Receiver Arithmetic - Spreading It Out

[Deus Irae]

Why are so many people making nothing but rosy assumptions? Assuming two TEs who've been missing games will stay healthy and match the best receiving season for a TE pair in history? Assuming Amendola stays healthy and catches 90 passes?

C'mon. Expect reasonable. Plan for disaster. Hope for greatness.

 

[Brady6]

ASSUMPTION ONE (TE's 160 catches)
We get about the same production from TE's that we got in 2011 (the best ever by a pair of TE's). We now have Ballard in a addition to Graonk and Hernandez (and even Hooman/Fells).

ASSUMPTION TWO (RB's 60 catches)
We increase RB catches by a bit, even though our best receiver is gone.

ASSUMPTION THREE
The patriots are still a 55% pass 45% run team.

WIDE RECEIVERS (what is left or 180 catches)
We could have three 60 catch receivers. We have one on the team. I would note that when we are talking about the #3 receiver, we really mean #3/#4/#5. Together these players might account for 60 catches. This is especially true if we run fewer 3 WR sets. So, that leaves us with
Amendola 60
???????? 60
Others 60 (we have Jones and some scrubs)

CONCLUSION
IF the TE's can be healthy, and IF the RB's continue to improve in the passing game, then we need one "top" receiver and a #3. Jones is likely good enough to compete with the JAG's for the #4 spot.

MG I'm worried about you.. Our WR situation is really having an obvious impact on you.

 

[supafly]

but you are IGNORING situational football and RISK-REWARD.

Situationally: If TB is beating up on a bunch of cellar-dwellars during 25-40% of the regular season (4-6 games); then I would rather see a 40-60 ratio in those games and run the ball down their darned throat; burn the clock and get out unscathed (if OL, RBs, TEs are laying the licks to block ... they arent getting hit so hard themselves).

Risk-reward: In every reward you usually have an associated HIGHER RISK. If he is our most valuable weapon; then please remember that every time he goes back to pass - he stands there with a BULLSEYE on his chest, arm and head (or knee if you are B. Pollard). If you get him hurt in wk 8 passing 55% of the time; maybe he isnt there in the PO?


Sure you want to MAXIMIZE your most dangerous weapon; but you also want to get the ball out of his hands as quickly as possible (or as Madden says 'get the ball into the hands of the playmaker') .... and let those YOUNG STUDS absorb the accompanying HARD HITS. TB isnt getting any younger, he is rapidly approaching nfl-senior citizen status (or at least AARP-discount status ).

We are discussing the season ratio of pass/run, not just in a game or a handful of games. I would agree that in certain situations such as playoffs or in gameplanning to take advantage of poor run defenses it should not be as even, but we're discussing the end of season results.

It normally is at least anywhere between 57/43--60/40. My proposal of lowering it to 55/45--57/43 shouldn't be too off and very close to what it is.

The bottom line is that we still have one of the greatest QB's of all-time, even if he's heading into his twilight years. Having a 50/50 split over the entire course of the season would be a waste of his talents, and as much as we'd all like to see more balance and running in January, we'll likely never see 50/50 even then.

 

[Grayrider16]

Seems the Pats have an eye for the draft for a receiver. We have not done so great on that end since Terry Glenn. To be fair, wildly over paying for Bowe or Wallace seems stupid and just not a ton of selection out there in FA. Gotta run what ya brung.

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

Here is the receiver math I have questions about:
--Is Darius Heyward-Bey worth #3 million dollars. with his speed and improvement, this guy would have been worth a roll of the dice. He did catch 41 passes for 606 yards and five TDs for Oakland in 2012 (with Carson Palmer throwing to him).
--Well, if you think he is worth it, forget about him. The Colts just signed him. $3 million/1 year. Great deal.

Well the receiver challenged Pats have their work cut out for them. Sanders will require at least twice the cap for DHB and a 3rd round draft pick as compensation.

Too badf, BB never has to explain his thinking to anyone at this time of the year.

 

[Sciz]

Well the receiver challenged Pats have their work cut out for them. Sanders will require at least twice the cap for DHB and a 3rd round draft pick as compensation.

