Patriots Trade For Rams WR Greg Salas

[Deus Irae]

We have enough skilled players for the 5-0-0
Welker, Lloyd, Gronkowksi, Hernandez and Woodhead.

I agree that we could used Edelman instead, since he would always be active. But, absent injuries, I prefer not to have our 3rd Wr on the field.

Faulk used to sometimes be a WR when we ran an empty backfield.

No....

5/0/0 is 5 WR, 0 TE, 0 RB

They don't have the horses for that. They did until the cuts to 75. Belichick, who loves situational football, removed opportunities for situational advantage. Hopefully, that will be repaired.

Also, I have no idea why you wouldn't want the team to have the WR3 on the field. Frankly, I find that crazy thinking.

 

[Joey007]

Ok so when I hear his last name, I think of salsa, Then salsa dancing, and Then Victor Cruz salsa dancing in the SB.

I think Im sick to my stomach. :stars2:

 

[mgteich]

And I think that sitting Gronkowksi and Hernandez so that we can play Salas and Edelman is crazy thinking, so we're even. And pulling Woodhead, so that Slater can be the 5th WR is even crazier.

I understand that we should run some sets with 3 WR's, but I don't want to see our #4 WR on the field unless there are injuries.

No....

5/0/0 is 5 WR, 0 TE, 0 RB

They don't have the horses for that. They did until the cuts to 75. Belichick, who loves situational football, removed opportunities for situational advantage. Hopefully, that will be repaired.

Also, I have no idea why you wouldn't want the team to have the WR3 on the field. Frankly, I find that crazy thinking.

 

[BradyFTW!]

And I think that sitting Gronkowksi and Hernandez so that we can play Salas and Edelman is crazy thinking, so we're even. And pulling Woodhead, so that Slater can be the 5th WR is even crazier.

I understand that we should run some sets with 3 WR's, but I don't want to see our #4 WR on the field unless there are injuries.

Do you think that that's unlikely to happen?

 

[fgssand]

If and when Jabar Gaffney returns from injury fully fit, then the New England Patriots should be set at wide receiver, barring any further injuries at the wide receiver position. In the interim during Gaffney's absence, I would prefer to have Deion Branch on the roster.

My belief is gaffney will be back, right after week one.

Sadly, Deion is done, lost another step and as much as I love the guy, time for the fork.

I have a good buddy from St Louis and he is pissed - said Salas was developing quite nicely before he broke his leg last year, has speed, moves, is really smart and can catch. He said Fisher screwed him up by switching him back and forth from outside to inside without really letting get into a rhythm.
He thinks the kid was lost without Josh.

He said to say he will be the next Welker is stupid because Wes is the best and that would be like saying Ridley is the next Marshall Faulk. However, he did say the Rams blew it, yet again.

I say how can we go wrong gaining youth with a little experience and huge upside at virtually no cost.

 

[Deus Irae]

And I think that sitting Gronkowksi and Hernandez so that we can play Salas and Edelman is crazy thinking, so we're even. And pulling Woodhead, so that Slater can be the 5th WR is even crazier.

they had

Lloyd
Welker
Gaffney
Branch
Edelman

That's a 5 WR set that can create real issues for opponents when it's being used in substitution with the TEs and RBs.

I understand that we should run some sets with 3 WR's, but I don't want to see our #4 WR on the field unless there are injuries.

Well, that's progress, anyway. Before you didn't even want the WR3 out there barring injury:

But, absent injuries, I prefer not to have our 3rd Wr on the field.

and that's what I called crazy.

As for the injury thing, when's the last time the Patriots had their top 4 non-RB receiving targets all play a full 16 game schedule?

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

No....

5/0/0 is 5 WR, 0 TE, 0 RB

They don't have the horses for that. They did until the cuts to 75. Belichick, who loves situational football, removed opportunities for situational advantage. Hopefully, that will be repaired.

Also, I have no idea why you wouldn't want the team to have the WR3 on the field. Frankly, I find that crazy thinking.

As MG somewhat touches on below (Edit: Above), we have Lloyd, Welker, AH and Gronk pulling down the big(ish) salaries -- and they are arguably the 4 guys we want on the field most frequently. With Ridley and Woodhead seeing the field frequently also, WR3 is going to be less important with the Patriots (provided injuries don't bite us).

With that said, undeniably, you are correct regarding your comment on situational football. BB loves it, an important aspect of it is the 5/0/0, we don't have it right now. But this is likely an academic discussion (as you have pointed out in general). I'd be surprised if BB doesn't have a final roster that allows for something very close to a true 5/0/0.

 

[The Scrizz]

As MG somewhat touches on below, we have Lloyd, Welker, AH and Gronk pulling down the big(ish) salaries -- and they are arguably the 4 guys we want on the field most frequently. With Ridley and Woodhead seeing the field frequently also, WR3 is going to be less important with the Patriots (provided injuries don't bite us).

