Do we need 6 wide receivers?

[mgteich]

I have suggested 2: Aiken and Arrington. Patchick suggested two: Slater and Arrington. I don't think three is unreasonable, but I prefer a 5th position corner instead of a 3rd special teamer.

Also competing for these spots are Murrell, Alexander, and Williams.

We ended last year with four not counting Aiken: Slater, Arrington, Alexander and Lockett.

That's another point. I don't think the team needs 4 guys whose sole role is playing ST. ST important? Sure, but it's not that hard.

 

[Ring 6]

Why not play Edelman at OLB? It makes almost as much sense as taking Aiken's roles on the special teams. Why do you believe that special teams takes such little skill?

Let me be clear. Aiken is competing for his special teams position and could easily be one of the guys being cut. But he will beaten out by Arrington or Slater or Murrell or Lockett.

Let me also agree that Edelman is a lock to make the 53-man roster.

Come on. Which part of 'Granted they arent interchangable, but Edelman plays a lot of special teams and we have the McCourtys and Arringtons and Chungs to play a lot of those roles.' didnt appear on your computer?

How can you take that comment as Edelman replacing Aiken on special teams. Jeez, I even spelled it out and listed the guys who would take Aikens role.
If you have one WR who is the extra WR, active because of special teams, you fill some of your special teams needs. If you have a different one, he still fills special teams needs, replacing the roster spot, and being a contributor on special teams. You made up that we were putting him in Aikens spot even when I listed the other guys who would play Aiken spot.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

If we are going spread and shotgun heavy, I definitely want 6 WR. Last year it was painful to watch guys like Aiken and Stanback in our 4 and 5 wide sets. I know Hernandez is sort of like a pseudo-WR, but I still want a lot of depth at WR. Moss, Welker, Tate, Edelman, Price are the 5 locks. I wouldn't mind keeping Holt as a 6th over Aiken.

I think we have excellent depth at WR this year. I could see us going with 5 pure WR and a special teamer like Aiken due to Hernandez being that flex/stand up TE. It looks MUCH more encouraging than last year.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Holt is a very smart, disciplined WR who has produced for many years.
Unless he has aged so much he can't keep up, which last year would indicate is far from true, I think he is one of our biggest off-season additions. Those traits + Tom Brady = perfect match

If we want a guy to draw the coverage and open up the middle for WWW, I can't think of a better guy.

Neglect Holt and he will make the catch. You know this. Don't double him or devote a good CB to him, and he will be open. Welker can do what he does from the slot with a mediocre threat at WR2. With even a declining Tory Holt at the position, either Holt's production will take a leap forward, or WWW's will continue at its present level. I'd say improve but I just don't know how many catches a goddam slot receiver can have in a season. Who'd have thought in 2006 a slot receiver would become a lock to reel in 100 catches a season or more?

Throw in a bit more TE action (if warranted,) and I don't know how you cover this attack. But that's been the book on the Pats for a while - you may not cover them all, but if you can get to Brady you can win.

Love the wideout situation. Not so keen on losing Mankins.

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Forgot to say, about Holt's discipline/smarts - it's a situation of a receiver that can make a decent QB look brilliant, meeting a QB that can make mediocre receivers look brilliant. Holt will be where he's supposed to be in routes, picture-perfect, and will get on the same page as TFB on when it's time to break out of a route. This is the stuff he's demonstrated his whole career. In addition to being very gifted, Holt's the consumate technician.

It's a situation of Holt getting open despite declining skills, if you let him. If you don't, you're devoting the resources you need to cover the "main" threats, Moss and Welker.

I feel like this is totally stating the obvious, but we'll see how it pans out on the field. TFB + Holt + WWW looks like a very, very good match.

The only storm cloud, to me, is the idea that people will try to beat the Pats by bringing the house on every play... that's how you beat us, and that means attacking Brady. Keeping him upright may be a major challenge, one I hope the O-line is up to.... it's either that or a sheet-ton of bubble screens.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Galloway was a very productive WR with blazing speed, and reportedly hadn't lost a step.
I think its not what he saw in Galloway, that was obvious (an extremely productive WR who's skill had seemed to not deteriorate...and a deep threat to complement Moss) its what he didn't see in him, which was the fact that his production came in much less complex offenses that never asked him to sight adjust, AND he couldn't figure it out even after all those years and all that production.
I think its a reasonable miss to expect that a guy who produced that much for that long had realized what was going on around him. Instead Galloways career was based on 'run x yards and cut in Y direction'.

BB should have learned from his similar mistake, signing FA Donald Hayes another WR completely incapable of learning the system

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Suggesting Edelman could get cut is the most ridiculous thing I've read on this board in a while.

So you missed the "Trade for Gholston" thread?

 

[makoute]

Edelman did a fine job filling in last season. However with what the Pats have at WR thus far into training camp I believe that Edelman may just be one of those casualties that no one expects to happen. Stranger things have happened before.

I think everyone including me is impressed with him but I think that if Welker can really come back and play, with the additions of Tate and Price and Holt, along with solid tight end receivers for a change that Edelman may just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I do not know what his eleigibility is for the practice squad. If they do let him go, Kansas City with Cassell would be the perfect fit.

