Dorsett over/under 1000 yards

[Angelpats]

The whole #1, #2, etc. ranking bullsh it aside, Gordon has been an "elite" WR, production-wise, in the past for at least one season. There's a chance that he might return to something approaching to that level of production again.

However, he's not there yet, and he hasn't really "surpassed" Dorsett, or anyone else, in much of anything yet this season besides snap count.

Maine, I know you don’t really like the rankings but for now Gordon really has surpassed Dorsett on the depth chart.

 

[PatsFan2]

We need a Dwayne Allen over/under 100yds thread.
Currently 1 catch -4 yards. Help a brother out Brady.

 

[chasa]

the hard on folks have for dorsett is so strange. the kid can't even sniff the field now that Gordon is here. he's getting 6 snaps a game.

 

[maineman209]

Maine, I know you don’t really like the rankings but for now Gordon really has surpassed Dorsett on the depth chart.

Rankings, "depth chart" - it's still the same simplistic, media-driven "analysis" that artificially dumps a bunch of players with often vastly different skill sets into one column based on their positional designation.

It's not a matter of "like"; it's a matter of logic - and of ignoring the truly stupid and narrow way that the media wants us to see things. For example, Volin just tweeted promoting the "Gronk versus Graham matchup". AFAIK, Gronk won't be covering Graham or vice versa. So, where's the "matchup"?

For example, who is higher on said "depth chart", Edelman or Gordon? Or Gronk or White, for that matter? It requires some otherworldly pretzel logic to attempt that ranking because each of them has a skill set that is much different from the others, and yet they're all functionally "receivers".

Anyway, trying to use Dorsett to do what (one hopes) Gordon can do isn't optimally using Dorsett's skill set - and vice versa. So, how does one logically rank that? Can a Maserati and a dump truck logically be ranked against each other? They're both motor vehicles that carry passengers, right? Depends on the specific situation and context, right?

I mean, I get that most folks instinctively impose some sort of ranking on nearly everything because that's what we've been conditioned to do from birth (perhaps because it helps people to sell us things). There are simply a lot more situations than we realize in which applying rankings isn't useful for understanding how things actually work.

 

[PatsDeb]

I just changed my vote to "Under." Where for art thou, Philip?

 

[maineman209]

I just changed my vote to "Under." Where for art thou, Philip?

DORSETT: "I lurketh in the tall grass, biding my time as a cat hunteth."

I mean, if you're going all Shakespearean ...

 

[SammyBlueCat]

DORSETT: "I lurketh in the tall grass, biding my time as a cat hunteth."

I mean, if you're going all Shakespearean ...

I katty do around a vast territory.

Mr. Dorsett has basically disappeared...

 

[maineman209]

I katty do around a vast territory.

Mr. Dorsett has basically disappeared...

Tarzan does that to us every so often. Just last night, we couldn't find him in the house anywhere, so we assumed that he must still be outside. We went out on the deck and called to him to no avail. When we came back inside, there he was, sitting glaring at us like we're idiots ("Stupid humans!").

But then, every cat I've ever known has possessed the ability to become invisible whenever they wanted to.

 

[NormZauchin]

We need a Dwayne Allen over/under 100yds thread.
Currently 1 catch -4 yards. Help a brother out Brady.

Given that the season is half over, maybe it should be a Dwayne Allen over/under 10 yards thread.

 

[maineman209]

Given that the season is half over, maybe it should be a Dwayne Allen over/under 10 yards thread.

Allen currently has -4 yards receiving. I think most of the money will be on the under if the mark is 10 yards.

 

[Tony2046]

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Rankings, "depth chart" - it's still the same simplistic, media-driven "analysis" that artificially dumps a bunch of players with often vastly different skill sets into one column based on their positional designation.

It's not a matter of "like"; it's a matter of logic - and of ignoring the truly stupid and narrow way that the media wants us to see things. For example, Volin just tweeted promoting the "Gronk versus Graham matchup". AFAIK, Gronk won't be covering Graham or vice versa. So, where's the "matchup"?

The matchup is they’re playing the same position at the same time. Sprinters can compete against each other for times without even being in the same place. Hank Aaron can compete against Babe Ruth while Ruth was 6 feet under. The concept of competition has a far more diverse meaning that what you are suggesting.

For example, who is higher on said "depth chart", Edelman or Gordon? Or Gronk or White, for that matter? It requires some otherworldly pretzel logic to attempt that ranking because each of them has a skill set that is much different from the others, and yet they're all functionally "receivers".

Just look at who they use most often when one receiver is on the field, two receivers, three, etc.

[lAnyway, trying to use Dorsett to do what (one hopes) Gordon can do isn't optimally using Dorsett's skill set - and vice versa. So, how does one logically rank that? Can a Maserati and a dump truck logically be ranked against each other? They're both motor vehicles that carry passengers, right? Depends on the specific situation and context, right?

They can logically be ranked. You can rank them by speed, or tow capacity, or many other metrics. In the case of receivers measuring by ability to gain yards in NFL games seems like a narrow enough category to measure. I certainly don’t see it as some existential puzzle that’s unsolvable by gods or men.

I mean, I get that most folks instinctively impose some sort of ranking on nearly everything because that's what we've been conditioned to do from birth (perhaps because it helps people to sell us things). There are simply a lot more situations than we realize in which applying rankings isn't useful for understanding how things actually work.

 

[PP2]

View attachment 21648

Well done. Well done.

 

[maineman209]

The matchup is they’re playing the same position at the same time.

