Patriots Trade For Rams WR Greg Salas

[IllegalContact]

Salas is the young prospect.
If you consider Gaffeny the 54th player on the roster, which I do, then you have
Welker and Lloyd
Gaffney to back up both, and be the WR3
Salas as the 4th and developmental guy
Edelman and Slater as s/ters who can play WR
and we are right where everyone expected us to be, except for those who expected a veteran sitting the bench as the inactive 4th WR.

I'm not 100% with you here

in college, he was busy:
Greg Salas Stats - Hawaii - ESPN

in the NFL, he was also busy until he broke his leg:
Greg Salas Game By Game Stats and Performance - New England Patriots - ESPN

also, given his PT was under mcdaniel, I'd say this guy lines up quite well for hitting the ground running....I'm being a little optimistic here, but he has been given the opportunity to erase the need for gaffney. I'd say what you propose is my minimum expectation

[EDIT]: his splits show that he only caught one pass on a ball thrown more than 10 yards, so we are probably looking at a guy who will be depth in the slot....I guess he's not any kind of redundancy when it comes to gaffney....it looks like he runs different routes.

this could be tied into the notion that waters ain't coming back, so they need more depth at the short route position.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

2) that I REALLY, REALLY want the Pats to nab Ebert for the PS. I'll add a third REALLY to this.

Why? Really showed little in summer season. Pats coaches know what he's got and have left him hanging. Not one of 31 other teams thought he was worth signing.

 

[Dragda]

How about Shiancoe to injured reserve, finalize injury settlement, and boot his no practice no show arse from the New England area?

Shiancoe is on the roster. If they were going to IR him, it would have happened already. The only other possibility is they wait and IR him later for the possibility to return in season, but I don't see that happening for him.

 

[randomk1]

Do we really need the skillset this guy provides? Is he supposed to be the next Welker? (who many feel we already have on the roster)

 

[TyronePoole]

all the Rams fans I've spoken with speak glowingly of this guy. They say he's not just a slot receiver, he can play outside and return kicks. Could be a sneaky good move.

 

[ATippett56]

all the Rams fans I've spoken with speak glowingly of this guy. They say he's not just a slot receiver, he can play outside and return kicks. Could be a sneaky good move.

I wonder if Salas will replace Woodhead as the New England Patriots primary kick returner.

 

[ATippett56]

1) I don't think that we are in worse shape than last year. Lloyd/Salas is certainly an improvement over Branch/Ochocinco.

Greg Salas should be a major improvement over Chad Ochocinco especially from a salary cap perspective. If Greg Salas is capable of returning kickoffs, that would be a major bonus.

 

[Triumph]

all the Rams fans I've spoken with speak glowingly of this guy. They say he's not just a slot receiver, he can play outside and return kicks. Could be a sneaky good move.

Hes already familiar with McDaniels offense too.

 

[UK_Pat37]

Low risk, high reward. Typical Belichick move which was probably triggered by McDaniels whispering in his ear.

Makes complete sense.

 

[The Scrizz]

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

I'd leave if I was wrong too. How many 5 WR sets last year?

It's a quiet Sunday so lets take a look. All from the indispensable Mike Reiss (all quotes are from him):

Offensive snaps - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

Game 1: "The only time Gronkowski came off the field was in a three-receiver set, with Hernandez replacing him" - ZERO

Game 2: "Second-year TE Rob Gronkowski came off the field just twice -- on the final two plays of the first half when the Patriots were in a three-receiver package..." - ZERO

Game 3: "Rob Gronkowski is playing at a Pro Bowl level, leaving the field for just one snap, the third of the game on a 4 WR/1 RB package". - ZERO

Game 4: "With just one pure tight end on the roster, it was an ironman effort from Rob Gronkowski. He never left the field". - ZERO

Game 5: Don't have to bother, only 4 WR saw snaps. - ZERO

Game 6: Nothing specific from Reiss. 4th and 5th WR each played 1 snap. Gronk played all but 1 snap, AH all but 4. There was a RB on the field for all but 1 snap.

Could that 1 snap out of 74 been a snap that Gronk was out, no RB was on the field, and Price and Slater got their 1 snap each? Was this the elusive 5-WR set??? Odds put it at less than 1% but if it was, here was the result: "Receiver Taylor Price's lone snap was Tom Brady's first interception, which was intended for Deion Branch over the middle"

So game 6 was either Zero or negative one. As it would have been an INT on which it happened.

