Receivers breakdown 2013, 2001, 2003, 2004

[Vataha]

I keep hearing the Patriots only have Edelman to throw to.
Listed showing leading receiver for each year
2013
2001
2003
2004

Player rec/ yds/ tds
Edelman: 105/ 1056/ 6 (2013)
Brown: 101/ 1199/ 5 (2001)
Branch: 57/ 803/ 3 (2003)
Givens: 56/ 874/ 3 (2004)

Amendola: 54/ 633/ 2 (2013)
Patten: 51/ 749/ 4 (2001)
Brown: 40/ 472/ 4 (2003)
Patten: 44/ 800/ 7 (2004)

Dobson: 37/ 519/ 4 (2013)
Glenn: 14/ 204/ 1 (2001)
Givens: 34/ 510/ 6 (2003)
Branch: 35/ 454/ 4 (2004)

Thompkins: 32/ 466/ 4 (2013)
Johnson: 14/ 111/ 1 (2001)
Johnson: 16/ 209/ 2 (2003)
Brown: 17/ 184/ 1 (2004)

 

[jah]

Exactly. I always see people comparing this receiving group to the pathetic '06 corps, but it's not even as bad as it was in the Super Bowl years. We've become spoiled by Moss, Gronkowski, Hernandez, even Welker.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Nobody has ever said that they (2013 WRs) did not put up decent numbers. We had the 3rd best offense in the league in points scored (right?), in an offense-first era, so of course they did.

The questions have to do with their skill sets, how many types of roles can they fill, their physical abilities, their durability, their dependability, their ability to make catches even when covered, etc.

Those numbers say nothing about any of those things

 

[Ring 6]

Its all relative.
Brady completed 264 passes in 2001.
317 in 03
288 in 04

Compare that to 401 in 2011 and 2012 and it makes the receivers look better.

Frankly for most of the past 10 years we have not had an offense that could run when it wanted to or had to, so we used the passing game to cover that up.
Now that we have a running game that appears to be able to run on almost anyone in almost any situation pretty effectively, we can have balance.
I am not sure I wouldn't have the offense we have now, going into the 2 championship games than one that has to throw to cover for a dysfunctional running game.
If you want to light up scoreboards, especially in Sept and Oct give me 2007. If you want to win a battle in January or February I'm not so sure the offense we have today isn't better suited.

 

[Ring 6]

Nobody has ever said that they (2013 WRs) did not put up decent numbers. We had the 3rd best offense in the league in points scored (right?), in an offense-first era, so of course they did.

The questions have to do with their skill sets, how many types of roles can they fill, their physical abilities, their durability, their dependability, their ability to make catches even when covered, etc.

Those numbers say nothing about any of those things

Thats not really true though.
The numbers show what they actually did on the field.
Your impression of the players leads to you predicting how they would do in those areas, how they would fit together, and what the result would be.
You don't need to draw an analysis to get that answer, they already went out on the field and did it.
Its just like the 'we don't have deep threat so the offense is handicapped' comments made while we were having top 10 in the history of the NFL offensive seasons. Clearly anyone saying that overestimated the value of the deep threat they were clamoring for because the offense proved to be just fine without that supposedly vital need.

 

[RayClay]

I had thought the Patriots should have run the ball more to change the momentum in 2007, so I went back and checked the play by play text. It seemed everytime Maroney ran well once, he'd get stuffed twice. You can't run the ball if it means turning it over on downs.

Ridley usually gets something and the new lower bad level Blount usually does too. That's a big chunk of pounding on the defense and making them react we haven't had in a while.

 

[Brady6]

I keep hearing the Patriots only have Edelman to throw to.
Listed showing leading receiver for each year
2013
2001
2003
2004

Player rec/ yds/ tds
Edelman: 105/ 1056/ 6 (2013)
Brown: 101/ 1199/ 5 (2001)
Branch: 57/ 803/ 3 (2003)
Givens: 56/ 874/ 3 (2004)

Amendola: 54/ 633/ 2 (2013)
Patten: 51/ 749/ 4 (2001)
Brown: 40/ 472/ 4 (2003)
Patten: 44/ 800/ 7 (2004)

Dobson: 37/ 519/ 4 (2013)
Glenn: 14/ 204/ 1 (2001)
Givens: 34/ 510/ 6 (2003)
Branch: 35/ 454/ 4 (2004)

Thompkins: 32/ 466/ 4 (2013)
Johnson: 14/ 111/ 1 (2001)
Johnson: 16/ 209/ 2 (2003)
Brown: 17/ 184/ 1 (2004)

I don’t think that you can find any comfort in comparing the stats of players 10 or more years ago to the stats of a players today, especially in the passing game.

