Free Agent WR Battle: Sidney Rice v. Malcom Floyd

[cstjohn17]

I will certainly assume that you mean Chad Johnson, or Ochocinco...

Chad Jackson is not going to do much to help us

Sigh, yes you are correct. Remember the Chad Jackson era... makes me long for the Bethel Johnson era...

 

[BradyFTW!]

I suppose that's questionable at best, and although I certainly see where you're going, I'm not sure that's 100% the reason why we lost.

I saw poor execution, missed opportunities, a horrible bad-luck event that changed the outcome of the game right before halftime that gave them momentum going into the half (would have been 7-3, not 14-3), and atrociously horrible pass coverage in the middle of the field.

Remember, the game was cut to 14-11, we had all of the momentum after the successful 2 pt conversion, and then...the defense properly allowed Cotchery to go, what? 60 yards or so, right down the middle.

Brady still threw for 300 yds and 2 TD's. I'm not sure that stretching the field would have worked in this scenario due to the lack of needing to move a safety over in help of coverage.

When you have Revis and Cromartie, you can gamble and get away with it by not rolling a safety over, and having direct one-on-one CB coverage. I'm not sure even if Larry Fitzgerald would've changed this game any?

As someone else pointed out, in 2 of the 3 losses to the NYJ (Rex Ryan era), we had Randy Moss--certainly a stretch the field kind of guy. Sadly, our offensive production was 9 pts and 14 pts in those games.

This most recent game was lost due to the inability to stuff the run (wasn't 'horrible,' but it certainly wasn't 'good' either), and bad pass defense (specifically down the middle of the field). Our offense, even with all of the mistakes-dropped balls etc, still put up 21 points. Our defense averaged giving up 19.5 all year long, THEY are the ones who didn't do their job.

I respect your opinion, but I believe the thought of us losing due to not being able to 'stretch the field' is a complete farce, especially when you look at the NYJ cornerback tandem in that game.

Brady's stats in that game are very deceptive, since the Jets were playing from ahead and using the clock against us for the last few drives. Up until then, his stat line didn't look impressive at all.

I'll agree that there were a whole lot of reasons why they lost, definitely wasn't claiming that inability to stretch the field was the only one. Not having to worry about the deep ball, however, is exactly why they were able to be so aggressive in the short/intermediate passing game.

If the Pats had Larry Fitzgerald, the outcome would have been a whole lot different. Hell, if the Pats had Mike Wallace that game is probably a slam-dunk win.

 

[supafly]

Brady's stats in that game are very deceptive, since the Jets were playing from ahead and using the clock against us for the last few drives. Up until then, his stat line didn't look impressive at all.

I'll agree that there were a whole lot of reasons why they lost, definitely wasn't claiming that inability to stretch the field was the only one. Not having to worry about the deep ball, however, is exactly why they were able to be so aggressive in the short/intermediate passing game.

If the Pats had Larry Fitzgerald, the outcome would have been a whole lot different. Hell, if the Pats had Mike Wallace that game is probably a slam-dunk win.

Yes, that is a good point.

I am wondering though, if the great CB play from last yr's NYJ doesn't slightly offset this discussion a little though? They are one of few teams that we have seen that are able to go one-on-one with man coverage and very little safety help, as Revis and Cromartie both really seemed to fit that system well, and it utilized Cromartie's skills nicely.

They did hold Reggie Wayne to 1 catch for 1 yd, and they also shut down your example of Mike Wallace (and Hines Ward, for that matter--3 total catches between the two of them). Pittsburgh won that game because they could play more effective defense and were able to run the ball, and build a lead. I am not sure that their downfield threat of Wallace, or their passing game in general was any different than ours.

I certainly agree that having a top off the defense kind of guy would make the team better, no doubt about that. The problem I have is that the offense did put up 30+ pretty much all year.

Our running game was quite effective against their 7-8 man coverage, as we saw, yet they had to get away from the running game due to the deficits. They got away from the running game a little bit when the score became 14-3, and also when the nail was put in the coffin with the Cotchery RAC down the middle, that killed whatever momentum we had by cutting it to 14-11.

As I said to Deus, this is a debate that could take forever to agree upon. I do agree that having a downfield threat would help, I don't think I agree on exactly what level though.

 

[supafly]

Sigh, yes you are correct. Remember the Chad Jackson era... makes me long for the Bethel Johnson era...

As long as we're not reminiscing about Bethel Johnson after the....Brandon Tate era...I will be fine

 

[Sivy]

I vote for which ever one can rush the passer

 

[serifyn]

If the Patriots are going to be anything like the Patriots of 2010 going forward they will rely alot less on WRs and more on TEs and pass catching RBs, if this is the case, it doesn't make alot of sense for them to spend big money on a free agent receiver, they would be better off developing one instead and spending that money elsewhere.

keep in mind we've got alot of good young players who will need to be resigned at some point coming up in the next couple of years.

 

[supafly]

If the Patriots are going to be anything like the Patriots of 2010 going forward they will rely alot less on WRs and more on TEs and pass catching RBs, if this is the case, it doesn't make alot of sense for them to spend big money on a free agent receiver, they would be better off developing one instead and spending that money elsewhere.

keep in mind we've got alot of good young players who will need to be resigned at some point coming up in the next couple of years.

This is also a lot of what I am thinking too. With the utilization of the TE's more, the beefing up the OL/restocking the RB position, and the go-to guy's in Welker and Branch, I don't know if we'd actually even remotely need anyone to catch more than 35-40 balls a year (which Tate/Price can do). The thought of re-shaping the offense again right after we JUST did that (post-Moss) does not seem like a viable option to me. I can't really see BB going out and grabbing someone do to that reason alone, not to mention the probable waste of money. When you consider the fact that on top of those things, we truly have no idea about Price at the moment, and all agree that Tate can use another year of experience and potential, I really can't even believe that we continue to have this discussion so often.

Now, next yr may be a totally different ball game, as there are a number of variables that could make drafting or grabbing a high priced FA wideout a lot more realistic. Some of them include :

--the contract considerations of re-signing Welker
--the probable moving on from Branch, although this is nowhere near in stone
--the development of Price and Tate
--the draft class of 2012 at WR, and the FA class of 2012 at WR


There's also a number of lessened variables such as the health and gelling of the offensive line, the effectiveness of the running game, and the overall health and injury concerns of all parties involved (OL, QB, WR, TE etc)

I was kind of surprised that so many even see it as a realistic option this year, but that is also usually the point when Belichick sees things differently too. Anything is certainly possible.