Since 2010: The Importance Of The 5th and 6th Receiving Target

[RobertWeathers]

Of course not! That's my point.

Back in the "Tom throws it to the open guy" days he had a bunch of comparable talents running around, so the targets were going to be more even. In recent years, it was Gronk, Wes, Ahern and a bunch of guys who aren't nearly as good, creating a top heavy situation.

My contention isn't that NE should be throwing it to the #3 guy more, just that if they had a better #3 they would target him more. The apparent lack of importance is really just a lack of recent talent.

Yep- Agree completely.

 

[BTTA]

What would message boards be without 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th wide receivers?

Exactly. This is one of those topics that is entertaining and useful when posed as an interesting question, and becomes a bore when a debate where some kind of truth needs to be found.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

But you are missing the point that the WR catches were spread further because the TE wasn't getting the ball.
Gronk (and Hernandez also) changed that. Call Gronk the #1 WR and the "WR3" the TE and the comparison become obvious.
We just traded out a WR for a TE.

Besides, if the Patriots throw to the "#3" receiver a lot more than the "#1" receiver..........would not the old "#3" receiver really become the "#1" receiver?

Andy is correct here.......semantics plays a role......we have dudes that catch passes.

Finally, in a "you can never have too many good CB's" league, having superior depth works. Having superior #4 and #5 receivers vs your opponents #4 and #5 secondary means a successful game plan.

The Jets learned that the hard way in the AFCCG against Indy a few years back.

 

[Saint Pat]

I FEEL IT!!! THIS WILL BE AMENDOLA'S GAME!!! FINALLY!!!








(I think I'll start a new thread...)

 

[RobertWeathers]

Besides, if the Patriots throw to the "#3" receiver a lot more than the "#1" receiver..........would not the old "#3" receiver really become the "#1" receiver?

Andy is correct here.......semantics plays a role......we have dudes that catch passes.

Finally, in a "you can never have too many good CB's" league, having superior depth works. Having superior #4 and #5 receivers vs your opponents #4 and #5 secondary means a successful game plan.

The Jets learned that the hard way in the AFCCG against Indy a few years back.

Yep...just like you can never have too many guys that can get to the QB. Same thing.

 

[Deus Irae]

Of course not! That's my point.

Back in the "Tom throws it to the open guy" days he had a bunch of comparable talents running around, so the targets were going to be more even. In recent years, it was Gronk, Wes, Ahern and a bunch of guys who aren't nearly as good, creating a top heavy situation.

My contention isn't that NE should be throwing it to the #3 guy more, just that if they had a better #3 they would target him more. The apparent lack of importance is really just a lack of recent talent.

This shouldn't be hard for people to understand, given what we saw in the BB documentary and what BB has done at the receiver position since. He's not bringing in guys like Lloyd and Johnson because he thinks 2WR is enough.

Hell, it's obvious that he's looking to be able to go at least 4WR deep, nevermind 3WR.

 

[Ring 6]

This shouldn't be hard for people to understand, given what we saw in the BB documentary and what BB has done at the receiver position since. He's not bringing in guys like Lloyd and Johnson because he thinks 2WR is enough.

Hell, it's obvious that he's looking to be able to go at least 4WR deep, nevermind 3WR.

He is looking to go 53 deep. That doesn't mean he is unhappy with every reserve and their role. Your logic is flawed.
Lloyd and Johnson were brought in as 1/2s not 3s or 4s.

 

[BobDigital]

I agree with the OP actually. He got a bit off base by bringing up the 3rd WR and 2nd TE. The general point holds true though that teams generally have no more than 3-4 go to options for receivers.

Be it Gronk Edelman Lafell
Be it Brown Branch Givens
Be it Moss Welker Stallworth

Usually we spend too much time worry about back of the roster guys that will barely see the field and when they do they don't get thrown to much cause other guys are better.

You only dress 46 guys and of the guys you dress about 35 of them see nearly all the O and D snaps. Generally even when you have fantastic depth.

I think it be nice for the Patriots to get Wright more involved but after and Vereen for the occasional dump off there are just not enough throws to go around.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree with the OP actually. He got a bit off base by bringing up the 3rd WR and 2nd TE. The general point holds true though that teams generally have no more than 3-4 go to options for receivers.

The BB Patriots have, historically, featured, or tried to feature:

Receiving RB
3-4 legit WRs
1-2 legit receiving TEs

The low-end goal has, obviously, been to have an absolute minimum of 5 legit targets. The general goal, also obviously, has been to preferably have 6-7 legit targets. The goal has also been to get targets that are diverse, rather than just having a bunch of receivers who all run the same routes at the same depths.

 

[Ring 6]

The BB Patriots have, historically, featured, or tried to feature:

Receiving RB
3-4 legit WRs
1-2 legit receiving TEs

The low-end goal has, obviously, been to have an absolute minimum of 5 legit targets. The general goal, also obviously, has been to preferably have 6-7 legit targets. The goal has also been to get targets that are diverse, rather than just having a bunch of receivers who all run the same routes at the same depths.

This isnt really relevant.
Of course he tries to have every receiver be a 'legitimate' target. That doesn't have anything to do with how much he relies on the depth when it is all healthy.
His system does not look to have bad #4 WRs, but when the first 3 are healthy his system has next to no role for them.
If we had Moss, Welker, Brown, Edelman, Gronk, Hernandez, Faulk, Vereen and LaFell all on the team, and in their prime, you would still see a similar distribution to what we have now. Or are we arguing that since LaFell has shown he can play, we'd throw to him instead of Moss?
Thinking pass distribution is a function of quality of the bottom of the group is backwards.