NFL News OT: Scheffler to Lions, Ernie Sims to Eagles

[Blizzzard]

So Moss and Welker are not considered starters anymore?

you can argue about his injury until you are blue in the face but he is still on this roster and I would have been shocked to see them replace his reps with the idea we have no idea how long he will be hurt. Bringing in a rookie sure but bringing in say a Boldin and pushing Welker down the depth would have been hard for this team to pull off.

Welker plays the slot.. not opposite Moss.

He would still be a starter if we signed another notable WR.

I don't see your point... do you see Welker as a stretch the field, deep threat?

 

[Blizzzard]

I don't think it is fair to say that WR3 spot produced 82 catches as some of those catches would have come from the WR4 spot which was occupied by Gaffney and Stallworth....but even still we are talking about WR3 and not one of the 2 starters.

Simple question who were usually the WR on the field the past few season when there were only 2 WR lined up?

Yes we did. That does not mean he wouldn't be a starter.

So along those lines of reasoning, Wilfork isn't a starter because he sat out a few plays? or anyone for that matter. Is TFB not a starter because he doesn't hold the ball during FG attempts?

Give me a break.

 

[Blizzzard]

Bottom line is that WR3 with talent like Gafney, Stallworth, and what we hoped to get out of Galloway in no way matches the biatching done for a stud WR like Boldin or the like.

Would you put Gaffney, Stallworth, and what we hoped to get out of Galloway more on par talentwise with Anquan Boldin or Julian Edelman? Keep in mind I am not talking about who fits Split end better just production/talent.


OK fine I will give you that WR3 might be snapwise closer to a starter the last few years. But we are kinda arguing semantics anyway as I was using WR as an example of how people over hype the holes so if you say 3 WR are staters than there is less of a need for TE2 which has a lot of people up in arms too.

All of the "biatching" rolleyes was done because people wanted to proactively cover the pats @sses for the days when Moss is finished here, via free agency, father time or him just no longer giving a "fawk" (like that one? keep it, it's yours).

 

[patsfan-1982]

You do realize that Paris Lenon has 121 tackles in 2008 and 118 tackles in 2007 for the Lions. He didn't even make the final 53 man roster for the Patriots last year. Amassing tackles for the Lions apparently isn't much of an accomplishment since their offense keeps their defense on the field all game and the their defense cannot stop any drives.

true but for a 5th they add good dept. im not sure ther. will be any better ILB in the 5th round of the draft.

 

[eagle eye]

Thats a really bad trade by the Lions imo unless Scheffler is signing a longer contract with them. He signed a tender a couple of days ago and is an UFA next season. Although after reading up and seeing that he has been a Lion's fan since he was a kid is positive I suppose.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Scheffler can't block and he's a cry-baby. There's no way Belichick would have wanted guy on the team this year.

Why didn't your boys at Jets' headquarters step up and get a deal done?

I'll admit I was intrigued by Scheffler as a 3rd WR more than a TE, but I've since heard a rumor that a former Offensive Coordinator of the Patriots doesn't think too highly of him.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'll admit I was intrigued by Scheffler as a 3rd WR more than a TE, but I've since heard a rumor that a former Offensive Coordinator of the Patriots doesn't think too highly of him.

Let this put put to rest any doubts you might still have had:

According to Broncos sources, the problems with Marshall and Scheffler came after team leaders including Brian Dawkins, Champ Bailey, Kyle Orton, D.J. Williams and Daniel Graham all met with McDaniels on Monday and encouraged him to take a hardline approach in preparing the team to finish the season against the Chiefs.

"We had the guys that wanted to play in the huddle,'' Orton told the Denver Post. "I appreciate coach for his decision. We're trying to win games and we're trying to build something special. And sometimes you have to make tough decisions. And I stand behind him and I know the other guys do as well.''

Sources: Brandon Marshall benched for being late to physical therapy session - ESPN

 

[signbabybrady]

You were claiming there's not a hole at starting wide receiver. That's not the case, and it's not just a semantics argument. Furthermore, your argument about Boldin, which boils down to saying that the team shouldn't go after high talent receivers because they've got Moss and Welker, makes no sense. Again, Stallworth/Gaffney totaled 80+ receptions. Why wouldn't you look for a quality player at that position?

