Britt released

[mgteich]

OK, I'll play. I would note that we could be planning to have fewer WR receptions, and more by TE's and RB's, and perhaps more running plays. But let us presume that we want to replace the number of WR receptions that we had in 2017.

65 Cooks
61 Amendola
34 Hogan
12 Dorsett
2 Britt

Personally, I believe that Edelman, Hogan, Dorsett and Patterson are likely to reach these totals. And yes, we should have an additional WR, at least for the first 4 games. Alternatively, we might depend more on RB's and TE's to pick up the slack.

Could we use another solid WR? Of course we could. I wouldn't expect such an addition to be of much use for a few weeks (except for punt returns), so any "replacement" for Edelman the first 4 weeks will come from our current roster.

 

[LaterGator]

So, you're expecting Edelman - 32 years old and coming off an ACL - to average 94 yards from scrimmage/game and score 7 TDs during the 12 games he's active?

That seems a tad optimistic, especially looking at Edelman's best previous seasons.

I don't think he has to match yard for yard as long as he's very effective in moving the offense as he's shown in the past.

I do think he's more reliable, more clutch and more consistent than Cook.

 

[Sicilian]

OK, I'll play. I would note that we could be planning to have fewer WR receptions, and more by TE's and RB's, and perhaps more running plays. But let us presume that we want to replace the number of WR receptions that we had in 2017.

65 Cooks
61 Amendola
34 Hogan
12 Dorsett
2 Britt

Personally, I believe that Edelman, Hogan, Dorsett and Patterson are likely to reach these totals. And yes, we should have an additional WR, at least for the first 4 games. Alternatively, we might depend more on RB's and TE's to pick up the slack.

Could we use another solid WR? Of course we could. I wouldn't expect such an addition to be of much use for a few weeks (except for punt returns), so any "replacement" for Edelman the first 4 weeks will come from our current roster.

It's funny looking at those numbers because they almost seem unbelievably small. Then you realize that we've been spoiled rotten with so many consecutive years where at least one receiver has 100+ catches.

 

[LaterGator]

They will likely not use Patterson strictly as a WR. He's great at screens, end around runs, and he can be used as a decoy. I would call those gadget plays.

 

[maineman209]

OK, I'll play. I would note that we could be planning to have fewer WR receptions, and more by TE's and RB's, and perhaps more running plays. But let us presume that we want to replace the number of WR receptions that we had in 2017.

65 Cooks
61 Amendola
34 Hogan
12 Dorsett
2 Britt

Personally, I believe that Edelman, Hogan, Dorsett and Patterson are likely to reach these totals. And yes, we should have an additional WR, at least for the first 4 games. Alternatively, we might depend more on RB's and TE's to pick up the slack.

Could we use another solid WR? Of course we could. I wouldn't expect such an addition to be of much use for a few weeks (except for punt returns), so any "replacement" for Edelman the first 4 weeks will come from our current roster.

Agree 100%.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but ...

Those 5 WRs accounted for 45% of all catches.
The four most targeted pass catchers accounted for 65% of all catches. Only two of those four were WRs.

The two WRs in that group accounted for:
... 8.2 catches per game ... 111 receiving yards per game ... 9 TDs

The two non-WRs combined for:
... 8.9 catches per game, 108 receiving yards per game ... 11 TDs

So really, the only question for the first four games is whether or not some combination of Hogan, Dorsett and Patterson can manage to cover 8.2 receptions and 111 yards per game and maybe throw in a couple-three TDs over that span.

 

[Ring 6]

OK, I'll play. I would note that we could be planning to have fewer WR receptions, and more by TE's and RB's, and perhaps more running plays. But let us presume that we want to replace the number of WR receptions that we had in 2017.

65 Cooks
61 Amendola
34 Hogan
12 Dorsett
2 Britt

Personally, I believe that Edelman, Hogan, Dorsett and Patterson are likely to reach these totals. And yes, we should have an additional WR, at least for the first 4 games. Alternatively, we might depend more on RB's and TE's to pick up the slack.

Could we use another solid WR? Of course we could. I wouldn't expect such an addition to be of much use for a few weeks (except for punt returns), so any "replacement" for Edelman the first 4 weeks will come from our current roster.

Hogan should be in the 60 range as should Edelman.
Patterson/ Dorsett (or decker) catch 34/12 seems reasonable.
The difference is we lose cooks explosiveness and replace it with Edelman’s reliability and toughness.

