I was just replying to a post about someone saying Dorsett was a better receiver than Amendola. During the earlier games he and Hogan were our top wr targets. He’s a good wr it’s just that we have two others that are above him. I’m glad we have him but he’s not amendola, not yet. Amendola was so clutch and converted crucial 3rd down consistently. Earlier in the season we went 3 and out too often.
During the earlier games, Hogan and Dorsett were pretty much Brady'
only WR targets - at least WRs who'd had extensive previous experience with Brady in the Pats offense. Patterson did contribute remarkably well under the circumstances and given his limitations. Exacerbating the situation was the loss of Hill (a capable pass-catcher) during wk-1, and the absence of Burkhead (concussion) for wk-2, and Sony not yet being up to speed as either a runner or receiver. Aside from Gronk, the Pats really didn't have much of anyone to fall back on as an even reasonably legit passing target (e.g., Develin, Hollister and Allen). The Pats O (and Hogan in particular) getting smothered by the Lions defense should have been no real surprise.
Dorsett certainly isn't Dola yet, and probably never will be.
Anyway, I don't really believe in this "above/below" thing, and I don't think the Pats see it that way either.
Gronk, Dorsett, Gordon, Hogan, Patterson, White, Burkhead, etc. - each has a skillset that is most
optimally used in certain target areas of the field, and on certain route types and in certain types of situations and against certain defensive schemes. That variety of tools is what enables them to develop opponent-specific game plans. So, assuming that one player is better than, or above another in all situations and circumstances is something like assuming that a hammer is always better than a screwdriver.