Brady – Attempts/Completions
2001 – 413/264
2003 – 527/317
2004 – 474/288
2013 – 628/380

If you want to pretend that Brady didn’t throw the football more times in 2013 than any other season except 2011 in his career and that he threw the ball 101 times more this season than any of the seasons you listed in the early 2000s than sure we can all sleep easy over the current WR group but if you want to look at the big picture and the actual scope of our receivers you have to be concerned with everybody except for Julian Edelman, none of the others have been reliable on a week-to-week basis.

Not trying to blast your post but this is manipulating data in order to make yourself think everything is A-OK. We have a better running game and Brady is a much better QB than he was back then but the receivers are worse without a doubt and that’s just being realistic.

 

[Brady6]

Its all relative.
Brady completed 264 passes in 2001.
317 in 03
288 in 04

Compare that to 401 in 2011 and 2012 and it makes the receivers look better.

Frankly for most of the past 10 years we have not had an offense that could run when it wanted to or had to, so we used the passing game to cover that up.
Now that we have a running game that appears to be able to run on almost anyone in almost any situation pretty effectively, we can have balance.
I am not sure I wouldn't have the offense we have now, going into the 2 championship games than one that has to throw to cover for a dysfunctional running game.
If you want to light up scoreboards, especially in Sept and Oct give me 2007. If you want to win a battle in January or February I'm not so sure the offense we have today isn't better suited.

We actually ran for more yards as a team last season than we did this season.

 

[Ring 6]

We actually ran for more yards as a team last season than we did this season.

That is not relevant to my point. Running out of the shot gun as a change of pace and running from an I formation are entirely different things.
We ran last year because we had large leads, we ran this year because we could even when the D knew we were coming.
Stats, stats, stats!!! This board needs to learn that fixation on stats results in weak analysis of football

 

[Vataha]

You don't get my point.
You can win the Superbowl with less passing and the receivers we have are reliable when healthy.
Dobson, Amendola and Thompkins stats are not 16 games.
Pats will have more production from the passing then you think.

The Patriots are ready for another run of Super Bowls

I don’t think that you can find any comfort in comparing the stats of players 10 or more years ago to the stats of a players today, especially in the passing game.

Brady – Attempts/Completions
2001 – 413/264
2003 – 527/317
2004 – 474/288
2013 – 628/380

If you want to pretend that Brady didn’t throw the football more times in 2013 than any other season except 2011 in his career and that he threw the ball 101 times more this season than any of the seasons you listed in the early 2000s than sure we can all sleep easy over the current WR group but if you want to look at the big picture and the actual scope of our receivers you have to be concerned with everybody except for Julian Edelman, none of the others have been reliable on a week-to-week basis.

Not trying to blast your post but this is manipulating data in order to make yourself think everything is A-OK. We have a better running game and Brady is a much better QB than he was back then but the receivers are worse without a doubt and that’s just being realistic.

 

[Patjew]

I feel like I keep reading these threads about talking ourselves into how much better this year's team is than other years' teams.

Anyone who doesn't think the 2003 and 2004 receivers were better than this year's is crazy.

And 2007's was way better.

Give Brady that 2004 receiving unit on this team and we could walk in backwards to the Super Bowl.

 

[Brady6]

That is not relevant to my point. Running out of the shot gun as a change of pace and running from an I formation are entirely different things.
We ran last year because we had large leads, we ran this year because we could even when the D knew we were coming.
Stats, stats, stats!!! This board needs to learn that fixation on stats results in weak analysis of football

I think the team was capable of running the ball when it wanted to in 2012. Ridley was very effective and Woodhead was a good change of pace. I believe Blount adds another dimension which certainly gives us another element but I would say that we couldn’t run when we wanted to. I do agree in the prior years since Dillon retired we were not able to move the ball on the ground at will.

