Per PFT: Report: Ravens to sign receiver Brandon Stokley

[Rob0729]

That is a deft and somewhat novel analysis. Good Job.

Applying it to the Pats, we have Aaron Dobson as the fear merchant; Amendola and Edelman as the slot guy(s); Thompkins/Boyce as the Jack of all, like Branch.

There would appear to be a lack of depth behind Dobson until we recall that both Amendola and Edelman have both played outside the slot, and neither is a genuine slot smurf. Both have size and speed, if not height.

In theory (we have to see if theory becomes truth in the regular season), the Pats have all what Deus said is the Super Bowl formula. From what I have read and heard, Thompkins can be a stretch the field guy too. Amendola, Edelman, and Thompkins can all fill multiple roles. Amendola and Edelman are both slot guys and jack of all trades because both can play outside. Thompkins can in theory fit in to almost any role except maybe the slot.

I disagree with the theory in general since only the Giants really had all four of what Deus said was necessary in recent history. And they probably don't win the Super Bowl if Gronk was healthy or Welker and Brady connect on that pass. But the Pats have the potential to have every piece that Deus said is necessary for a Super Bowl win.

Personally, I don't think there is any recipe to win the Super Bowl. It is the team playing the best in the playoffs. In the last four or five years, you saw teams each year win with a different formula. I don't see much similarities to any Super Bowl winner in the last four or five years other than they all were playing their best football in the playoffs.

 

[Ozymandias]

Also, the Saints did not really have a deep threat or a great TE presense when they won the Super Bowl in 2009. Shockey was ok, but nothing special. In fact, the Saints offense was very similar to the Pats' offense in that they made their living on the short to intermediate passes with no legitimate deep threat.

The 2010 Packers really didn't have a TE presence. JerMichael Finley didn't break out until 2011. And their starter for much of the year was Donald Lee.

Not really going into the specifics of the rest of your post(s) but, this portion of your post is glaringly incorrect.

The Saints offense followed the same formulaic principles that Deus Irae mentioned. And to state that they did not have a deep threat is a falsehood. Their offense had two legit deep threats in their stable and was based in large on their downfield throwing. That season they had three WRs with 45 catches or more and over 15 yards per catch average in burners Robert Meachem and Devery Henderson along with Colston. Both Meachem and Henderson were their outside WRs in 3 WR-sets commanding a lot of safety attention because of their speed whilst Marques Colston was the slot/intermediate presence and Shockey as the TE. It's no different than what the Giants or Ravens did. Even Reggie Bush was used a wide-out at times and was very effective in that role that season because of his downfield speed.

As for the Packers, the reason why Jermichael Finley didn't "break out" like you erroneously state here is because he was placed on I.R. after week 5. He was well on his way to a very productive season in 2010, combine that with his relatively productive 2009 season and many pegged him as a top 5 TE in the league at the time of his injury. So I doubt anyone was calling him a break out player at the time when the consensus at the time was that he was one of the best in the league at his position.

The Packers may be the only exception to Deus' statement because they relied on their 4 WR-sets to get the job done with Jennings, Nelson, Driver, and Jones. However, make no mistake about it, their plan based on their first 5 game of the season was to use the 3 WR, 1 TE combination which Finley was large part of but, that was scrapped when Finley was injured. They adapted that season to a lot of injuries and were able to prevail in large part on the right arm of Aaron Rodgers and a stout defense.

 

[Rob0729]

Not really going into the specifics of the rest of your post(s) but, this portion of your post is glaringly incorrect.

The Saints offense followed the same formulaic principles that Deus Irae mentioned. And to state that they did not have a deep threat is a falsehood. Their offense had two legit deep threats in their stable and was based in large on their downfield throwing. That season they had three WRs with 45 catches or more and over 15 yards per catch average in burners Robert Meachem and Devery Henderson along with Colston. Both Meachem and Henderson were their outside WRs in 3 WR-sets commanding a lot of safety attention because of their speed whilst Marques Colston was the slot/intermediate presence and Shockey as the TE. It's no different than what the Giants or Ravens did. Even Reggie Bush was used a wide-out at times and was very effective in that role that season because of his downfield speed.

As for the Packers, the reason why Jermichael Finley didn't "break out" like you erroneously state here is because he was placed on I.R. after week 5. He was well on his way to a very productive season in 2010, combine that with his relatively productive 2009 season and many pegged him as a top 5 TE in the league at the time of his injury. So I doubt anyone was calling him a break out player at the time when the consensus at the time was that he was one of the best in the league at his position.

The Packers may be the only exception to Deus' statement because they relied on their 4 WR-sets to get the job done with Jennings, Nelson, Driver, and Jones. However, make no mistake about it, their plan based on their first 5 game of the season was to use the 3 WR, 1 TE combination which Finley was large part of but, that was scrapped when Finley was injured. They adapted that season to a lot of injuries and were able to prevail in large part on the right arm of Aaron Rodgers and a stout defense.