I doubt it, his special team play alone, will keep him on the roster. The guy is a gamer.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Is our special teams even that good that'd it be worth to cut Holt (Edelman won't be cut), on a position where injuries happen, to keep special teams supahstar Aiken? Someone should get some data, but it seems like the pats have an average ST unit.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

With even a declining Tory Holt at the position, either Holt's production will take a leap forward, or WWW's will continue at its present level. I'd say improve but I just don't know how many catches a goddam slot receiver can have in a season.

I think a 100% Welker gets 80ish catches this season just because we have so many other options now they're sure to take some of his tosses.

Throw in a bit more TE action (if warranted,) and I don't know how you cover this attack. But that's been the book on the Pats for a while - you may not cover them all, but if you can get to Brady you can win.

Love the wideout situation. Not so keen on losing Mankins.

PFnV

So true. If our O-line can manage to some how protect Brady we've got everything in place to have an outstanding offense that could help make up for our not so outstanding defense.

 

[mgteich]

Out top four wide receivers had 263 catches last year, with 206 coming from Moss and Welker. I would fine with 250 spread around more.

Just BTW, the 2007 team didn't spread it around much more than last year. Moss and Welker had 200 that year, with the #3 and #4 having under 40 catches each. We HAD NO NUMBER FIVE.

Last Edelman had as many as Gaffney or Stallworth. The rest (Aiken, Stanback and Galloway) had 20 something, a bit less than Stallworth

So, it is certainly possible to have a passing game without five wide receivers, and without having a top #3.

Of course, most of us would prefer fewer pass completions.

I think a 100% Welker gets 80ish catches this season just because we have so many other options now they're sure to take some of his tosses.



So true. If our O-line can manage to some how protect Brady we've got everything in place to have an outstanding offense that could help make up for our not so outstanding defense.

 

[Sicilian]

Of course, most of us would prefer fewer pass completions.

Actually, I'd prefer the same pass completions in fewer attempts

I have to believe Welker's numbers are going to go down a little bit this year. He's still coming off injury and we have more options for Brady to throw to. I think Moss' should stay about the same because he's really the only guy that can run those deep routes. Tate might get there, but right now no one else is going to take those catches away from Moss.

 

[TruthSeeker]

So who are the receivers when camp breaks ?

1)Moss
2)Welker
3)Tate
4)Holt
5)Edelman
6)Pice

I think we have seen the last of Mr. Slater. I know we will have 4 rookies passing game (I consider Tate a rookie), but they are all very talented. The 4 rookies include the 2 TE's

 

[BradyFTW!]

(I consider Tate a rookie)

... he's not a rookie.

 

[Deus Irae]

Of course, most of us would prefer fewer pass completions.

Why would anyone want fewer pass completions?

 

[TruthSeeker]

... he's not a rookie.

Playing time he is, just like McKenzie. Happily, it looks like both spent their seasons studying their playbooks and getting healthy.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I think he's saying pound the rock with that indestructible force of nature that is Lawrence Maroney. No knock on LoMo, but come on guys. You have Tom Brady, Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Tory Holt, and a youth infusion at wideout, and you want to hand the ball off more? Really?

The team's identity is just so set as pass first that I can buy the balance argument, but the offense is already tuned to be a passing machine. What you need out of the running game is, yes, some balance to the passing attack, but just as importantly efficiency in 3rd down and goalline situations.

I know I know I know. I am still angry they legalized the forward pass too. But look around you.

As to the idea that more completions, fewer attempts is a worthy goal, well, sort of. But the way that usually happens is abandoning the vertical game. Again, Brady. Moss. Holt. Abandon the long ball?

Really?

But, taken in the spirit in which it's given: what we would all prefer is 100% completion percentage and a 70 yard per completion average. Plus a 70 yard-per-carry average in the running game, and zero points or first downs given up by the defense.

That oughtta make us happy (though I bet we'd still have something to kvetch about.)

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Playing time he is...

 

[mgteich]

Because some would like many more running plays. We had 390 completions last year compared with 403 in 2007. Many here (including you as I recall) thought that we relied on the pass too much in 2007 and preferred a bit more balanced attack.

I apologize if I am wrong and that you are one of those who would like to see Brady with over 400 completions. Is the model really 2007?

2001 306
2002 374
2003 320
2004 293
2005 352
2006 326
2007 403
2008 339
2009 390
2010 ???

Why would anyone want fewer pass completions?

 

[Deus Irae]

Because some would like many more running plays. We had 390 completions last year compared with 403 in 2007. Many here (including you as I recall) thought that we relied on the pass too much in 2007 and preferred a bit more balanced attack.

I apologize if I am wrong and that you are one of those who would like to see Brady with over 400 completions. Is the model really 2007?

2001 306
2002 374
2003 320
2004 293
2005 352
2006 326
2007 403
2008 339
2009 390
2010 ???

Well, wouldn't you hope that the model is 2007, given that the team still has 2007-style personnel?