Offense - Our NEEDS Are Few

[JackBauer]

Belichick obviously had problems with his play.

And without knowing more, that's all you can say.

I don't buy the notion that a team as good against the deep pass as the Patriots were gets to that point through "average at best" play from their deep safety.

 

[bucky]

Why do those have to be the only options?

When was the last time a team won the Super Bowl with starting wideouts as poor as Branch/Welker?

You think the Packers' WRs are THAT much better? I'll give you Jennings - who is a very different receiver from Welker. But Branch is better than any other WR on GB. And they had no TE since Finley got hurt.

 

[Deus Irae]

Welker is an above average WR who was not 100% this past year.

Branch is injury-prone, but perfectly capable starter when healthy.

Gronk and Gonzalez are one of the best pass-catching TE tandems in the NFL.

Since the team has been using 2 TE sets almost exclusively, there #3 WR isn't a starter any more like he was in 2007-2009. So the impact from a "good" #3 WR is probably less that it would be from a good nickel back.

There are 3 young WRs on this team (Tate, Price, Edelman) who have not gotten much of a chance to show what they can do (Tate has gotten some chance and produced marginal results.) I think it would be a mistake to just assume that they are not as good as their counterparts at other positions (such as LB and DL) simply because they are stuck behind a better and healthier set of starters.

1.) Welker is a SLOT WR. He's not what you want on the outside. It's not his game.

2.) Gronkowskis and Hernandez are tight ends, not receivers. They don't matter to the conversation of wide receivers.

3.) Tate's had 2 seasons with the team. He's got 24 catches to show for it. It would be stupid to count on him to suddenly jump from WR4 level and below to WR1 level in this one offseason. Hope is fine, but reliance is folly.

4.) Price couldn't even make the active roster in any game that mattered. It would be stupid to count on him to suddenly jump from inactive player level to WR1 level in this one offseason. Hope is fine, but reliance is folly.

5.) Branch is a WR3 at this stage of his career, and a fragile WR3 at that. That's fine if Welker's in the slot and you've got a legitimate WR1. That's not fine when Branch is playing the WR1 role.


The past 2 seasons have been lost in part because the wide receiver corps has been exposed against the better teams come playoff time. The Jets plan to keep Cromartie, meaning they'll likely still have the ability to put the clamps down on the current Patriots wideouts in return matches. The Patriots have to get ahead of the Jets if they're going to win the Super Bowl.

 

[Deus Irae]

You think the Packers' WRs are THAT much better? I'll give you Jennings - who is a very different receiver from Welker. But Branch is better than any other WR on GB. And they had no TE since Finley got hurt.

Jennings
Driver
Jones
Nelson


All are better than any Patriots receiver not named Welker. Branch's play has slipped enough that he was in danger of being cut by the Seahawks. Brady made him look like he could play again. Let him go to another team and try to repeat that.

 

[JackBauer]

You think the Packers' WRs are THAT much better? I'll give you Jennings - who is a very different receiver from Welker. But Branch is better than any other WR on GB. And they had no TE since Finley got hurt.

Up to this year, Driver >> Branch.

Having a WR like Jennings or Wallace is precisely what the Patriots offense needs.

 

[Don Kipines]

Why do those have to be the only options?

When was the last time a team won the Super Bowl with starting wideouts as poor as Branch/Welker?

It's amazing how everyone overreacts after one bad game, especially given the history of this team. They won two Super Bowls with Deion Branch and David Givens at wideout. The talent at receiver right now on the Pats is a lot better than it was on any of the Super Bowl teams. If you factor in the talent at tight end, and add in the pass-catching ability of Woodhead, it's a blowout. They've got plenty of guys to catch passes and it's hard to imagine it won't be a strength next year even if they add nobody in the draft or in free agency, which isn't likely. I personally am excited to see what guys like Price and Edelman will do with more of a shot.

It's just hard to get worked up about the WRs compared to the potential problems on the offensive line and at outside linebacker. You look at the OLBs on the roster, Cunningham and maybe Moore look like the only bonafide NFL players. They probably need two more guys at that spot and two interior linemen just to be competitive. On the other hand, they just scored 500 points with this group of wideouts, and you'd have to think the group will be better next year even in the unlikely event that they add nobody at all -- with Welker a year past his surgery and the three young guys improving or at least not getting worse.

If Tom Brady's healthy and he's not getting sacked, the team is going to be fine on offense. Remember when Reche Caldwell was the #1 wideout and they still just missed the Super Bowl? Where this team needs to get better is on defense. I'm not saying I wouldn't be psyched to get Julio Jones or someone like that, but I feel like we need front seven guys so much more badly, I can't understand worrying about the wide receivers.