I have no problem thinking of the futute and upgrading the position but just because one guy is hurt and the other is in the last year of his contract does not mean there is a huge hole.

What I initially was claiming is that the holes are being way overinflated by the naysayers on this board regardless of where people are precieving them and then I used WR as an example.

And you keep talking about the Stallworth/Gaffney combo like they were only playing on position the two of them split time as WR3 and WR4 that season.

I can easily see Edelman giving us 40+ catches this year and I don't think it is to crazy to think that Tate or Patten or a Rookie could get close enough to 40 to effectively replace the 80 catches between Gaffney and Stallworth from 07. I will admit that the end number might be more like 65 -70 for Edelman and WRX but we are not talking about a ton of missed production there not enough to warrant the moaning that I have been hearing.

As for TE2, the team carries 2-3 tight ends on the roster historically, uses multiple formations, (look at those numbers again and you'll find that Baker took 77 of 158 snaps, which is just about half the snaps) and is currently carrying only the bloated carcass of Alge Crumpler for all of its tight end needs. Naturally that position is going to be looked at by the fans, as a result.

Thru the years they have employed the TE position in various ways. Chosing a two TE formation as a big part the game when they had Graham and Watson, They have employed OL at TE, and lately they have been relying on them in the passing game less and less. I am not saying there isn't some help needed but what I am saying is that we have one guy who can be the starter and will help improve our running game and since we haven't used the TE in the passing game as much I am perfectly ok with Crump as the starter. But My real point in bringing the TE into the mix was to highlight how if you want to claim WR3 is so important than you are taking away from the importance of TE2 as they will likely be spliting there reps.

Lastly, as for over hyping the holes, come on. Most people watching the Patriots last season could see the holes, and many of them are major problems.

I could see some problems but IMO the only one that I would truly qualify as a hole would be OLB/Passrush. There was some inconsistancey in the passing game sure but Edelman continueing to develope IMO cures most of that and What else was there will be cured by getting Welker back as early as possible and as much as I would love to have 5 WR all as good as Welker, Moss, or Boldin I recognize that Moss, Welker, and Edelman will be a really good trio and where the whole is is at depth NOT STARTER and the depth starts with a kid who we had enough hope in to draft in the 3rd rd last year despite an injury that we suspected might keep him out all year. Bottom line is that if you have 2 pro bowl caliber WRs and 2 young talented WR than you don't have a hole at the position.

 

[signbabybrady]

Welker plays the slot.. not opposite Moss.

He would still be a starter if we signed another notable WR.

I don't see your point... do you see Welker as a stretch the field, deep threat?

Welker can go deep when he has to. I really think that people overhype the need for a deep threat opposite Moss. Moss is our deep threat, the other receivers should be work the field types.

Yes we did. That does not mean he wouldn't be a starter.

So along those lines of reasoning, Wilfork isn't a starter because he sat out a few plays? or anyone for that matter. Is TFB not a starter because he doesn't hold the ball during FG attempts?

Give me a break.

production wise if Moss and Wleker are giving 6 catches a game each. you are not going to get that same production out of a 3rd WR. And going back to 07 and saying that Gaffney and Stallworth gave you 80 catches for the year out of WR3 is just a fallacy as that was a combined output from WR3 and 4.

And is just as lame as comparing the 3rd WR spot to QB1 or NT1. The better comparison would have been a guy like Green who thru the years got plenty of reps and was more than just a back up as he had a role. Or Nickle CB.

 

[DW Toys]

This is the part where we say we prefer Olsen. Even though last week we said we preferred Scheffler.

You have a valid point. For all of the stars we have on this site who know way more than me and I do not argue that, .....Cousins, why is it that is another Team scores on a very reasonable Trade or FA there is always the retort; Boy were they dumb to do that when we have all of these Draft choices now and they don't...ha,ha, That the guy was not a Team player, He couldn't play anymore, His contract was wrong for us, He would not be a fit for what we do here, He is lazy, He is a malcontent, He's just like AD, If the other Team couldn't get anything out of that guy...how would we?, He is too old, He is too young, He's just like AD, We had a chance to Draft him five years ago and we didn't so he must be pretty poopy, He's will be like AD, He is a thug, he has too many illegitimate children, No way he could play DE for us here even if he and Seymour are about the same size, Moss was never that bad of a dude, Nor was Dillon, Why should we get an established NFL ready player who has a reasonable contract when we can get an unknown commodity in the Draft?, He will ruin the locker room like AD, Let's trade some of this years picks to #1's in 2011..... and some other favorites of mine like "He had a good Team around him (or linemates...take your pick) so therefor he is not really that good".