Where are you getting this "twice the cap" from? Unless some team has been doing some super secret work behind the scenes, the only offer the Pats have to outbid is the Steelers' $1.3M tender with a chance at true free agency a year from now. It might have an inflated first year to make Pitt not match, but I don't think even that inflated first year would be $6M.

 

[mgteich]

lets try again

TE 160 (the best year was 179 with only 2 TE's; we now have Ballard)
RB 50 about a normal year
DA 65 this is reasonable even he is out some
----
sub 275

Lloyd 65 or his substitute
Jones 65 or his substitute

Total 405
==============================
BOTTOM LINE

A) This is basically 5 receivers at 65 each (2 TE and 3 WR), for 325 plus some production from backup TE's, from running backs, and from the #4 receiver.

B) We likely have not acquired TWO of the receivers we will count on, although Jones may indeed be one of our receivers.

Why are so many people making nothing but rosy assumptions? Assuming two TEs who've been missing games will stay healthy and match the best receiving season for a TE pair in history? Assuming Amendola stays healthy and catches 90 passes?

C'mon. Expect reasonable. Plan for disaster. Hope for greatness.

 

[Brady2Moss]

So you have 120 balls that need to be caught and the only name you can come up with is Jones?

That's when you should have hit delete thread and realized it isn't solid.

 

[Sciz]

lets try again

TE 160 (the best year was 179 with only 2 TE's; we now have Ballard)
RB 50 about a normal year
DA 65 this is reasonable even he is out some
----
sub 275

Lloyd 65 or his substitute
Jones 65 or his substitute

Total 405
==============================
BOTTOM LINE

A) This is basically 5 receivers at 65 each (2 TE and 3 WR), for 325 plus some production from backup TE's, from running backs, and from the #4 receiver.

B) We likely have not acquired TWO of the receivers we will count on, although Jones may indeed be one of our receivers.

The Pats' #3 wide receiver and #5 overall receiver isn't going to have anywhere near 65 receptions. Three WRs with 65 receptions has been done before (2004 Colts had 86, 77, 68), but I don't think any team has ever had four total receivers hit 65 receptions, much less five. The Pats got 65 receptions from their 2011 #3, 4, 5, and 6 and 2012 #3, 4, 5, and 6 wide receivers all combined.

If you're going to have close to 200 WR receptions, then one guy is going to have to have close to half of them.

 

[Deus Irae]

So you have 120 balls that need to be caught and the only name you can come up with is Jones?

That's when you should have hit delete thread and realized it isn't solid.

mg's numbers are on the very optimistic side.

 

[Brady2Moss]

mg's numbers are on the very optimistic side.

Extremely so given he has Donald Jones and a puff of air catching 120 of these balls. Receiving corps is a disaster right now top 3 targets you are all but guaranteed to have 1 missing every game on average.

Anyone wanna know what happens when you only have 2 real targets every game refer to 2009 New England Patriots offense.

Bottom line is if you are an offensive led team with super bowl aspirations your receiving corps has to be there in the playoffs, as of now I don't think that's likely.

Every year we have ifs and buts relating to the offense and health and how we would have won if X was healthy, well I think we are going backwards in terms of fixing that problem because now the offense is even more injury prone then before!

 

[supafly]

If you're going to have close to 200 WR receptions, then one guy is going to have to have close to half of them.

I tend to agree with you. I also think that it's quite reasonable to expect 80 catches from Amendola, which would be 40% of your 200 catches--or almost half, as you said.

The guy caught 63 balls last year starting in 8 games, and although he saw some form of playing time in a total of 11, two of those were games where situations where he was taken out in the first quarter/early in the second quarter. We can reasonably claim that he caught 63 balls while playing in a total of 9 games or so having Bradford and a pathetic offense working with him.

Considering the fact that he broke his collarbone last year and still caught 63 balls, I'm seeing 2/3rds the production of Welker as something very reasonable. The unrealistic posters/fans are those who are claiming Amendola will have a better season than Welker's 2012 campaign.

I'm still seeing the short passing game/running game/TE's being the focal points of this offense, meaning that Amendola should see 2/3rds of Welker's targets, or something relatively close to it. That would allow for both a continuation of what works, and also a little room for some change at the same time.

