]

It isn't? Then why haven't we seen them run the ball 35 times a game? Why haven't we seen them use 2 TEs and throw to them instead?

One reason: Because Moss is too good a player not to use him. THAT is the crux of the PROBLEM, not the solution. Everything revolves around getting the ball to Randy, because he's such a good player. So unless you can clone Randy and put five of him on the field at once, you're not going to be able to play any other offense than "throw to Randy."

Thats ridiculous.
You want to get rid of Moss because Moss is so good, it would be crazy not to use him?
There are plenty of WRs in plenty of offense that get as many balls thrown to them as Moss. In fact, Welker does.
Its simply wrong to state that our offense is dictated by having to force the ball to the guy we throw to the 2nd most.

By the way, our offense ranked 3rd in yards, 6th in points, and 8th in 3rd down conversions.(1% below 4th) and you want them to give away their top weapon and expect to improve?
Also the last 3 years rank 1st, 3rd and 4th in scoring years in the BB era, so saying we were a better offense without Moss is nuts.

 

[BradyManny]

Making the offense look like 2007 is not the goal. Making the team as a whole look like 2003-04 in 2010-12 is the goal.

Sure, but looking like the 2007 offense wouldn't be a bad side effect. We can't forget that if it had stopped one hail-mary pass, it would have been considered the single greatest football team in history. Painful to think about.

 

[Ring 6]

I thought you just said he was more than a decoy? Isn't that saying he's a decoy?

In my ideal world, I'd have 16 games a year with an Atlanta-style gameplan, where, like you just said, Moss is a "decoy."

So what you have is a past-his-prime WR, who is a decoy, has one year left on his contract, and little hope of sticking around past the current season. Why wouldn't you try to trade that asset for a more usable one in the long term?

Dude you can't be that out of touch.
We have more than one play in the playbook.
Having Moss on the field makes the running game better because you have to keep the saetydeep. It gives Welker more room tp operate because the D has to put attention to Moss.
That doesn't make him a 'decoy' it makes him a talented WR who ALSO contributes value even when the play doesn't go to him.
Adrian Peterson makes the Minnesota play action better, that doesnt mean he is a decoy.
You are way off the mark here.

Just think about the fact that you are arguing that Moss has no value to us because he is so good it would be stupid to not focus on getting him the ball. Which is it? Does he suck now, or is BB just a moron who is bamboozled into screwing up his offense because the only good play is a Moss play?

 

[pats1]

Thats ridiculous.
You want to get rid of Moss because Moss is so good, it would be crazy not to use him?

Yes, let's think about it. Moss, because of his ability, dictates either two options:

1) Throw to Moss. --> Doesn't work, defenses will adjust, and force...:

2) Do not throw to Moss/Use as a decoy --> Why not trade him instead of having one year of being a decoy and having him walk?

There are plenty of WRs in plenty of offense that get as many balls thrown to them as Moss. In fact, Welker does.

Because Moss is his decoy. Get rid of the decoy and put two similar players on the field. Welker gets less catches but offense becomes more balanced and unpredictable, which is key for late drives and 3rd down/red zone conversions.

Its simply wrong to state that our offense is dictated by having to force the ball to the guy we throw to the 2nd most.

Its simply wrong to state that there no mentality exists on the team that Randy is too good not to throw the ball to, especially deep, especially when it matters most. In my mind, an offense should not have that menality exist anywhere, so that the quarterback always throws to the open receiver, whether it's Kevin Kasper or Kelvin Kight.

By the way, our offense ranked 3rd in yards, 6th in points, and 8th in 3rd down conversions.(1% below 4th) and you want them to give away their top weapon and expect to improve?
Also the last 3 years rank 1st, 3rd and 4th in scoring years in the BB era, so saying we were a better offense without Moss is nuts.

And zero rings, because of games like SB 42, the 2010 Ravens game, the 2009 Jets road game, the 2009 Saints game (the offense was equally as bad as the defense), the 2009 Dolphins road game, the 2007 Ravens game. All games when the defense put together a solid game plan and the offense was not unpredictable or balanced enough to work around it.

 

[pats1]

Dude you can't be that out of touch.
We have more than one play in the playbook.
Having Moss on the field makes the running game better because you have to keep the saetydeep. It gives Welker more room tp operate because the D has to put attention to Moss.
That doesn't make him a 'decoy' it makes him a talented WR who ALSO contributes value even when the play doesn't go to him.
Adrian Peterson makes the Minnesota play action better, that doesnt mean he is a decoy.
You are way off the mark here.

Just think about the fact that you are arguing that Moss has no value to us because he is so good it would be stupid to not focus on getting him the ball. Which is it? Does he suck now, or is BB just a moron who is bamboozled into screwing up his offense because the only good play is a Moss play?