Maybe my all time favorite....... Yes, but the Draft is coming up in a few days even if we do have thirteen holes to fill.

There are some classics like "He's not going anywhere"! One would assume that said Cousin had inside information on that quip?

And finally the supreme gesture with high regard opinion commentary of self importance to the unasked question....get ready!.....drum role................."No Thanks!"


I love a good draft to happen, but other Teams can see value in adding some pieces prior to the Draft so your Teams are not doing the biggest #1 Draft Day sin......"Drafting for Need"!

Is BB backed into a corner now on some positions? Yes I think so (IMO DISCLAIMER).

The point is if we would have made a Trade for these any of these guys, Boldin, Wembley, Sheffler, Holmes, Cromartie, Marshall the same star posters would be embracing these trades for the most part and seeing value.

To listen to RK say he is going to wait until the season starts to see who they can pick up from other Teams cuts, doesn't thrill me (IMO-DISCLAIMER) as a great plan of action. This might be sacrilege but so be it.
Some of these Teams made some very cleaver pick ups and some are reasonable. Meanwhile "Rome is burning".

I am not trying to be negative. I want a good Draft but lets fill some holes with some added talent too. The moves yesterday by those Teams were reasonable. The feared "NEW CBA" doesn't seem to be hurting Trades for other Teams.

Who knows what the Pats are thinking and I do have faith but with a whole lot of "why" questions.
DW Toys

 

[Deus Irae]

I have no problem thinking of the futute and upgrading the position but just because one guy is hurt and the other is in the last year of his contract does not mean there is a huge hole.

What I initially was claiming is that the holes are being way overinflated by the naysayers on this board regardless of where people are precieving them and then I used WR as an example.

You used an example that proves precisely the opposite of what you intended. There is a huge hole at the WR3 position. That's kind of the point, really.

And you keep talking about the Stallworth/Gaffney combo like they were only playing on position the two of them split time as WR3 and WR4 that season.

Really? How many snaps did Stallworth take from a WR4 position that season? How about Gaffney?

I can easily see Edelman giving us 40+ catches this year and I don't think it is to crazy to think that Tate or Patten or a Rookie could get close enough to 40 to effectively replace the 80 catches between Gaffney and Stallworth from 07. I will admit that the end number might be more like 65 -70 for Edelman and WRX but we are not talking about a ton of missed production there not enough to warrant the moaning that I have been hearing.

Edelman is going to be in the slot, playing the Welker role, until Welker returns. That means that he'll be playing the WR2 in this system. That does nothing to solve the WR3 problem.

And, yes, we are talking about a ton of missed production, just as we saw last season. I mean, you watched last season as the WR3 position caught just over 30 passes, right?

Thru the years they have employed the TE position in various ways. Chosing a two TE formation as a big part the game when they had Graham and Watson, They have employed OL at TE, and lately they have been relying on them in the passing game less and less. I am not saying there isn't some help needed but what I am saying is that we have one guy who can be the starter and will help improve our running game and since we haven't used the TE in the passing game as much I am perfectly ok with Crump as the starter. But My real point in bringing the TE into the mix was to highlight how if you want to claim WR3 is so important than you are taking away from the importance of TE2 as they will likely be spliting there reps.

Could you show me all the people they've used at TE in a consistent manner that was not limited to specific down/distance type of things (i.e. not a Vrabel at the goal line situation)?

And, as I noted, the TE2 played in about half the snaps in those games, so I'm clearly not minimizing the importance of the problem, since I'm noting both as a major issue. You keep making claims on these issues that simply aren't true.