 

[maineman209]

It's funny looking at those numbers because they almost seem unbelievably small. Then you realize that we've been spoiled rotten with so many consecutive years where at least one receiver has 100+ catches.

Just for reference ...

2017: Gronk, 69 (Cooks, 65 .. Dola, 61 .. White, 56)
2016: Edelman, 98 (White, 60)
2015: Gronk, 72 (Dola, 65 .. Edelman, 61)
2014: Edelman, 92 (Gronk, 82)
2013: Edelman, 105 (Dola, 54)
2012: Welker, 118 (Lloyd, 74)
2011: Welker, 122 (Gronk, 90)
2010: Welker, 86 (Branch, 48)
2009: Welker, 123 (Moss, 83)
2008: Welker, 111 (Moss, 69)
2007: Welker, 112 (Moss, 98)

I don't think anyone got close to 100 prior to 2007.

 

[LaterGator]

Hogan should be in the 60 range as should Edelman.
Patterson/ Dorsett (or decker) catch 34/12 seems reasonable.
The difference is we lose cooks explosiveness and replace it with Edelman’s reliability and toughness.

I agree on the top two Hogan was on pace for 70 last year. Edelman should be as well. The issue right now is we don't know about the others, although Brady had made it work before.

You do a very good job of capturing what Edelman does to replace Cooks.

ETA Troy Brown had more than 100 catches in the early 2000s.

 

[maineman209]

They will likely not use Patterson strictly as a WR. He's great at screens, end around runs, and he can be used as a decoy. I would call those gadget plays.

I never said that Patterson would be used "strictly as a WR". In the past, Edelman has run most of the screens, jet sweeps, direct snaps, end-arounds, etc. Sometimes Hogan. Welker ran those.

I guess I'm not understanding how running "gadget plays" makes a player something "less" than a WR. Historically, the Pats have run only 1 or 2 of such "gadget plays" per game with a WR. So, If Patterson is going to be used mostly for such gadget plays, meaning very little as "a WR", wouldn't it be kind of a "tell" when Patterson enters the game?

 

[Froob]

I never said that Patterson would be used "strictly as a WR". In the past, Edelman has run most of the screens, jet sweeps, direct snaps, end-arounds, etc. Sometimes Hogan. Welker ran those.

I guess I'm not understanding how running "gadget plays" makes a player something "less" than a WR. Historically, the Pats have run only 1 or 2 of such "gadget plays" per game with a WR. So, If Patterson is going to be used mostly for such gadget plays, meaning very little as "a WR", wouldn't it be kind of a "tell" when Patterson enters the game?

Can he learn the offense to the point where he can be out there consistently? Can he be out there for two minute drill? Just find it hard to believe he's struggled running routes and will pull it off here in a really complex offense. Think he'll be a fun player for us though.

 

[signbabybrady]

Just for reference ...

2017: Gronk, 69 (Cooks, 65 .. Dola, 61 .. White, 56)
2016: Edelman, 98 (White, 60)
2015: Gronk, 72 (Dola, 65 .. Edelman, 61)
2014: Edelman, 92 (Gronk, 82)
2013: Edelman, 105 (Dola, 54)
2012: Welker, 118 (Lloyd, 74)
2011: Welker, 122 (Gronk, 90)
2010: Welker, 86 (Branch, 48)
2009: Welker, 123 (Moss, 83)
2008: Welker, 111 (Moss, 69)
2007: Welker, 112 (Moss, 98)

I don't think anyone got close to 100 prior to 2007.

Hey what about me?

 

[Kontradiction]

Can he learn the offense to the point where he can be out there consistently? Can he be out there for two minute drill? Just find it hard to believe he's struggled running routes and will pull it off here in a really complex offense. Think he'll be a fun player for us though.

He’ll probably be limited to screens, hitches, and maybe the occasional fly route. I don’t think Brady is going to trust his route running enough on slants, crossing routes, and out routes (which is more than likely the reason Brady is already reportedly “ignoring” him in practice). He’s always been limited so it won’t take opposing defenses long to know what’s coming with him on the field.

 

[RedSleevesPinkStripes]

Hey what about me?

101 in '01, 97 in '02

Troy Brown Stats | Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[LaterGator]

I never said that Patterson would be used "strictly as a WR". In the past, Edelman has run most of the screens, jet sweeps, direct snaps, end-arounds, etc. Sometimes Hogan. Welker ran those.