With that said, undeniably, you are correct regarding your comment on situational football. BB loves it, an important aspect of it is the 5/0/0, we don't have it right now. But this is likely an academic discussion (as you have pointed out in general). I'd be surprised if BB doesn't have a final roster that allows for something very close to a true 5/0/0.

A 5/0/0 when you have players like Gronk and AH is foolhardy. In what universe is there going to be a football situation where having your 4th and 5th WR on the field instead of them?

Let's say we had the 5 WR everyone seems to want - Welker, Lloyd, Gaffney, Branch, and Edelman. Now give me a plausible example of situational football where you have any of the last 3 on the field instead of one of the top 2 TE.

This team can go 5 wide without using 5 WR. That's the whole point of what they've been doing. A 'true' 5/0/0 takes Pro Bowlers off of the field for backups.

Oh, and there is no 'arguably' about it. Welker, Lloyd, Gronk, and AH play 100% of the snaps in an ideal world. The only situational football where all 4 aren't on the field should be short yardage/goal line.

 

[Deus Irae]

A 5/0/0 when you have players like Gronk and AH is foolhardy. In what universe is there going to be a football situation where having your 4th and 5th WR on the field instead of them?

Let's say we had the 5 WR everyone seems to want - Welker, Lloyd, Gaffney, Branch, and Edelman. Now give me a plausible example of situational football where you have any of the last 3 on the field instead of one of the top 2 TE.

This team can go 5 wide without using 5 WR. That's the whole point of what they've been doing. A 'true' 5/0/0 takes Pro Bowlers off of the field for backups.

two obvious examples

1.) running "no-huddle" when you can get WRs matched up on LBs

2.) just to give the TE1 and TE2 rest

No skill player on the Patriots played 100% of the snaps last year.

 

[Brady2Moss]

two obvious examples

1.) running "no-huddle" when you can get WRs matched up on LBs

2.) just to give the TE1 and TE2 rest

No skill player on the Patriots played 100% of the snaps last year.

Lets take our 2 best offensive players besides brady off the field so that edelman and stallworth can match up against linebacker! And as an added bonus we lose our ability to audible to run plays with the tight ends since we can no longer gain a run block advantage.

In conclusion lets run a no huddle, eliminate the advantages our two TEs create in the no huddle that makes it as effective as it is, and lets also not use our TEs.

Brilliant :bricks:

 

[Deus Irae]

Lets take our 2 best offensive players besides brady off the field so that edelman and stallworth can match up against linebacker! And as an added bonus we lose our ability to audible to run plays with the tight ends since we can no longer gain a run block advantage.

In conclusion lets run a no huddle, eliminate the advantages our two TEs create in the no huddle that makes it as effective as it is, and lets also not use our TEs.

Brilliant :bricks:

What part of "No skill player on the Patriots played 100% of the snaps last year." is causing you to struggle here?

And, for the record, Welker was still the best, or second best, player on the offense besides Brady last year, and Stallworth was never mentioned by me.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It actually makes sense to have Salas over Branch assuming he knows/can pickup the offense and give us roughly what Branch gave us at WR last year. He provides depth and competition on ST's as well. But that may also be assuming too much.

He returned exactly 2 punts for 14.5 YDS and in 27 receptions he managed 3 fumbles so it may be a while before he sees the field here whether he knows Josh's terminology or not.

 

[The Scrizz]

two obvious examples

1.) running "no-huddle" when you can get WRs matched up on LBs

2.) just to give the TE1 and TE2 rest

No skill player on the Patriots played 100% of the snaps last year.

I said perfect world they would play 100% knowing full well that the world is imperfect.

Number 1 is a no-go. I'll take AH matched up on a LB every day and Gronk too.

Number 2 - we have a pretty good backup TE in Fells who will obviously get some of those snaps. Just because one of the TE's are resting is not a reason to go 5 wide. I bet there are very few plays where neither Gronk or AH is on the field

I hate 5 wide if we are talking about 5 WR. Just hold up the WE'RE PASSING banner.

So zero obvious examples where 5 WR is better situational football which was the measuring stick.

Anybody have the stats on how many plays the Pats went with 5 WR's last year. I'm putting my money on zero.

 

[Deus Irae]

I said perfect world they would play 100% knowing full well that the world is imperfect.

Number 1 is a no-go. I'll take AH matched up on a LB every day and Gronk too.

Number 2 - we have a pretty good backup TE in Fells who will obviously get some of those snaps. Just because one of the TE's are resting is not a reason to go 5 wide. I bet there are very few plays where neither Gronk or AH is on the field

I hate 5 wide if we are talking about 5 WR. Just hold up the WE'RE PASSING banner.

So zero obvious examples where 5 WR is better situational football which was the measuring stick.

Anybody have the stats on how many plays the Pats went with 5 WR's last year. I'm putting my money on zero.

Sorry, but your particular dislike of a grouping doesn't make it a bad grouping. Furthermore, if you can't figure out why having Lbs on WRs is an edge for the 5 WRs even in comparison to the 2TEs, that's on you.