 

[JackBauer]

It's amazing how everyone overreacts after one bad game, especially given the history of this team. They won two Super Bowls with Deion Branch and David Givens at wideout. The talent at receiver right now on the Pats is a lot better than it was on any of the Super Bowl teams.

I'd take Deion Branch and David Givens back in a heartbeat over what we have now. Branch and Givens in their primes would be a fine WR tandem. Welker (not an outside receiver) and an old, off-injured Branch is not what you want to see on a Super Bowl-contending team.

Needless to say, I disagree with almost all your analysis with respect to the wide receiver position.

 

[DW Toys]

It's both personnel and scheme. The Patriots are 2-4 in the last 6 contests against a Ryan defense, and there's more to that than just personnel, since the Browns are certainly not the Jets. However, it's clear that the scheme is having the impact it is because of the Patriots problems at WR.

2009 v. Jets, first game: Welker is out, Galloway and Edelman are starting. Result is a loss.

2009 v. Jets, second game: Welker is back and has 15 catches. Result is a win

2010 v. Jets, first game: Welker is trying to come back from the ACL, the TEs are still learning the game, and it's essentially Brady-Hernandez/Moss or bust, because the timing is off with Brady and everyone else. A key here would be that Cromartie has been added to the Jets, and is able to limit Moss in the absence of Revis. Result is a loss.

2010 v. Browns: Browns are able to get up on the Patriots early, to force the rookie TE into a big fumble inside the 5, and to limit Brady by flooding the coverages. Result is a loss.

2010 v. Jets, second game: Patriots get up early, take advantage of horrible miscues by the Jets, and it becomes a quicksand game and a blowout. Brady goes 21 for 29, and the result is a win.

2010 v. Jets, third game: Patriots make 2 huge mistakes early (3 if you count the play call on the screen pass), which allows the Jets to weather the early storm and gain confidence. From that point forward, the Jets were able to use their cornerbacks to shut down the Patriots wideouts and allow the rest of the defense to flood the middle zones. Result is a loss.

When the Patriots can get up on the Ryan defenses early, they can rip them apart, because it forces those defenses to try both adapting the defense and becoming a scoring threat in order to win despite their poor offenses, and they don't have the ability to do it. However, if the Patriots can't get those defenses on their heels early, it allows them to use personnel against a mediocre Patriots wideout corps, and that gives the advantage to teams with 2 corners that can cover.

What made the 2007 team so good was that there was nothing defenses could really do to stop the receivers. If you defended Moss and Welker, Stallworth and Gaffney could find ways to kill you. The Giants won by practically ignoring the receivers and focusing on pressuring a hobbled Brady.

In 2009, it was up to Aiken, and in 2010, it was up to Tate until Moss was traded, when it became even easier to defend the outside players with top corners. Neither Aiken nor Tate were able to step up, and Branch is not the answer as the WR1.

Well thought out and as Felger will never admit you are 100% correct.
DW Toys

 

[bucky]

1.) Welker is a SLOT WR. He's not what you want on the outside. It's not his game.

I agree that Slot is his best position. He's been OK on the outside though. Again, remember he probably was not 100% at any point this year.

2.) Gronkowskis and Hernandez are tight ends, not receivers. They don't matter to the conversation of wide receivers.

Of course it matters. There is only 1 ball to throw on every play. And if you have 2 dependable TEs, you throw it less to the WRs. Also, if you're judging WRs based on their production, you have to consider that Brady looks to Gronk/Hernandez before he ever looks at Tate.

3.) Tate's had 2 seasons with the team. He's got 24 catches to show for it. It would be stupid to count on him to suddenly jump from WR4 level and below to WR1 level in this one offseason. Hope is fine, but reliance is folly.

One of those seasons was completely wasted because of injury. Last year was essentially year 1 for him. I don't think he will ever be a #1 WR. But he can be a decent complimentary guy.

4.) Price couldn't even make the active roster in any game that mattered. It would be stupid to count on him to suddenly jump from inactive player level to WR1 level in this one offseason. Hope is fine, but reliance is folly.

Again, no need for him to become a #1. Making a similar progression to what David Givens did in his second year would be good enough.

5.) Branch is a WR3 at this stage of his career, and a fragile WR3 at that. That's fine if Welker's in the slot and you've got a legitimate WR1. That's not fine when Branch is playing the WR1 role.

Yes, Branch is fragile. But I think he's a legit starter when healthy.