The former is true in the present, the latter will be true in the future.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Can't we just celebrate Welker's amazing progress in this thread? I don't have any problem with a trade Randy debate, but this is getting long winded enough that perhaps it should have it's own thread. The return of WW is certainly worthy of it's own thread.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, let's think about it. Moss, because of his ability, dictates either two options:

1) Throw to Moss. --> Doesn't work, defenses will adjust, and force...:

2) Do not throw to Moss/Use as a decoy --> Why not trade him instead of having one year of being a decoy and having him walk?

Decoys dont lead the NFL in TD receptions.
You act as if a defense needing to focus on a great player is a bad thing for an offense.
How about 3) you have a great WR in your offense who produces and makes everyone else better?

Because Moss is his decoy. Get rid of the decoy and put two similar players on the field. Welker gets less catches but offense becomes more balanced and unpredictable, which is key for late drives and 3rd down/red zone conversions.

Great idea, get better by putting worse players on the field.

Its simply wrong to state that there no mentality exists on the team that Randy is too good not to throw the ball to, especially deep, especially when it matters most.

Why because you say so? What has happened when teams double Moss all day? We take advantage of it and throw to other receivers and win. You only have to look at game by game stats to realize that if a team trys to take Moss away we do not force the ball to him, we take what is open. You are basically making this part up out of thin air.

And zero rings, because of games like SB 42, the 2010 Ravens game, the 2009 Jets road game, the 2009 Saints game (the offense was equally as bad as the defense), the 2009 Dolphins road game, the 2007 Ravens game. All games when the defense put together a solid game plan and the offense was not unpredictable or balanced enough to work around it.

Our offense gets better and our defense gets worse, and its the offenses falut we didnt win a ring?
You are joking that you find 6 games in 3 years that the O was mediocre and THAT is your evidence. Furthermore, we won the Raven game, and the defense got torched by the Saints, you can't seriously lay that game on the D when they scored at will on us.
And we would have won the SB AFTER MOSS CAUGHT THE GO AHEAD TD if the D held.

 

[Sivy]

Can't we just celebrate Welker's amazing progress in this thread? I don't have any trouble with a trade Randy debate, but this is getting long winded enough that perhaps it should have it's own thread. The return of WW is certainly worthy of it's own thread.

****like*****

 

[Ring 6]

The former is true in the present, the latter will be true in the future.

Moss sucks presently and BB will be bamboozled into screwing up his offense just to throw to Moss in the future?
I don't think Ive ever seen a more poorly supported or more incorrect argument on this board in years, so before I start getting insulting, frustrated and argumentative, I will just drop out and say I disagre with everything you believe on the subject.

 

[Its_The_Patriots]

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Interesting hijack...

I think if Tate and Taylor live up to their potential and Edleman continues to develop and Welker returns to full health and the two young TE's live up to their potential and Holt and Crumpler have some gas left and click here it's gonna be hard for Randy to put up those numbers he was talking to Rappaport about being determined to post for his auditioning for the future at 33 tour. What happens if heading into the bye Brady has 11-12 TD's and only 1 or 2 of them are to Moss...

It's always a risk reward calculation. I doubt Bill will trade him, 'cause a lot can happen between now and September, but you never know. If the others pan out as you would have be hoping they will from a long term prospective, there is really no way they extend him. Brady to Moss was exciting to watch for the lions share of one season. Since then, not so much. Some of that may have been injury related, and some may not have been - as the league caught up and found ways to defend Moss in the absence of sufficient alternative weapons. And even at it's peak it didn't win a ring. Can Moss be happy enough winning if he isn't a huge part of the reason?? Who knows. They say winning cures all, but that isn't always the case. Could get to be an uncomfortable situation for otherwise really good reasons if Moss isn't involved or engaged, let alone in his apparently very important contract season...

Brady never needed Moss to win. He always needed multiple reliable adequate weapons, though. Hasn't had them since 2004. Somewhere between Reche Caldwell and Randy Moss likely lies the truth in what Brady needs, and therefore what this team needs from it's offense to win.

He needs more receivers with the kind of drive his perpetually overachieving BFF is exhibiting. Brady is the kind of QB receivers should be willing to run through a wall for. Welker is that kind of receiver.

 

[Spiral]

Can't we just celebrate Welker's amazing progress in this thread? I don't have any trouble with a trade Randy debate, but this is getting long winded enough that perhaps it should have it's own thread. The return of WW is certainly worthy of it's own thread.

Word. Is this a Boston thing? Is it raining up there today? We get some great news about Welker, and then someone tries to find the cloud around the silver lining by saying that it's time to trade Moss. They don't give the Lombardi trophy to the team that has accumulated the most draft picks.