I guess I'm not understanding how running "gadget plays" makes a player something "less" than a WR. Historically, the Pats have run only 1 or 2 of such "gadget plays" per game with a WR. So, If Patterson is going to be used mostly for such gadget plays, meaning very little as "a WR", wouldn't it be kind of a "tell" when Patterson enters the game?

I mean the play is designed for him. He certainly would be lined up as WR, run routes and might have some ball thrown at him down field on other plays. But he's never been known as a down field receiver even though he has tremendous speed. He has been successful at screens before, and they did run a perfect screen for him Thursday. They wouldn't as you say tell the defense hey Patterson's in, so it's a jet sweep or a screen.

Also did one to White, which is great because they had issues running screens last year.

 

[maineman209]

I agree on the top two Hogan was on pace for 70 last year. Edelman should be as well. The issue right now is we don't know about the others, although Brady had made it work before.

You do a very good job of capturing what Edelman does to replace Cooks.

ETA Troy Brown had more than 100 catches in the early 2000s.

Brown:
101/1199 yds in 2001
97/890 yds in 2002

What Edelman DOES to replace Cooks? WILL DO in 2018 to replace Cooks' 16-game production from 2017?

All I've "captured" are the numbers Edelman put up in (mostly) 16-game seasons when he was younger and NOT coming off an ACL injury. His highest average scrimmage output was 76 yds/game back in 2014 when he as 28 years old (and relatively healthy). Over the 2013 thru 2016 period he averaged 5 TDs/year.

And yet, at age 32 and coming off an ACL, he's going to replace Cooks' 2017, 16-game production in just 12 games - producing 94 yards from scrimmage per game and scoring 9 TDs? You're pretty much expecting a miracle.

 

[maineman209]

Can he learn the offense to the point where he can be out there consistently? Can he be out there for two minute drill? Just find it hard to believe he's struggled running routes and will pull it off here in a really complex offense. Think he'll be a fun player for us though.

Kinda depends on what you mean by "out there consistently". Are you talking about average offensive snaps per game? Patterson has a reputation as a very good blocker, so he may see the field quite a bit, probably more than he's targeted. Dorsett got a lot of snaps last season because he's also a good blocker (not just because Hogan was injured).

Anyway, Patterson probably doesn't need to be a complete receiver or to consistently run all the possible routes well to be on the field a fair amount. Cooks certainly didn't run anything close to the full route portfolio in 2017.

 

[LaterGator]

Brown:
101/1199 yds in 2001
97/890 yds in 2002

What Edelman DOES to replace Cooks? WILL DO in 2018 to replace Cooks' 16-game production from 2017?

All I've "captured" are the numbers Edelman put up in (mostly) 16-game seasons when he was younger and NOT coming off an ACL injury. His highest average scrimmage output was 76 yds/game back in 2014 when he as 28 years old (and relatively healthy). Over the 2013 thru 2016 period he averaged 5 TDs/year.

And yet, at age 32 and coming off an ACL, he's going to replace Cooks' 2017, 16-game production in just 12 games - producing 94 yards from scrimmage per game and scoring 9 TDs? You're pretty much expecting a miracle.

Andy Johnson did a great job of capturing what Edelman does to replace Edelman. Which is the comment I wad replying to. I've already covered what I meant.

So please keep nitpicking .

I don't think he has to match yard for yard as long as he's very effective in moving the offense as he's shown in the past.

I do think he's more reliable, more clutch and more consistent than Cook.

Hogan should be in the 60 range as should Edelman.
Patterson/ Dorsett (or decker) catch 34/12 seems reasonable.
The difference is we lose cooks explosiveness and replace it with Edelman’s reliability and toughness.

 

[maineman209]

I mean the play is designed for him.

So, something like the way a lot of plays were "designed" for Cooks last season?

He certainly would be lined up as WR, run routes and might have some ball thrown at him down field on other plays.

Umm ... isn't this kind of what I've been getting at?

 

[maineman209]

I don't think he has to match yard for yard as long as he's very effective in moving the offense as he's shown in the past.

My apologies. I missed this comment during the course of shuffling between pages.

"Effective moving the offense" (e.g., 1st downs) is significantly different from "replacing Cooks' production". I could see Edelman getting close to 42 1st-downs in 12 games.

 

[LaterGator]

Can he learn the offense to the point where he can be out there consistently? Can he be out there for two minute drill? Just find it hard to believe he's struggled running routes and will pull it off here in a really complex offense. Think he'll be a fun player for us though.

So, something like the way a lot of plays were "designed" for Cooks last season?



Umm ... isn't this kind of what I've been getting at?

In the above comment, yup. That's it.