The past 2 seasons have been lost in part because the wide receiver corps has been exposed against the better teams come playoff time. The Jets plan to keep Cromartie, meaning they'll likely still have the ability to put the clamps down on the current Patriots wideouts in return matches. The Patriots have to get ahead of the Jets if they're going to win the Super Bowl.

With regard to your constant claiming that these guys are not #1 WRs, I think that was the whole point of what the Pats were doing. They didn't need a "#1" because they had a large array of weapons and Brady knows how to use them. If you're going to overreact to 1 game, don't forget the week 2 loss to the Jets when Brady kept forcing the ball to Moss (the so-called #1 WR) even though other guys - like Gronk and Tate - were open.

As much as people on this board hate the Jets, you have to give them credit. They're a good team with a very good defense. And Rex Ryan is a very good defensive mind. And the bottom line is that they played better in all 3 phases of the game. I'm not so sure that having Reggie Wayne or Andre Johnson instead of Deion Branch would have made a huge defense given that Revis has done pretty well against all of them. Having said that, of course I would prefer Andre Johnson or Reggie Wayne to Deion Brach. It's just not happening though.

 

[bucky]

Up to this year, Driver >> Branch.

Having a WR like Jennings or Wallace is precisely what the Patriots offense needs.

Driver and Branch were pretty similar in '03-'05. Then Branch went into the Seattle oblivion. Driver was 35 this year. I fully expect next year's Branch to be better than 35 year old Driver.

 

[Don Kipines]

I'd take Deion Branch and David Givens back in a heartbeat over what we have now. Branch and Givens in their primes would be a fine WR tandem. Welker (not an outside receiver) and an old, off-injured Branch is not what you want to see on a Super Bowl-contending team.

Needless to say, I disagree with almost all your analysis with respect to the wide receiver position.

In Branch's best year with the Patriots, 2003, he had 57 catches for 803 yards, a 14.1 average.

This past year, he had 61 catches for 818 yards, and his yards-per-catch with the Pats was 14.7. Statistically he was exactly the same player he was in 2003-2004 -- uncannily so.

Meanwhile, in David Givens's best year, 2004, he had 56 catches for 874 yards and 3, count 'em 3, touchdowns. In the other Super Bowl year he played for us, he had 34 catches for like 500 yards. He had three decent years in his whole career.

Welker just had 86 catches for 848 yards, and he averaged over 100 catches a year and 1000 yards for the last four years, and made multiple Pro Bowls. He's one of the best receivers in the league and the "down" Pro Bowl year he just had was coming off an ACL tear; he figures to be back to full strength next year. He was a starting wide receiver on two of the most prolific offenses in NFL history. How many coaches in the NFL do you think would pick Givens over Wes Welker?

And then, 3-5, you're looking at an end-of-career Troy Brown plus Bethel Johnson and Dedric Ward versus Tate, Edelman and Price, three young guys on the upswings of their careers. You add in Gronkowski and Hernandez versus Graham and Fauria, and at worst, it's a wash.

It just seems to me like the whole of your argument comes down to the fact that Welker is shorter than David Givens. And yeah, I get the distinction that Welker is better as a slot guy, but... they somehow suffered through his shortcomings to score 500 points this past year.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree that Slot is his best position. He's been OK on the outside though. Again, remember he probably was not 100% at any point this year.

He's a slot guy, and the best in the game. Putting him on the outside weakens your team. End of story.

Of course it matters. There is only 1 ball to throw on every play. And if you have 2 dependable TEs, you throw it less to the WRs. Also, if you're judging WRs based on their production, you have to consider that Brady looks to Gronk/Hernandez before he ever looks at Tate.

No, it doesn't matter. If we were discussing tight ends, tight ends would matter and the wide receivers wouldn't. However, here we are discussing the wideouts, and the tight ends don't matter.

When Gronk or Hernandez can lineup on the outside against the top CBs in the league and consistenly beat them deep downfield with 4.3/4.4 speed, get back to me. Until then, the TEs mean nothing in this discussion.

One of those seasons was completely wasted because of injury. Last year was essentially year 1 for him. I don't think he will ever be a #1 WR. But he can be a decent complimentary guy.

Sorry, but I'm not buying the "essentially year 1" excuse. 24 catches as a rookie isn't impressive, nevermind 24 catches as a second year player who had a full season to learn the playbook and the like.

Again, no need for him to become a #1. Making a similar progression to what David Givens did in his second year would be good enough.

Only if they've got someone else to be the WR1.

Yes, Branch is fragile. But I think he's a legit starter when healthy.

On all but a handful of teams, particularly NE and KC, he's battling for a roster spot.