Game 7: Only 4 WR took snaps - ZERO

Game 8: Only 4 WR took snaps - ZERO

Game 9: Only 4 WR took snaps - ZERO

Game 10: Blow out of the Chiefs. 5th WR had 11 snaps (most so far). " Wide receiver Taylor Price had one first-half snap, with the rest coming on the final drive." Were we in 5-wide on the final drive of a blowout? Survey says - ZERO

Game 11: 5th WR (Slater) got 2 snaps. From Reiss: Tiquan Underwood and Julian Edelman split the role, with Edelman playing in the hurry-up (3 WR/2 TE) package and Underwood coming on in 1-, 2- and 3-receiver packages.

No mention of any 5-wide set which would seem to get mentioned considering the detail Reiss has, but I'll put Slater's 2 snaps in the maybe column for now (I may dig later because there are so few plays to look up).

So Game 11 = 1 possible

Game 12: "TE Rob Gronkowski never came off the field" - ZERO

Game 13: "Rob Gronkowki was part of every package, further highlighting his value." TE Rob Gronkowski -- 59 of 59 - ZERO

Game 14: Only 4 WR took snaps - ZERO

Game 15: " The one play in which Rob Gronkowski was on the sideline came on the second play of the team's second drive in a three-receiver set" - ZERO

Game 16: "No need to take Rob Gronkowski off the field. He's too valuable as both as a blocker and pass-catcher." TE Rob Gronkowski -- 70 of 70 - ZERO

1st playoff game: TE Rob Gronkowski -- 66 of 66 - ZERO

2nd playoff game: TE Aaron Hernandez -- 67 of 67 - ZERO

SUPERBOWL - 5th WR Slater got 1 snap. I don't remember any 5-wide and I remember that game pretty well so I will give this a possible until I look it up.

Final tally:
19 games
Definite with no 5-wide = 16
3 games with possibles and their max snaps

Game 6: 1 (1 snap each for the 4th and 5th WR)
Game 11: 2 (2 snaps for the 5th wr)
Superbowl: 1 (5th WR got 1 snap)

So we are talking about AT MOST 4 snaps among thousands on the season (5 times "x" snaps per game times 19).

Yeah we sure need personnel for the 5-wr set.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'd leave if I was wrong too. How many 5 WR sets last year?

:bricks:

I wasn't wrong, at all. Go back and read my posts.

Nice attempt at slaying your own strawmen, though.

 

[The Scrizz]

:bricks:

I wasn't wrong, at all. Go back and read my posts.

Nice attempt at slaying your own strawmen, though.

The question at hand was "is there a 'situational football' play where you would want 5 WR instead of one of the TE". I said there is none. The Pats coaching staff obviously agreed.

You then referred to 'my dislike' of the formation to which I replied it has nothing to do with my dislike, it's up to the coaches. As previously mentioned, they agreed.

Try to change the argument if you like. My point was there were zero football situations in which you play 5 WR at the expense of one of our TE's.

The numbers bear me out.

 

[The Scrizz]

:bricks:

I wasn't wrong, at all. Go back and read my posts.

Nice attempt at slaying your own strawmen, though.

And I thought you were done with the thread?

 

[Finnishfan]

I'd leave if I was wrong too. How many 5 WR sets last year?...

How many times do you remember seeing empty backfield from us last year?

When you play empty backfield, everyone on the field is officially marked as WR on that play.

So the fact that AH or Gronk have "TE" in their football collecting card doesnt mean that they line up as TEs on every single snap. Hell AH occasionally lines up as a RB. You dont call him a TE on that play, and motion rules are different for him.

What my concern, and the concern of many others has been, that we do not have more than 1 true wideouts in our roster. So if we field an empty backfield formation, where 2 guys are forced to play far outside, we have to put a guy there who is out of position. That is the issue.

Plus the fact that we have no one to back up Lloyd if he goes down. Lloyd going down would be devastating to this offense, because then we would have ZERO wideouts.

EDIT: I hope that Salas is ready to step in as a wideout this year if we need him. If so, then we are in a better place than I think.