I could see some problems but IMO the only one that I would truly qualify as a hole would be OLB/Passrush. There was some inconsistancey in the passing game sure but Edelman continueing to develope IMO cures most of that and What else was there will be cured by getting Welker back as early as possible and as much as I would love to have 5 WR all as good as Welker, Moss, or Boldin I recognize that Moss, Welker, and Edelman will be a really good trio and where the whole is is at depth NOT STARTER and the depth starts with a kid who we had enough hope in to draft in the 3rd rd last year despite an injury that we suspected might keep him out all year. Bottom line is that if you have 2 pro bowl caliber WRs and 2 young talented WR than you don't have a hole at the position.

Your "bottom line" is wrong, as last year demonstrated quite aptly. What's really amusing about this is that there is essentially nobody denying this anywhere except here on Patsfans.com. The media, local and national, print, radio and television, professional and caller, all understand the problem. Here on Patsfans.com, however, the Burgess trade was still a good idea, losing Seymour didn't have any negative impact upon the team, Sam Aiken did a good job, Guyton is a quality ILB who is good for all 3 downs, TBC is the answer to the pass rush woes, Leigh Bodden is a top tier CB worth $8 million a year, teams don't need punters, Belichick was great in the front office last season, and there are no holes at wide receiver.

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

Could you show me all the people they've used at TE in a consistent manner that was not limited to specific down/distance type of things (i.e. not a Vrabel at the goal line situation)?

Actually, its not inconceivable that the Pats transition from more of a 3 WR base, to a 2 WR 2 TE base, particularly until Welker gets back.

 

[Deus Irae]

Actually, its not inconceivable that the Pats transition from more of a 3 WR base, to a 2 WR 2 TE base, particularly until Welker gets back.

1.) What did you see from Edelman on the outside last season that makes you think the Patriots would want to go that route?

2.) How does that eliminate the hole at WR3?

3.) Alge Crumpler, who's no longer a pass catching TE + ________ to take those receptions?

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

1.) What did you see from Edelman on the outside last season that makes you think the Patriots would want to go that route?

2.) How does that eliminate the hole at WR3?

3.) Alge Crumpler, who's no longer a pass catching TE + ________ to take those receptions?

The Patriots reduced the 3 WR set by 11 percent from 07 to last year. By contrast, the 2 WR 2 TE formation increased. It's not inconceivable to think that the pattern will continue, particularly if we draft a TE and a RB in the first two rounds.

Search for 3rd option reflected in groupings - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

You make a good point about Crumpler. That's why Bill will probably draft a pass catching TE in the 1st or 2nd round.

As far as Edelman, he's shown promise, particularly in games when Welker was out. The FO drafted Tate last year, and he's going to be given every chance for that 3 WR position. Bill will undoubtedly draft another rookie to compete with him. He also signed the old vet Patten for competition, but hopefully Tate and the rookie will beat him out.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Patriots reduced the 3 WR set by 11 percent from 07 to last year. By contrast, the 2 WR 2 TE formation increased. It's not inconceivable to think that the pattern will continue, particularly if we draft a TE and a RB in the first two rounds.

That doesn't fix the hole.

You make a good point about Crumpler. That's why Bill will probably draft a pass catching TE in the 1st or 2nd round.

That would leave Crumpler as the TE2, which would still leave you with the same problem if you were going 2WR/2TE as if you were going 3WR/1TE, since his pass catching days are seemingly in the past. He's been putting up 24 and 27 catch seasons, and his blocking is not Graham-level blocking. Of course, if he's dropped the tonnage and regained some separation ability, that changes the equation. I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't count on that until it's demonstrated, though, don't you?

As far as Edelman, he's shown promise, particularly in games when Welker was out. The FO drafted Tate last year, and he's going to be given every chance for that 3 WR position. Bill will undoubtedly draft another rookie to compete with him. He also signed the old vet Patten for competition, but hopefully Tate and the rookie will beat him out.

Your first sentence is my point. Edelman looked pretty good as a Welker backup/replacement, but not nearly as good as a receiver on the outside. It's the outside receiver that is the problem.

 

[signbabybrady]

You used an example that proves precisely the opposite of what you intended. There is a huge hole at the WR3 position. That's kind of the point, really.

Way to ignore the other two guys in my statement to make your point. My point is that we have two guys who are nasty and two guys who are developing as our depth so even though one of the nasty guys may be hurt there is already some depth to cover it up. Yes there is a small hole and it is smart business to plan for the future loss of Moss but that is far from the empty that you seem to portray

Really? How many snaps did Stallworth take from a WR4 position that season? How about Gaffney?