 

[The Scrizz]

Sorry, but your particular dislike of a grouping doesn't make it a bad grouping. Furthermore, if you can't figure out why having Lbs on WRs is an edge for the 5 WRs even in comparison to the 2TEs, that's on you.

It has nothing to do with my dislike of the formation. I don't call the plays. What is your guess on how often we went 5 WR set last year? I'm down as zero.

Your inability to see that AH is a better WR than any of our non-starting WR is on you, as is ignoring that we have the TE who just had the best statistical year for a TE ever on a team with plenty of targets. They are better players and better targets. AH is probably the best player after the catch on the team.

Are you really going to tell me you would prefer Edelman on the field over either of those guys? I would want that zero % of the time and my love for JE is well documented.

5 wide is so 3 years ago.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Reiss has his thoughts up.

And FWIW Branch also fumbled 3 times...in his career.

Who had Salas over Branch? - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

 

[Deus Irae]

It has nothing to do with my dislike of the formation. I don't call the plays. What is your guess on how often we went 5 WR set last year? I'm down as zero.

Your inability to see that AH is a better WR than any of our non-starting WR is on you, as is ignoring that we have the TE who just had the best statistical year for a TE ever on a team with plenty of targets. They are better players and better targets. AH is probably the best player after the catch on the team.

Are you really going to tell me you would prefer Edelman on the field over either of those guys? I would want that zero % of the time and my love for JE is well documented.

5 wide is so 3 years ago.

Good comedy here, thanks. I'll leave off the discussion on this jovial note.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

A 5/0/0 when you have players like Gronk and AH is foolhardy. In what universe is there going to be a football situation where having your 4th and 5th WR on the field instead of them?

Let's say we had the 5 WR everyone seems to want - Welker, Lloyd, Gaffney, Branch, and Edelman. Now give me a plausible example of situational football where you have any of the last 3 on the field instead of one of the top 2 TE.

This team can go 5 wide without using 5 WR. That's the whole point of what they've been doing. A 'true' 5/0/0 takes Pro Bowlers off of the field for backups.

Oh, and there is no 'arguably' about it. Welker, Lloyd, Gronk, and AH play 100% of the snaps in an ideal world. The only situational football where all 4 aren't on the field should be short yardage/goal line.

I don't deny that Gronk, WW, AH, BL are largely going to be why we are an effective passing offense (TFB & the OL getting notable mention ). These will be the guys that should see the field as often as the positive results dictate. But it is naive to believe they are at a level of omnipotence to be the equivalent of a situational football blank check. Reality says our opponents will sometimes find a way to dampen the success of our bread and butter. Reality says our opponents will tailor their defense to neutralize these 4.....in the process (likely) leave other areas to be more easily exploited. And it is our ability to have effective situational match up flexibility that could easily be the difference between 11-5 versus 9-7.

But I am a fan of your enthusiasm Scizz. I hope the offense's effectiveness with G-W-A-B plays out as your enthusiasm suggests it will.

 

[Finnishfan]

We have enough skilled players for the 5-0-0
Welker, Lloyd, Gronkowksi, Hernandez and Woodhead.

I agree that we could used Edelman instead, since he would always be active. But, absent injuries, I prefer not to have our 3rd Wr on the field.

Faulk used to sometimes be a WR when we ran an empty backfield.

Beautiful idea, and in terms of pure skills, that looks ok. The spread formation is usually countered by using nickle- or dime-packages, but your suggested group might not be because the opponents dont have time to substitute when they think they face 2-2-1 but instead we line up 5-0-0. Although I do have to admit that Hernandez will most likely get treated like a WR this year when opponents substitute.

But your idea has one HUGE flaw to it:
Only 1 person in that group knows how to play outside, and masters the techniques and fundamentals related to that. Only one knows naturally how to read zone coverages and adjust routes when you start from the outside. Only one receiver (or perhaps Welker as well) can skillfully disguise his routes when facing man coverage. Welker and Woody cannot make themselves available against DBs if they run outside routes and the coverages are intact, becouse of their size. Hernandez has enough size and speed to play outside, but he isn't even a "real WR" so I doubt his fundamentals are even close to those of a true wideout. Also Welker and Woodhead are not equipped to fight off jams, despite both can fairly easily avoid bumps.

 

[ausbacker]

It has nothing to do with my dislike of the formation. I don't call the plays. What is your guess on how often we went 5 WR set last year? I'm down as zero.

Your inability to see that AH is a better WR than any of our non-starting WR is on you, as is ignoring that we have the TE who just had the best statistical year for a TE ever on a team with plenty of targets. They are better players and better targets. AH is probably the best player after the catch on the team.

Are you really going to tell me you would prefer Edelman on the field over either of those guys? I would want that zero % of the time and my love for JE is well documented.

5 wide is so 3 years ago.

Given the apparent move to the dominant two Tight End sets I'm looking for to the next evolution of the Patriots Offense. Whilst I don't discount the notion of having more WR options, I'm not sure they are the premium they once were for the Pats.

It should be interesting to watch season 2012.