 

[supafly]

Extremely so given he has Donald Jones and a puff of air catching 120 of these balls. Receiving corps is a disaster right now top 3 targets you are all but guaranteed to have 1 missing every game on average.

Anyone wanna know what happens when you only have 2 real targets every game refer to 2009 New England Patriots offense.

Bottom line is if you are an offensive led team with super bowl aspirations your receiving corps has to be there in the playoffs, as of now I don't think that's likely.

Every year we have ifs and buts relating to the offense and health and how we would have won if X was healthy, well I think we are going backwards in terms of fixing that problem because now the offense is even more injury prone then before!

In my opinion we have 5 focal points of the offense:

--The 2 TE's

--The short passing or slot game (ex: Welker/Amendola/Edelman)

--The running game

--The possession catches (ex: Llyod)

--The deep threat (likely to be filled by a rookie with minor production of 25-30 catches, much like Tate's season in 2010, but the true benefit will be more attn from the defense and the ability to make a big play at times. Even though Tate pretty much sucked, he still had a 17 ypc average, and caught 3-4 TD's with about 450 yds and 25 catches. Hopefully we can get this same production at the very least, if not better)





In order to fill those 5 needs, I would like to see one of Edelman/Llyod returning. Obviously that is up in the air as to whether or not Belichick agrees with me. At this point, I tend to think that he does not. Either way, having an insurance option for the short passing game (Edelman), or a possession receiver (Llyod) would definitely put us in better shape in early April. The selection of a new rookie draftee or possible two would also help, and is almost a sure thing at this point.

I believe that we'll need at least 4 of these 5 options to realistically have a shot at going far in the playoffs. In the past two postseasons, we've only had 2-3 of these 5 options, so 4 would be great...all 5 would be ideal.

Looking at it this way doesn't add up to as many needs in early April as some may personally believe. I think at the end of this month, our WR corps will be in much better shape.

 

[mgteich]

I guess I'm missing something. We are trying to figure out where we are. I agree that we need much more help.

We are talking about 200 receptions from our wideouts. You say you need 100 from Amendola. Why? If you won't accept spreading it around, consider last year's scenario: 2 top wide receivers and some contributions from the scrubs (#3-#5). OK this way, our top 2 wide receivers get about 150 between them and the rest of the wide receivers get the remaining 50. Why doesn't that work? Surely, if Lloyd were re-signed as our #2, we'd expect about the same as last year. Should we expect less from his replacement? If Edelman were re-signed as our #3, we'd expect him (and Jones and anyone else) to total 50, wouldn't we?

The Pats' #3 wide receiver and #5 overall receiver isn't going to have anywhere near 65 receptions. Three WRs with 65 receptions has been done before (2004 Colts had 86, 77, 68), but I don't think any team has ever had four total receivers hit 65 receptions, much less five. The Pats got 65 receptions from their 2011 #3, 4, 5, and 6 and 2012 #3, 4, 5, and 6 wide receivers all combined.

If you're going to have close to 200 WR receptions, then one guy is going to have to have close to half of them.

 

[supafly]

I guess I'm missing something. We are trying to figure out where we are. I agree that we need much more help.

We are talking about 200 receptions from our wideouts. You say you need 100 from Amendola. Why? If you won't accept spreading it around, consider last year's scenario: 2 top wide receivers and some contributions from the scrubs (#3-#5). OK this way, our top 2 wide receivers get about 150 between them and the rest of the wide receivers get the remaining 50. Why doesn't that work? Surely, if Lloyd were re-signed as our #2, we'd expect about the same as last year. Should we expect less from his replacement?

I don't think the debate was as much about not having 1-2 guys get around 70-80 catches as it was your claim that ALL 5 of our top receiving targets which include the TE's, would all have 65+ catches.

If Edelman were re-signed as our #3, we'd expect him (and Jones and anyone else) to total 50, wouldn't we?

In the spirit of fairness, no.

I think if we expect 50 catches from our WR3, we are being very unrealistic. Once again, you're at that "65 catch" number or close to it, for our top 5 options.