Huh?!? The 2009 Saints had two legitimate deep threats?!? Then why did Brees only have 25 total pass attempts where he threw for over 30 yards and he only completed 9 of them(only two completions over 40 yards and both were passes in the endzone where it was only credited for 39 and 40 yards). Brees also had 32 attempts of 21-30 yards completing 22 of them. For reference, Brady had 21 attempts last year of 31 yards or more, completing 6 of them and 47 attempts of 21-30 yards completing 16 of them. And he had no legitimate stretch the field WR either.

The Saints under Brees has never really had a deep threat that teams had to fear deep because that isn't Brees' game. No opposing DC with a brain has ever gone into a game against Brees worried about making sure they keep his safeties deep because Brees or any of his receivers were a threat to take the top off. Like Brady, Brees had receivers capable to bring a 10-20 yard pass to the house for 50 plus yards, but there was no receiver who stretched the field. Brees is a QB who will cut you to death with small cuts rather than just slitting your throat.

Drew Brees Stats, Splits - New Orleans Saints - ESPN

And where am I wrong about the Packers? I said Finley didn't break out until 2010. Which I am right. I didn't say why he didn't break out. Also, Donald Lee was the starting TE for most of the year. In fact, since they adopted the formula that Deus stated (at least go the entire season and post season with it), they haven't sniffed the Super Bowl.

My point stands. Only the Giants in 2011 fit Deus' description. Clearly you don't understand the Saints' offense under Brees and you are making excuses that since the Packers lost Finley early they should count.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Ravens just signed Dallas Clark.

WR1: Torrey Smith
WR2: Jacoby Jones
WR3: Brandon Stokley
TE1: Ed ****son
TE2: Dallas Clark

That's pretty sad.

 

[NgataTroublemaker]

Ravens just signed Dallas Clark.

WR1: Torrey Smith
WR2: Jacoby Jones
WR3: Brandon Stokley
TE1: Ed ****son
TE2: Dallas Clark

That's pretty sad.

True, but not as sad as:

WR1: Torrey Smith
WR2: Jacoby Jones
WR3: Tandon Doss
TE1: Ed ****son
TE2: Visanthe Shiancoe

 

[patsinthesnow]

True, but not as sad as:

WR1: Torrey Smith
WR2: Jacoby Jones
WR3: Tandon Doss
TE1: Ed ****son
TE2: Visanthe Shiancoe

Shiancoe blows, couldn't do a thing for us last year. You know your team better, but you don't think Clark will play over him?

 

[Rob0729]

Ravens just signed Dallas Clark.

WR1: Torrey Smith
WR2: Jacoby Jones
WR3: Brandon Stokley
TE1: Ed ****son
TE2: Dallas Clark

That's pretty sad.

I doubt Stokley makes the 53 man roster. He is probably 50-50.

Clark is a better signing for them than Stokley, but odds are good that Clark doesn't have much left in the tank either.

It is kinda funny that part of the reason they traded away Boldin (along with dumping his salary) was to get younger at the receiver position.

 

[NgataTroublemaker]

I doubt Stokley makes the 53 man roster. He is probably 50-50.

Clark is a better signing for them than Stokley, but odds are good that Clark doesn't have much left in the tank either.

It is kinda funny that part of the reason they traded away Boldin (along with dumping his salary) was to get younger at the receiver position.

I think the reason they traded Boldin was his $6M salary, plain and simple.

We asked him to take a $2M paycut to give us some flexibility in Free Agency, and he declined so he was traded. It was a simple matter of cost. We figured we could get at least 75% of his production at <25% of the cost, etc. We also were planning on relying on Pitta to pick up a lot of that slack, I am sure.

I think Stokley makes the team pretty much for sure, 95% probability. He played pretty well last year and is a small, shifty, in-tight-spaces, slot guy with good hands. Obviously one day he will wake up and start to look absolutely atrocious on game days, but I am not so sure that day will come this year.

And we simply have NO slot receivers who can catch at the moment. Plus, like Clark, Stokley knows Caldwell's system. He also can help us defend Denver/Manning's system for week 1.

In short, I am not sure you are quite aware of just how horrible our WRs actually are. As sad as it is, both Stokley and Clark will improve our roster fairly significantly.

 

[NgataTroublemaker]

Shiancoe blows, couldn't do a thing for us last year. You know your team better, but you don't think Clark will play over him?

Clark will absolutely play ahead of Shiancoe. My list was the even sadder alternative to your sad declaration. The 'before' to your 'after.'

Clark > Shiancoe
Stokley > Doss (or whoever)

 

[Rob0729]

I think the reason they traded Boldin was his $6M salary, plain and simple.

