Chad calls out afc east db's

[skri65]

Run route, catch ball would be fine.

He's not going to have Randy Moss numbers, and he's not going to blow the top of defenses with any consistency. That's just not who he is anymore.

But I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at his route running ability. He's going to give you those intermediate routes with precision and he's going to give you those 3rd down catches when everyone is focused on Welker. And, every once in a while, he'll give you that long bomb. I expect him to give us around 1000 yards in his first year.

This is his dream...he's always wanted to be in an organization like the Patriots. He's going to give us all he's got.

 

[NEPatriot]

Let the circus begin. The more I think about the move, the more I don't like it. While never a burner, he has lost some speed. A three year contract for a 33 year old receiver? Why not spend some of the money on an OLB? I have a hard time seeing Chad adopting "the Patriot Way". Just my opinion.

 

[Observer]

I have no problem with someone genuinely enjoying playing the game and not afraid to demonstrate it. The "do my job" routine is nice and all but it doesn't hurt to to show that you enjoy the job you are doing.

 

[skri65]

I don't understand everyones obsession with deep threats. When have we ever won a Super Bowl with a deep threat?

 

[Observer]

When has anyone won 18 games without one?

 

[RayClay]

He's not going to have Randy Moss numbers, and he's not going to blow the top of defenses with any consistency. That's just not who he is anymore.

But I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at his route running ability. He's going to give you those intermediate routes with precision and he's going to give you those 3rd down catches when everyone is focused on Welker. And, every once in a while, he'll give you that long bomb. I expect him to give us around 1000 yards in his first year.

This is his dream...he's always wanted to be in an organization like the Patriots. He's going to give us all he's got.

The Jets exploited our lack of a breakaway receiver last year by single covering our wideouts succesfully. If he can make a team pay for that, I'm all for it.

I became a big fan of Moss's incredible athletic ability, but think that, ultimately, he distorted our defense making us one dimensional and more defensible as the season and playoffs went on.

I like our offense last year, and in Super Bowl years, because we had multiple receivers, but our lack of big play runners/receivers was exploited by a very good defensive coach in Ryan. If Johnson can be a young deion Branch type as far as big play ability and versatility, I'm fine with it, it's what we need.

As long as he's a team player, he can bungee jump from the John Han**** building on his days off, I don't care. What people consider entertaining is subjective anyway.

 

[RayClay]

The Jets exploited our lack of a breakaway receiver last year by single covering our wideouts succesfully. If he can make a team pay for that, I'm all for it.

I became a big fan of Moss's incredible athletic ability, but think that, ultimately, he distorted our defense making us one dimensional and more defensible as the season and playoffs went on.

I like our offense last year, and in Super Bowl years, because we had multiple receivers, but our lack of big play runners/receivers was exploited by a very good defensive coach in Ryan. If Johnson can be a young deion Branch type as far as big play ability and versatility, I'm fine with it, it's what we need.

As long as he's a team player, he can bungee jump from the John Han**** building on his days off, I don't care. What people consider entertaining is subjective anyway.

****, I said ****. I'm cutting edge.

 

[strngplyr]

When has anyone won 18 games without one?

After Seattle made it to the playoffs last year at 7-9 you only need 11 games to win the Superbowl. Who says you need to be 15-1 to make the playoffs?

 

[jah]

When has anyone won 18 games without one?

>18 wins
>Super Bowl

Pick one (and choose wisely) :bricks:

 

[skri65]

When has anyone won 18 games without one?

I don't get your point. Obviously having a deep threat helps teams, I don't think that's in debate. What I'm claiming is simply that is in no way shape or form is it necessary to have a deep threat to win a Super Bowl. In fact, the only superbowls we have won have been in years in which we didn't have a deep threat. My point, then, like I said before, is that having a deep threat is overrated. Getting separation, which is something Chad Ochocinco can still do, can be done through good rout running and an understanding of the game. Receivers who can run routes are the receivers the Patriots had when they won superbowls...not burners.

Also, people seem to think Chad can't get deep. He's no wes welker. He'll stretch defenses, he just won't go over the top like Moss did. In my mind he's very similar to Branch, just a bit bigger and slightly more dangerous.

 

[Observer]

I don't get your point. Obviously having a deep threat helps teams, I don't think that's in debate. What I'm claiming is simply that is in no way shape or form is it necessary to have a deep threat to win a Super Bowl. In fact, the only superbowls we have won have been in years in which we didn't have a deep threat. My point, then, like I said before, is that having a deep threat is overrated. Getting separation, which is something Chad Ochocinco can still do, can be done through good rout running and an understanding of the game. Receivers who can run routes are the receivers the Patriots had when they won superbowls...not burners.

Also, people seem to think Chad can't get deep. He's no wes welker. He'll stretch defenses, he just won't go over the top like Moss did. In my mind he's very similar to Branch, just a bit bigger and slightly more dangerous.