With regard to your constant claiming that these guys are not #1 WRs, I think that was the whole point of what the Pats were doing. They didn't need a "#1" because they had a large array of weapons and Brady knows how to use them.

That's the sort of line that suckers believe when they've got no choice, but it's almost always a load of nonsense. Yes Brady can make lesser WRs look good, and yes he can win a lot of games with lesser talent, but that doesn't mean you don't want WR1 level talent on your team. That should be obvious.

If you're going to overreact to 1 game, don't forget the week 2 loss to the Jets when Brady kept forcing the ball to Moss (the so-called #1 WR) even though other guys - like Gronk and Tate - were open.

I was on the WR problem last year, and I was on the WR problem this year. It's not about one game, and it never has been.

As much as people on this board hate the Jets, you have to give them credit. They're a good team with a very good defense. And Rex Ryan is a very good defensive mind. And the bottom line is that they played better in all 3 phases of the game. I'm not so sure that having Reggie Wayne or Andre Johnson instead of Deion Branch would have made a huge defense given that Revis has done pretty well against all of them. Having said that, of course I would prefer Andre Johnson or Reggie Wayne to Deion Brach. It's just not happening though.

Ok, here your argument not only fails to make sense, it undercuts itself. The Patriots have to play the Jets a minimum of twice per season. It would, therefore, behoove the Patriots to design the team in such a way as to be able to beat the Jets. Keeping a poor enough receiver corps that Revis and Cromartie are able to complete disrupt your outside game while allowing the safeties free rein in the middle of the field is not the way to accomplish such a goal. If you can't see why having a deep/speed receiver changes things, you obviously didn't watch the Patriots/Jets games with and without Moss. Wins or losses, the Jets were forced to respect Moss deep, which opened up the underneath stuff.

 

[Shelterdog]

The Patriots have to play the Jets a minimum of twice per season. It would, therefore, behoove the Patriots to design the team in such a way as to be able to beat the Jets. Keeping a poor enough receiver corps that Revis and Cromartie are able to complete disrupt your outside game while allowing the safeties free rein in the middle of the field is not the way to accomplish such a goal. If you can't see why having a deep/speed receiver changes things, you obviously didn't watch the Patriots/Jets games with and without Moss. Wins or losses, the Jets were forced to respect Moss deep, which opened up the underneath stuff.

1.) Revis can shut down every single receiver in the NFL one on one.
2.) Cromartie is probably gone this year.

 

[Deus Irae]

1.) Revis can shut down every single receiver in the NFL one on one.

That's the theory. The reality is that it's not so true. Moss demonstrated that pretty clearly on the very play that Revis ended up lame due to his hammy. Leaving Revis alone with a top WR is less risky than with any other CB save, perhaps, Asomugha, but it's still not a strategy you want to employ all game long.

2.) Cromartie is probably gone this year.

New York reporters expect Harris and Cromartie to be the highest priorities for the Jets when it comes to re-signing players.

 

[JackBauer]

In Branch's best year with the Patriots, 2003, he had 57 catches for 803 yards, a 14.1 average.

This past year, he had 61 catches for 818 yards, and his yards-per-catch with the Pats was 14.7. Statistically he was exactly the same player he was in 2003-2004 -- uncannily so.

Meanwhile, in David Givens's best year, 2004, he had 56 catches for 874 yards and 3, count 'em 3, touchdowns. In the other Super Bowl year he played for us, he had 34 catches for like 500 yards. He had three decent years in his whole career.

Welker just had 86 catches for 848 yards, and he averaged over 100 catches a year and 1000 yards for the last four years, and made multiple Pro Bowls. He's one of the best receivers in the league and the "down" Pro Bowl year he just had was coming off an ACL tear; he figures to be back to full strength next year. He was a starting wide receiver on two of the most prolific offenses in NFL history. How many coaches in the NFL do you think would pick Givens over Wes Welker?

You might want to check your stats, as what you've written isn't true.

Further, it's a good example of the old adage about lies, damn lies, and statistics. Deion Branch in his prime is a much better player than a 31-year-old with bum knee(s).

I think if you had to choose between Branch in his prime and Givens or Branch in decline and a rehabbing Welker, the choice would be obvious.

It just seems to me like the whole of your argument comes down to the fact that Welker is shorter than David Givens. And yeah, I get the distinction that Welker is better as a slot guy, but... they somehow suffered through his shortcomings to score 500 points this past year.

No, my point, if you'd been reading along, is that the Patriots lack an outside receiver with size, physicality, and the ability to somewhat consistently beat press coverage. Tate and/or Price may develop into "that guy" but I do think the Patriots would be wise to gauge the FA WR market.