Ok so you are saying that neither caught any passes while the other was on the field? No matter how you slice it you are taking 2 players production and combining into to something that should be replaced by one guy to be WR3

Edelman is going to be in the slot, playing the Welker role, until Welker returns. That means that he'll be playing the WR2 in this system. That does nothing to solve the WR3 problem.

But when Welker is back you are that much better for it and in the interim Tate will have some added reps or Patten or a Rookie as the argument I am sure as shown I don't think it is a huge concern who gets those reps we won plenty of games last year with WR in a worse state.

And, yes, we are talking about a ton of missed production, just as we saw last season. I mean, you watched last season as the WR3 position caught just over 30 passes, right?

So in 07 you combine two players to get your numbers for WR3 but last year only one.......I expect to do better out WR3 just by having Edelman a year older and Tate actually on the field and I am not that worried about the few games that Welker wont be on the field as I am sure we can come up with some sort of game plan to highlight those that are there.

Could you show me all the people they've used at TE in a consistent manner that was not limited to specific down/distance type of things (i.e. not a Vrabel at the goal line situation)?

And, as I noted, the TE2 played in about half the snaps in those games, so I'm clearly not minimizing the importance of the problem, since I'm noting both as a major issue. You keep making claims on these issues that simply aren't true.

Well actually I was refering to the situational play but I know Levoir was used at TE 2 years ago for more than just short yardage situations. And for the record I am not saying something shouldn't be done at TE but that it is not a huge hole....IMO replacing the little that Baker did for the team was actually upgraded when we got Crump and since Watson was underutilized I don't see a huge hole in trying to replace him. To me a huge hole will come When Brady retires or when we never replace the 3-4 good OLBs we had during the title runs.

Your "bottom line" is wrong, as last year demonstrated quite aptly. What's really amusing about this is that there is essentially nobody denying this anywhere except here on Patsfans.com. The media, local and national, print, radio and television, professional and caller, all understand the problem. Here on Patsfans.com, however, the Burgess trade was still a good idea, losing Seymour didn't have any negative impact upon the team, Sam Aiken did a good job, Guyton is a quality ILB who is good for all 3 downs, TBC is the answer to the pass rush woes, Leigh Bodden is a top tier CB worth $8 million a year, teams don't need punters, Belichick was great in the front office last season, and there are no holes at wide receiver.

Oh right because the Media is never wrong and they know everything about this team. It is the media's job to overhype the problems as that is the story but Fans who do it and who can't sit back and enjoy this team and the way it is developing for another run at Dynasty is insane to me. I see team that has done great things in the past and that has seen some depletion the last few years but that has done a lot in the last two drafts to replenish. I see a team that has enough faith in its talent that it didn't go crazy trying to bring in malcontents and overpriced FA to try and compete. I see a team that knows it can compete for the playoffs and titles as is and with a little luck could easily be back in the big show. But hey if you wanna keep whinning and complaing about a perenial playoff team having holes bigger than the Rams, bucs, and other bottom feeders than fine we will have to agree to disagree SBB out.

 

[Deus Irae]

Way to ignore the other two guys in my statement to make your point. My point is that we have two guys who are nasty and two guys who are developing as our depth so even though one of the nasty guys may be hurt there is already some depth to cover it up. Yes there is a small hole and it is smart business to plan for the future loss of Moss but that is far from the empty that you seem to portray

I didn't ignore anyone, and your claim that it's a small hole is ridiculous, as was demonstrated aptly last year. You keep ignoring that little reality. The hole is there.

Ok so you are saying that neither caught any passes while the other was on the field? No matter how you slice it you are taking 2 players production and combining into to something that should be replaced by one guy to be WR3

1.) I'm asking you to supply the statistics on your claim, since you're the one making it.

2.) Yes, I'm noting the production of the WR3 as a total, since the team switched starters in the middle of the season. Why would I do it any other way?

But when Welker is back you are that much better for it and in the interim Tate will have some added reps or Patten or a Rookie as the argument I am sure as shown I don't think it is a huge concern who gets those reps we won plenty of games last year with WR in a worse state.