We asked him to take a $2M paycut to give us some flexibility in Free Agency, and he declined so he was traded. It was a simple matter of cost. We figured we could get at least 75% of his production at <25% of the cost, etc.

I think Stokley makes the team pretty much for sure, 95% probability. He played pretty well last year and is a small, shifty, in-tight-spaces, slot guy with good hands. Obviously one day he will wake up and start to look absolutely atrocious on game days, but I am not so sure that day will come this year.

And we simply have NO sot receivers who can catch at the moment. Plus, like Clark, Stokley knows Caldwell's system. He also can help us defend Denver/Manning's system for week 1.

In short, I am not sure you are quite aware just how horrible our WRs actually are. As sad as it is, both Stokley and Clark will improve or roster fairly significantly.

I do have an idea of how bad the receiving corp. You can argue other than Smith, your best receivers are RBs.

I just wonder how much Stokley has left. He had Manning throwing to him last year with most defenses dedicating extra guys on Thomas and Decker. It allowed Stokley and a few others to get favorable match ups. I don't know if he will get the same favorable match ups in Baltimore. And he is another year older.

I don't pretend to know the Ravens' receiving corp as well as you though. So I will defer to your overall analysis of the roster.

In hindsight, the Ravens might have been better off eating Boldin's salary. But then again, there was no way to know that they were going to lose Pitta for the year or longer the first week of training camp.

 

[Joker]

The first fan that screams "Hey Dallas..WATCH OUT!!!!" will put Clark out for 8 games with whiplash...his brains are so scrambled they're the front cover of Denny's morning menu...

 

[Ozymandias]

...

When you started throwing out ridiculous notions like how many 30 yard+ attempts/completions a QB has to verify whether a WR has the speed to threaten deep (AKA a deep threat) or not I stopped taking anything you stated beyond that seriously. Those stats you keep throwing up are as hollow as your flawed arguments because it's either you have no idea what constitutes a wide-out being able to threaten a defense deep (AKA a deep threat) or you're just plain being silly about it. Either way, your entire premise about the 2009 Saints pass catchers was wrong from the moment you said it.

That's why, for the last time, they call them DEEP THREATS. Defenses will always respect WRs would can get downfield in a hurry, because there's nothing a defense wants less than being beaten deep. I fail to see how the Saints in 2009 having two WRs who run 4.3-40's aren't the types of receivers to threaten a defense deep.

It's equally mystifying how anyone can state that the Saints offense is only dink and dunk. Watch their games closely. There's a difference with taking what the defense gives you and exploiting that than trying to force things. Drew Brees is a master at this, like Brady. Add to that, while he isn't even close to being the best deep ball thrower in the NFL, Brees can still sling it when he needs to especially if the defense gives it to him. There's a reason why the 2009 Saints are the only one out of the last 4 champions to have 3 WRs with 45+ catches to average more than 15.5 yards per catch because their offense was very much downfield based. To suggest otherwise is silly.

As for the Packers, you're wrong again (no surprise there). The real reason why they didn't get back to the super bowl since winning it has everything to do with their defense being atrocious especially come playoff time. Last year, Rodgers did all that he could in the NFCDG. Despite this, their defense was destroyed by Kaepernick. That has nothing to do what formations they were running on offense, and if you cannot figure this out then perhaps you're even more far gone than I thought.

Facts are not excuses, by the way. Beyond that you can keep bashing your head against a brick wall figuratively all you want, just don't expect me to waste any more of my time trying to explain to you why a fast receiver is a deep threat because they can threaten a defense deep since you're clueless about it.

Your argument was flawed from the beginning. Move on and get over it.

 

[Rob0729]

When you started throwing out ridiculous notions like how many 30 yard+ attempts/completions a QB has to verify whether a WR has the speed to threaten deep (AKA a deep threat) or not I stopped taking anything you stated beyond that seriously. Those stats you keep throwing up are as hollow as your flawed arguments because it's either you have no idea what constitutes a wide-out being able to threaten a defense deep (AKA a deep threat) or you're just plain being silly about it. Either way, your entire premise about the 2009 Saints pass catchers was wrong from the moment you said it.

That's why, for the last time, they call them DEEP THREATS. Defenses will always respect WRs would can get downfield in a hurry, because there's nothing a defense wants less than being beaten deep. I fail to see how the Saints in 2009 having two WRs who run 4.3-40's aren't the types of receivers to threaten a defense deep.

It's equally mystifying how anyone can state that the Saints offense is only dink and dunk. Watch their games closely. There's a difference with taking what the defense gives you and exploiting that than trying to force things. Drew Brees is a master at this, like Brady. Add to that, while he isn't even close to being the best deep ball thrower in the NFL, Brees can still sling it when he needs to especially if the defense gives it to him. There's a reason why the 2009 Saints are the only one out of the last 4 champions to have 3 WRs with 45+ catches to average more than 15.5 yards per catch because their offense was very much downfield based. To suggest otherwise is silly.