I'd personally be happy with 25-30 catches from our WR3, which is usually the norm, and would likely be close to the same if you're expecting a somewhat productive season from the 2 TE's/Amendola/WR2.

 

[Nunchucks]

We are discussing the season ratio of pass/run, not just in a game or a handful of games. I would agree that in certain situations such as playoffs or in gameplanning to take advantage of poor run defenses it should not be as even, but we're discussing the end of season results.

It normally is at least anywhere between 57/43--60/40. My proposal of lowering it to 55/45--57/43 shouldn't be too off and very close to what it is.

The bottom line is that we still have one of the greatest QB's of all-time, even if he's heading into his twilight years. Having a 50/50 split over the entire course of the season would be a waste of his talents, and as much as we'd all like to see more balance and running in January, we'll likely never see 50/50 even then.

I disagree, we have a QB moving into the back nine, he can still play, but he needs to be protected. He needs to throw the ball less, he needs to take less hits, and he needs defenses to fear the run. Brady would be more effective with a real commitment to the running game.

Make those throws count for more, because Brady only has a certain number of throws left.

 

[mgteich]

In the end, the arithmetic is simple. I ask for 150 from our top 2 and 50 from our backups. I do that because I expect an offense where the ball is spread around more. I was greatly disappointed when Woodhead was not brought back. Last year, we got 38 catches from Edelman/Branch/Stallworth. And I think that we were disappointed out of what we got out of the #3/#4/#5 receivers. I agree that we ask much more from the 1st two. However, we will continue to run 3 WR sets a considerable amount of the time (fewer than most teams); it is the nature of the game.

The choice is whether we want two 100 yards receivers with no reliance on the rest, or whether we want to have a #3 WR who gets open. BTW, Stallworth and Gaffney totaled 84 yards in 2007 (with the same number of total catches. Obviously, we expect more from our TE's than that year.

I don't think the debate was as much about not having 1-2 guys get around 70-80 catches as it was your claim that ALL 5 of our top receiving targets which include the TE's, would all have 65+ catches.




In the spirit of fairness, no.

I think if we expect 50 catches from our WR3, we are being very unrealistic. Once again, you're at that "65 catch" number or close to it, for our top 5 options.

I'd personally be happy with 25-30 catches from our WR3, which is usually the norm, and would likely be close to the same if you're expecting a somewhat productive season from the 2 TE's/Amendola/WR2.

 

[JoeSixPat]

You've got the years backwards, and you ignore a host of reasons beyond raw reception numbers.

Yeah - that was a typo and I went back to correct it and included both the erroneous message I attempted to delete and and the corrected post.

Confusing I know - the Ipad isn't the easiest thing to type on sometimes

The point is, in 2010 Brady had more wins but significantly fewer completions and yards than in 2009 or 2011.

So if anyone wants to make the point that "Better Statistics = More Wins", they'd be dead wrong.

Spreading the field more won't help you win Fantasy Football, but it will help you win Super Bowls, allowing Brady a better chance of finding an open receiver when he needs one most.

Welker's stats - and Moss' in his Patriots Prime - were amazing. But every defensive coordinator also knew exactly where the passes were going when the game was on the line.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah - that was a typo and I went back to correct it and included both the erroneous message I attempted to delete and and the corrected post.

Confusing I know - the Ipad isn't the easiest thing to type on sometimes

The point is, in 2010 Brady had more wins but significantly fewer completions and yards than in 2009 or 2011.

So if anyone wants to make the point that "Better Statistics = More Wins", they'd be dead wrong.

Spreading the field more won't help you win Fantasy Football, but it will help you win Super Bowls, allowing Brady a better chance of finding an open receiver when he needs one most.

Welker's stats - and Moss' in his Patriots Prime - were amazing. But every defensive coordinator also knew exactly where the passes were going when the game was on the line.

Your argument ignores a whole host of factors and statistics, so it really doesn't hold water.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Your argument ignores a whole host of factors and statistics, so it really doesn't hold water.

Yes - I was expecting that type of snarky response from you. (I'm not about to waste my time putting together War and Peace size essay addressing every possible factor just to appease you.)

And yet the statement that more yards and catches does not necessarily equal more wins is indisputably true no matter how much you want to pick a fight about it.