These are assumptions (Welker/Tate), and they are irrelevant, as they don't fill the hole. Of course, it's possible that the Patriots think Tate is ready to be the WR3 starter and make an impact on day 1. Those of us outside the inner circle have seen the downside of this team making that sort of assumption over the past couple of seasons.

So in 07 you combine two players to get your numbers for WR3 but last year only one.......I expect to do better out WR3 just by having Edelman a year older and Tate actually on the field and I am not that worried about the few games that Welker wont be on the field as I am sure we can come up with some sort of game plan to highlight those that are there.

1.) Edelman made most of his catches in the slot.

2.) Feel free to add Galloway's totals to the number. He was cut and deemed inadequate. It doesn't fix the hole.

3.) Again, Edelman played best as a slot receiver. His times on the outside were decidedly less impressive.

4.) Tate's next catch in the NFL will be his first. Relying upon him to fill the hole would be a gamble, to put it mildly.[/QUOTE]

 

[Deus Irae]

Well actually I was refering to the situational play but I know Levoir was used at TE 2 years ago for more than just short yardage situations. And for the record I am not saying something shouldn't be done at TE but that it is not a huge hole....IMO replacing the little that Baker did for the team was actually upgraded when we got Crump and since Watson was underutilized I don't see a huge hole in trying to replace him. To me a huge hole will come When Brady retires or when we never replace the 3-4 good OLBs we had during the title runs.

I realize that you were looking at situational play. That's why I noted it. However, that sets up a cake/eating it scenario. You can't say that WR3 isn't a hole because the team will use the TE2 position and then say that TE2 isn't a hole when there really isn't a TE2.

The reality is that there is a significant hole at both positions.

Oh right because the Media is never wrong and they know everything about this team. It is the media's job to overhype the problems as that is the story but Fans who do it and who can't sit back and enjoy this team and the way it is developing for another run at Dynasty is insane to me. I see team that has done great things in the past and that has seen some depletion the last few years but that has done a lot in the last two drafts to replenish. I see a team that has enough faith in its talent that it didn't go crazy trying to bring in malcontents and overpriced FA to try and compete. I see a team that knows it can compete for the playoffs and titles as is and with a little luck could easily be back in the big show. But hey if you wanna keep whinning and complaing about a perenial playoff team having holes bigger than the Rams, bucs, and other bottom feeders than fine we will have to agree to disagree SBB out.

1.) Essentially nobody except the over-the-top homers on this site is pretending the WR3 position is not a need. I noted that all the media is pointing it out. It's not just the 'clueless' national media like ESPN. It's not just the "haters" in the local media like Felger. It's not just the "clowns" on the big show. It's across the board. Dale & Holley aren't exactly crap stirrers, for example, and they both say that it's a problem.

2.) What you see doesn't fill the hole at wide receiver. Even Jonathan Kraft saw it differently than you seem to.


Edit for 'breaking news':

The Patriots are reportedly going to sign Torry Holt. Apparently Belichick doesn't agree with you when it comes to the WR3 position, either.

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

and his blocking is not Graham-level blocking.

I actually like Crumpler signing mostly for his blocking -- he blocked for a 2,000 yard rusher. But we need to complement him with a pass catching threat like Gresham or Pitta.

Moss, Edelman and Holt as of now would be the best 3 WR, with Tate as #4 but given an opportunity to try and beat out Holt.

But I still stick to my point, it's not inconceivable for the Pats to emphasize multiple TE positions, particularly if we get a TE weapon in the passing game in the draft.

 

[Deus Irae]

I actually like Crumpler signing mostly for his blocking -- he blocked for a 2,000 yard rusher. But we need to complement him with a pass catching threat like Gresham or Pitta.

Moss, Edelman and Holt as of now would be the best 3 WR, with Tate as #4 but given an opportunity to try and beat out Holt.

But I still stick to my point, it's not inconceivable for the Pats to emphasize multiple TE positions, particularly if we get a TE weapon in the passing game in the draft.

I don't think we really disagree on what you're saying, although Crumpler blocking for Johnson doesn't mean anything amazing for me, given how good Johnson seems to be in general. I just think you were ignoring the WR3 problem when you noted a potential increase in 2TE formations, since the WR3 position would still have been an issue.

The reported coming signing of Torry Holt, coming even before the draft, would seem to buttress my position.