 

[Deus Irae]

The question at hand was "is there a 'situational football' play where you would want 5 WR instead of one of the TE". I said there is none. The Pats coaching staff obviously agreed.

You then referred to 'my dislike' of the formation to which I replied it has nothing to do with my dislike, it's up to the coaches. As previously mentioned, they agreed.

Try to change the argument if you like. My point was there were zero football situations in which you play 5 WR at the expense of one of our TE's.

The numbers bear me out.

Where did I ever claim that the Patriots would want the 5 WRs from last year on the field at the same time? Isn't the whole point of what I, and many others, were saying last year and the year before that the Patriots WR corps wasn't good enough and needed to be changed?

Again, you're arguing against a strawman.

And I was talking about being done with your posts, not the whole thread. You just started adding more comedy, so I had to come back and enjoy the chuckles. If you can't see the humor of someone trying to 'prove' that 5 WR sets would be bad by referring to a 5WR group that pretty much everyone agrees would have sucked on the field, I feel for you.

Next, you should argue that everyone's wrong for not thinking that Brady's the team's best QB.

 

[Finnishfan]

Dont get stuck on the TE, WR and RB abbreviations. They simply tell what position that player is listed on.

Having 10 WR on the roster doesnt mean that you have enought depth, if they all are true wideouts or slot receivers.

 

[patfanken]

Final tally:
19 games
Definite with no 5-wide = 16
3 games with possibles and their max snaps

Game 6: 1 (1 snap each for the 4th and 5th WR)
Game 11: 2 (2 snaps for the 5th wr)
Superbowl: 1 (5th WR got 1 snap)

So we are talking about AT MOST 4 snaps among thousands on the season (5 times "x" snaps per game times 19).

Yeah we sure need personnel for the 5-wr set.

Thank you for taking the time to put all this together. I've been saying for a while that the Pats have used 3 or more WR sets less and less the last 2 years and indications are that the same will be true this year.

The only REAL value of our 3rd and 4th WRs will be as injury depth. Not that that isn't an important factor, but outside of about 5 snaps a game and plays to give the starters a blow, Edelman, Salas, and whomever will play only an ancillary role in our receiving corp.

If/when the injuries do happen the true wisdom of our WR choices will be known to us. Until that time happens all we are left with is to wonder why we are spending close to 300 posts on talking about acquiring our #4 WR. When the real question we should be asking ourselves is how the F Tracy White earned a roster spot.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, we need the 3rd and 4th WR's primarily for insurance in case of injuries (in addition to the 5 snaps a game that you mention). This is important. Ocho, Edelman, and Underwood collectively got a significant number of reps last year in a year of relatively light injuries for the receiving corps.

Are Salas and Edelman sufficient injury protection for this passing team?

Is additional insurance worth more than having Rivera or Forston on the roster. We'll see Belichick's decision within a week or so.

Thank you for taking the time to put all this together. I've been saying for a while that the Pats have used 3 or more WR sets less and less the last 2 years and indications are that the same will be true this year.

The only REAL value of our 3rd and 4th WRs will be as injury depth. Not that that isn't an important factor, but outside of about 5 snaps a game and plays to give the starters a blow, Edelman, Salas, and whomever will play only an ancillary role in our receiving corp.

If/when the injuries do happen the true wisdom of our WR choices will be known to us. Until that time happens all we are left with is to wonder why we are spending close to 300 posts on talking about acquiring our #4 WR. When the real question we should be asking ourselves is how the F Tracy White earned a roster spot.

 

[ATippett56]

When the real question we should be asking ourselves is how the F Tracy White earned a roster spot.

Tracy White is the de facto special teams captain. I guess you were questioning the value of Larry Izzo to the New England Patriots as well last decade?

 

[ATippett56]

The only REAL value of our 3rd and 4th WRs will be as injury depth. Not that that isn't an important factor, but outside of about 5 snaps a game and plays to give the starters a blow, Edelman, Salas, and whomever will play only an ancillary role in our receiving corp.

1. Welker
2. Lloyd
3. ?????
4. Edelman
5. Salas
6. Slater (wide receiver in designation only)

If Jabar Gaffney returns to the New England Patriots healthy and fully fit, the issue with regards to the #3 wide receiver is resolved. If not, what Deion Branch?