As far as stats go I never said they’re the end all be all but honestly they have significance just like any other performance based job in this world you have to use metrics to determine performance. I suppose I could say I think the 2012 squad ran the ball very well and leave it at that but being that I am simply a fan on a message board without any credentials that I can reference for my understanding of football I find adding something trackable and messurable to my posts as worthwhile.

 

[Brady6]

You don't get my point.
You can win the Superbowl with less passing and the receivers we have are reliable when healthy.
Dobson, Amendola and Thompkins stats are not 16 games.
Pats will have more production from the passing then you think.

The Patriots are ready for another run of Super Bowls

I am in agreement that play strong defense and running the football is a good recipe for winning a SB and I also agree that we have the capabilities to follow that recipe. What I disagree with is the belief that our receiving group is reliable because it is not, outside of Edelman nobody else has been reliable week-to-week. The stats might align on paper but realistically Branch, Givens and Brown were all more proven and reliable than Amendola, Dobson and Thompkins; actually it is not even close.

• Amendola has never exceeded 700 receiving yards in a season is completely erratic and has been his entire career, one week he could go for 10+ receptions and 100+ receiving yards and the next week he could be invisible and have 2-3 receptions for under 30 receiving yards, this has nothing to do with injuries either look at his game log for his entire career it has been his M/O throughout.
• Dobson has not played consistent snaps in a game since week 11 and is a rookie who has shown great promise but also has proven to be completely unreliable in certain in terms of catching the football.
• Thompkins is in my opinion this seasons Justin Francis; a player who because of injuries and learning curves for other players was able to pick up the offense and work hard enough to get reps, his talent level is not superior and his hands are some of the most inconsistent I have seen in my 25+ years as a fan. I would not be surprised to see him not make it out of the preseason in 2014.
• Vereen has really struggled in recent weeks and is not nearly the type of trust worthy target Kevin Faulk or Danny Woodhead were in their tenures here. Vereen dropped 7 passes this season, Woodhead dropped 1 pass in the last 2 years combined.
• The tight end position was also stronger in those seasons you mentioned than it is right now. Daniel Graham and Christian Fauria were both trust worthy targets, they weren’t Gronkowski but they were solid.

The hope is that the QB Brady is today compared to the one he was back in the early 2000’s can make up for the fact we will likely field one of the worst receiving corp. to ever play in a SB.

 

[Brady6]

I feel like I keep reading these threads about talking ourselves into how much better this year's team is than other years' teams.

Anyone who doesn't think the 2003 and 2004 receivers were better than this year's is crazy.

And 2007's was way better.

Give Brady that 2004 receiving unit on this team and we could walk in backwards to the Super Bowl.

I agree the stats really don’t matter it comes down to:

• WR – Edelman vs. Brown
• WR – Amendola vs. Branch
• WR – Dobson vs. Givens
• TE – Hooman vs. Graham
• RB – Vereen vs. Faulk

In my opinion the only matchup even close is Edelman vs. Brown mainly because of Browns extended age at that point, the other 4 matchups aren’t even a discussion at this point. Either way it doesn’t matter though the game is so different now than it was in the early 2000’s especially offensively that you cannot compare the groups.

 

[Ring 6]

I think the team was capable of running the ball when it wanted to in 2012.

It wasn't. We ran the ball when the D made it easy. We did not run often from heavy formations, we did not do well running out the clock with a lead.

Ridley was very effective and Woodhead was a good change of pace.

Woodhead ran shotgun draw against 6 in the box.

I believe Blount adds another dimension which certainly gives us another element but I would say that we couldn’t run when we wanted to.

We couldn't. We ran 'well' into defenses overcommitting to the pass, and couldnt generate a run game in running situations.

I do agree in the prior years since Dillon retired we were not able to move the ball on the ground at will.

As far as stats go I never said they’re the end all be all but honestly they have significance just like any other performance based job in this world you have to use metrics to determine performance.

A football players job isnt to generate stats. Football stats are not cut and dried. There are many variables that make comparing stats apples and oranges in many cases.