Except that they're not. When Gronk is playing, Graham isn't - and vice versa. Neither of them has the opportunity to affect the other one's performance (except perhaps in a Hail Mary situation). The only "matchup" here is the one that the media has invented to provide themselves with an opportunity to render their judgment about which player is the "better" TE based on their statistical performance as receivers in that game.

Sprinters can compete against each other for times without even being in the same place. Hank Aaron can compete against Babe Ruth while Ruth was 6 feet under. The concept of competition has a far more diverse meaning that what you are suggesting.

The problem is with the media enforcing only an extremely narrow concept of competition.

Hypothetically, if Graham catches 6 of 7 for 90 yds and a TD, but Gronk catches only 4 of 6 for 48 yds, the media will authoritatively declare Graham the "winner of the matchup". It won't matter one bit to them, or to the idiots that lap that ish up, that Gronk's (non-quantifiable) blocking was crucial to Barner having a career day of 17 rushes for 84 yds and the game-winning score.

Just look at who they use most often when one receiver is on the field, two receivers, three, etc.

Which often varies from game-to-game, quarter-to-quarter, and series to series - depending on the specific game situation and which skillset McD feels gives the offense the best chance to succeed against that particular defense in that moment.

They can logically be ranked. You can rank them by speed, or tow capacity, or many other metrics. In the case of receivers measuring by ability to gain yards in NFL games seems like a narrow enough category to measure.

If I want to get somewhere really, really fast (like a restaurant, or third base), I'll use the Maserati. If I need to haul nine yards of 3/4" washed granite chips, I'll use the dump truck. There are periods of time when I'll use the dump truck almost constantly, and the Maserati hardly at all. That doesn't mean that I think that the dump truck is an inherently "better" vehicle.

I certainly don’t see it as some existential puzzle that’s unsolvable by gods or men.

There's no "existential puzzle" here, just a practical one. Sure, you can "rank" the vehicles (or receivers) based exclusively on measureables taken out of context, but that doesn't address the far more important real-world value question of situational usefulness.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Given that the season is half over, maybe it should be a Dwayne Allen over/under 10 yards thread.

I'm taking your post as being dead serious and others should as well.

 

[patsbrasilpatriotas]

We need a Dwayne Allen over/under 100yds thread.
Currently 1 catch -4 yards. Help a brother out Brady.

So he is basically an overpriced OL. I hope they cut him next year. I know how good a blocker he is, but you can use a Fleming type of player there and it will cost 1/5 of Allen and have 80% of the production. They really need to let Hollister go too and draft 1 or 2 TE. Gronk is not gonna last 3/4 more years.

 

[PatsFan2]

So he is basically an overpriced OL. I hope they cut him next year. I know how good a blocker he is, but you can use a Fleming type of player there and it will cost 1/5 of Allen and have 80% of the production. They really need to let Hollister go too and draft 1 or 2 TE. Gronk is not gonna last 3/4 more years.

Yeah I hope BB is Stock pilling those Draft picks for those very reasons. We need some serious infusion of Youth at TE - WR and LB among others. We need to hit on at least Three future Starters next Draft...we are long overdue.

 

[maineman209]

So he is basically an overpriced OL. I hope they cut him next year. I know how good a blocker he is, but you can use a Fleming type of player there and it will cost 1/5 of Allen and have 80% of the production. They really need to let Hollister go too and draft 1 or 2 TE. Gronk is not gonna last 3/4 more years.

Allen is an "overpriced OL" compared to a guy like Fleming only if you think he's exclusively used on running plays. The Pats run a lot of play-action with Allen in the set. And, on those plays, Allen quite often runs a legitimate route (not just drifting out into the flat). That's not something that a Fleming type player is likely to be able to do. It doesn't matter a whole lot whether or not Allen is targeted on his route, the defense still needs to devote a resource to cover him.

I'm not saying that Allen is worth his $7.4M cap hit to the Pats in 2019, just that they're not going to get "80% of Allen" out of any OL at any price.

Just last season, Belichick himself stated that TE is certainly the most difficult position the learn in the Pats offense, aside from QB. The reason he gave was that a TE needs to learn the OL blocking calls and reads the same as an OL would, PLUS learn the routes, reads and options pretty much the same as any WR would. They're basically tasked with attempting to master two completely different positions at the same time.

It's certainly bad that Hollister has been unavailable the season due to injury (out 5 of 8 games, so far), especially after he was healthy throughout last season (his rookie year). However, he's still one full season into that steep learning curve and, according to reports out of Camp (even from the more trustworthy media guys), he appeared to have made something like the legendary "second-year" leap at both the blocking job and receiving job (and he had already developed into a valued special-teamer last season). So, arbitrarily dumping him to bring in another rookie TE or two in 2019 might mean that the Pats wouldn't have another young, productive TE until 2020.

It's highly unlikely that the NFL will see another TE of Gronk's caliber and "completeness" for many years, especially considering that, nowadays, college TEs who are good receivers are rarely even taught how to block. They're pretty much all starting from scratch, including Hollister. Anyway, expecting the Pats to be able to "replace" Gronk in the next draft or two or three is like expecting to hit the Powerball jackpot.

What's likely to happen instead (IMHO), is that the Pats will reconfigure the offense around a lesser talent or two who they've developed into "complete" TEs, but who won't ever be in the same kind of "starring role". When Gronk is gone, his starring role in the offense will simply cease to exist. And, given the likely developmental lead-time, the moment for the Pats to start acquiring and developing those guys was during the 2017 draft (with Hollister) and the 2018 draft (possibly Izzo), not next year.