I like the Ochocinco move, don't get me wrong and among all the WRs that we have got, he is the best deep threat so we have improved in that department so I am very happy with the move.

I just have a problem with the statement that we won superbowls without a deep threat therefore we shouldn't add one. I agree with you that there is no necessity of having a deep threat for winning the superbowl. For that matter, there is no necessity of having a superstar quarterback, running back, lineman, whatever. The team that can win the game is the one that wins the superbowl. The point is that the team should be improved in the area of its greatest weakness so as to minimize fluky losses as far as possible.

A deep threat wide receiver is a glaring weakness on our team. That is why I brought up the 18 win example. Some team wins the superbowl every year; no team in history has won 18 games. What gave us that edge in 2007 which made us better than any team in history? A deep threat WR. Granted, no ordinary deep threat WR but a deep threat regardless.

That was a solid team which was done in by a fluky result. The giants won that year; does that mean a team should be built like the giants of that year? Packers won last year with a pass heavy offense. So should a team be built like the Packers then? What won the superbowl any given year should not be the metric of what improves a team - only the weakness of the team itself shows what improves a team.

 

[TPL]

I can't wait for him to start dissing Rex Ryan!!!

That didn't work out so well for the last Pat's receiver that poked fun at Rex.

Will be interesting to see how BB handles this character.
Great talent. Hope it works out.

 

[Triumph]

This is looking to be a wicked fun season.

Considering how rough the past few months have been for me and my family, this is a very nice little gift to offset real life. :rocker:

Another SB win would be a nice belated Christmas present.

 

[BradyFTW!]

By the way, I guess none of you have kids, or you're fine with your five year old's sports hero talking like that on youtube, eh?

It's not Ochocinco's job to parent your kid.

 

[tobias funke]

By the way, I guess none of you have kids, or you're fine with your five year old's sports hero talking like that on youtube, eh?

I have kids, and you're a ******* bore.

 

[SanAngeloState]

I don't get his rant. He wants his competitors to come help him train? WHy would they do that? What's in it for them? Maybe they don't feel like that would be a good use of their time. Maybe they don't want to get injured, whatever. It's all about him. If they don't want to help him, they're Mfers....what a narcissist!

His act will get really old when he starts whining about not getting the ball, etc. Hope they cut the jerk.

 

[ay-yo]

The Jets exploited our lack of a breakaway receiver last year by single covering our wideouts succesfully. If he can make a team pay for that, I'm all for it.

Idk if you meant to make this point or not but here's what your quote brought me to think.

We don't need a deep threat to exploit the what the Jets did (single cover our wr's). We simply need somebody who can beat one on one match-ups. Welker can normally do that but Revis is a great talent capable of shutting down anybody when he's on his game. Now we have an additional wr who should crush one on one match-ups. (This guy has been seeing double teams his whole career.) Factoring in improvement from Hernandez and Gronz and (hopefully) a better running game our overall offense should be much better this year. That's a scary thought for defenses.

 

[ay-yo]

I just have a problem with the statement that we won superbowls without a deep threat therefore we shouldn't add one. I agree with you that there is no necessity of having a deep threat for winning the superbowl. For that matter, there is no necessity of having a superstar quarterback, running back, lineman, whatever. The team that can win the game is the one that wins the superbowl. The point is that the team should be improved in the area of its greatest weakness so as to minimize fluky losses as far as possible.

I agree with your theme. What won a SINGLE Superbowl shouldn't be the basis for building a team.

A deep threat wide receiver is a glaring weakness on our team. That is why I brought up the 18 win example. Some team wins the superbowl every year; no team in history has won 18 games. What gave us that edge in 2007 which made us better than any team in history? A deep threat WR. Granted, no ordinary deep threat WR but a deep threat regardless.

Here's where I deviate. Perhaps it's just the terminology "deep threat" but Moss was so much more than that. He had 98 catches and ran routes short routes, intermediate routes and deep routes. I believe having a guy who can only run routes to one depth will be easy to defend regardless of what depth it is.

This is what excites me about Chad. I believe he can run all types of routes.

That was a solid team which was done in by a fluky result. The giants won that year; does that mean a team should be built like the giants of that year? Packers won last year with a pass heavy offense. So should a team be built like the Packers then? What won the superbowl any given year should not be the metric of what improves a team - only the weakness of the team itself shows what improves a team.

Kinda OT but one theme you constantly see with Super Bowl teams is strong line play. Lets hope Vince, Ty and Al are up to the task. I have to say I like our chances. :rocker:

 

[RayClay]

I have kids, and you're a ******* bore.

Hey, they're your kids man, not mine.

 

[RayClay]

We simply need somebody who can beat one on one match-ups.

Exactly. Welker is a very short zone slot receiver, though, which plays into the type of coverage Ryan used.