I suppose I could say I think the 2012 squad ran the ball very well and leave it at that but being that I am simply a fan on a message board without any credentials that I can reference for my understanding of football I find adding something trackable and messurable to my posts as worthwhile.

This is exactly what I mean. Statistics are not created in a vaccuum or under the same conditions. The running game last year benefited from the weapons in the passing game and defenses begging them to run.
Running into a defense that is overselling to stop the pass is different than what we have seen in recent weeks where they know we are running and we do it anyway.
First of all, you are using cumulative stats over the course of a season, which creates numerous conflicts in the data, and secondly it is ignorant of situation, such as the running yards total that you cited as THE PROOF that we ran well last year. Last year we piled on yards by playing with big leads, this year we did not.
Are we going to say the passing game was about the same this year because Brady threw for 4343 whch is more than 90% of last years 4827? We know a lot of yards came this year because we were coming back and winning games late, while last year we took the air out of the ball in the 4th quarter of many games.
It seems that you think you should read stats and derive a judgment from them. That just leads to bad conclusions.

 

[Brady6]

It wasn't. We ran the ball when the D made it easy. We did not run often from heavy formations, we did not do well running out the clock with a lead.





Woodhead ran shotgun draw against 6 in the box.





We couldn't. We ran 'well' into defenses overcommitting to the pass, and couldnt generate a run game in running situations.





A football players job isnt to generate stats. Football stats are not cut and dried. There are many variables that make comparing stats apples and oranges in many cases.









This is exactly what I mean. Statistics are not created in a vaccuum or under the same conditions. The running game last year benefited from the weapons in the passing game and defenses begging them to run.

Running into a defense that is overselling to stop the pass is different than what we have seen in recent weeks where they know we are running and we do it anyway.

First of all, you are using cumulative stats over the course of a season, which creates numerous conflicts in the data, and secondly it is ignorant of situation, such as the running yards total that you cited as THE PROOF that we ran well last year. Last year we piled on yards by playing with big leads, this year we did not.

Are we going to say the passing game was about the same this year because Brady threw for 4343 whch is more than 90% of last years 4827? We know a lot of yards came this year because we were coming back and winning games late, while last year we took the air out of the ball in the 4th quarter of many games.

It seems that you think you should read stats and derive a judgment from them. That just leads to bad conclusions.

Fair enough; I will attempt to look at a wider scope of things.

 

[voluntarysaftey]

You cant compare receptions with a better Brady (than in 04 prior) and a pass-friendly league to earlier time periods.

If this team gets to the superbowl, let alone wins it, it will be the patriots team with the least talent to do so in the Belichick era (96,01,03,04,07,12).

And that's not a knock on this team -- it's actually a complement that this group of players have somehow managed to overachieve in the regular season and that has allowed them to only have to beat one team at home to get themselves to the afc championship; and if they beat Denver, it will be their most over-achieving season in history in my opinion.

 

[Ring 6]

You cant compare receptions with a better Brady (than in 04 prior) and a pass-friendly league to earlier time periods.

If this team gets to the superbowl, let alone wins it, it will be the patriots team with the least talent to do so in the Belichick era (96,01,03,04,07,12).

And that's not a knock on this team -- it's actually a complement that this group of players have somehow managed to overachieve in the regular season and that has allowed them to only have to beat one team at home to get themselves to the afc championship; and if they beat Denver, it will be their most over-achieving season in history in my opinion.

I dont think the right view on this is winning with lesser receivers, but winning with more emphasis on the run.
No one is saying we threw the ball equally as much and had crappy WRs so they caught less, and that is why we won.
It is a philosophy and gameplan issue, not a talent issue.
If we are as effective per pass but pass less, a statistical analysis would tell you the receivers arent as good, but that is not an accurate argument.

Rather than saying we won with worse receivers and didn't win SBs with better receivers, I think it is more accurate to say we won SBs with an offense that wasn't as reliant on throwing the ball.
Now, this opens up a wide discussion, because we now must include the quality of the defense and the fact that the pass heavy offense scored a lot more points IN THE LONG RUN but often fell off dramatically in the eventual playoff loss.