As for the Packers, you're wrong again (no surprise there). The real reason why they didn't get back to the super bowl since winning it has everything to do with their defense being atrocious especially come playoff time. Last year, Rodgers did all that he could in the NFCDG. Despite this, their defense was destroyed by Kaepernick. That has nothing to do what formations they were running on offense, and if you cannot figure this out then perhaps you're even more far gone than I thought.
Facts are not excuses, by the way. Beyond that you can keep bashing your head against a brick wall figuratively all you want, just don't expect me to waste any more of my time trying to explain to you why a fast receiver is a deep threat because they can threaten a defense deep since you're clueless about it.

Your argument was flawed from the beginning. Move on and get over it.

Facts are facts and they are against you. I posted over 30 yards and over 20 yards and the facts show that Brees doesn't throw deep and he mostly throws short and intermediate routes like Brady has over the last five years or so.

And when did I ever say the Saints were a dink and dunk offense? It is similar to the Pats' offense with mostly shorts and intermediate passing with little or no deep threat.

And your argument about the Packers is wrong. They haven' gone back to the Super Bowl for a number of reasons. The most notable was the offense during the playoffs. It was the Packers' offense that was the reason the Packers lost to the Giants in the 2011 season playoffs. Rodgers completed only 56.5% of his passes and the offense only scored 20 points (and seven of them were in garbage time with only just under five minutes left in the game down by three scores).

http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=320115009

And last year, the Packers' passing game was average at best vs. the 49ers in the playoffs. Rodgers had a 68.6 passer rating and only got 257 yards, 2 TDs (one in garbage time), and one INT on 39 passes. The offense scored 24 points (seven points scored in the final minute of the game with the Packers down by 21 points). The offense deserves decent chunk of the blame for the loss. Rodgers and his offense only scored 17 points when the game actually mattered. People consider Rodgers the best QB in football. If that is his best, people need to re-evaluate their opinion of him.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=330112025

BTW, the Saints have always been a big yards after the catch team. Bree's is a master of hitting players in stride. YPC means little without YAC breakdowns. For the record, 2039 of Brees' 4388 yards on 364 completions were YAC. Don't know what it is by receiver though.

You keep ridiculing me and mentioning facts, but none of them are supporting your argument.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think the reason they traded Boldin was his $6M salary, plain and simple.

We asked him to take a $2M paycut to give us some flexibility in Free Agency, and he declined so he was traded. It was a simple matter of cost. We figured we could get at least 75% of his production at <25% of the cost, etc. We also were planning on relying on Pitta to pick up a lot of that slack, I am sure.

I think Stokley makes the team pretty much for sure, 95% probability. He played pretty well last year and is a small, shifty, in-tight-spaces, slot guy with good hands. Obviously one day he will wake up and start to look absolutely atrocious on game days, but I am not so sure that day will come this year.

And we simply have NO slot receivers who can catch at the moment. Plus, like Clark, Stokley knows Caldwell's system. He also can help us defend Denver/Manning's system for week 1.

In short, I am not sure you are quite aware of just how horrible our WRs actually are. As sad as it is, both Stokley and Clark will improve our roster fairly significantly.

I didn't think the Schiancoe signing was a good one, but I think that both the Stokely and Clark signings are excellent gambles for the Ravens. Baltimore gets two receivers who had 40+ catches last year, and they get them this late in the offseason, after seeing the problems in front of them. It's not that I think either player is likely to do much/any more for the Ravens than Michael Jenkins would/will do for the Patriots as much as I think it will allow the Ravens to at least trot out players who can 'field' the positions. They are desperation signings, or at least "concern" signings, but they're good ones given the parameters.

If they both suck, they were August gambles and Baltimore probably has a rebuilding year. If they both get it done, and either Smith or Jones has a good year, Baltimore's a playoff team and possible SB contender again. I'd love to see the Patriots try a similar move by signing a Sheldon Brown to try firming up the CB position, for example.

 

[supafly]

I'd love to see the Patriots try a similar move by signing a Sheldon Brown to try firming up the CB position, for example.

I wouldn't mind that either, Deus. Of course at this point in time we don't know the severity of either injury in regards to Dennard/Dowling, so that may come into play when assessing the situation.

Regarding Sheldon Brown specifically, he's proven himself to be extremely durable over the length of his career having played in 15+ games now 10 years running. While obviously getting up there in age, at one point about 10 games into the season still had not allowed a TD pass through the air.

Unfortunately, he tailed off a bit over the course of the next 5 games and ended up allowing a few TD passes in total. He also missed the final game with a concussion, but overall he didn't do too shabby last season. Whether or not Belichick (or any "experts") would agree is certainly debatable, but a signing like that would be the prime example of the kind of low risk that you are referring to.