Tate has more receptions than Moss this year

[Ring 6]

11 to 9
Moss is the 4th leading receiver behind Welker, Tate, Hernandez.

 

[Frezo]

He may not have had them if Moss didn't often draw a double.

 

[condon84]

Prime example of why stats can be misleading. Is Tate a more productive player than Moss?

 

[RayClay]

If the Patriots were really exploiting the coverage on Moss, he'd soon be catching more because Hernandez, Tate and Gronk would be waltzing into the end zone so often, they'd have to change the defense.

Just like with gentleman Ben Watson, teams will let you complete six yard sideline passes with no YAK all day, rather than let Moss get uncorked.

It's a waste of a weapon. Moss doubled and tripled and the only thing open was 5 yard Welker passes? I'm sorry, design some plays that take advantage of these distortions created by Moss for touchdowns.

It's really getting ridiculous.

 

[sbpatfan]

I said earlier in the year that our team would be just as good with Moss only having 60 receptions and everyone called me an idiot.

 

[Ring 6]

Prime example of why stats can be misleading. Is Tate a more productive player than Moss?

Well that depends on how you define production. The standard definition is what you produce. Moss hasn't produced hardly anything by that standard.
But I know thats not your point, and I agree things happen just by Moss being out there drawing coverage.
I will say that Moss has dropped some passes this year, a TD tonight and a key one that turned into an Int vs the Jets, that was a huge turning point.
Not really trying to pile on Moss, but it does seem he serves more as a decoy this year than a pass catcher. I would suppose if this continues teams will start to change coverage schemes and he will go nuts.

 

[ausbacker]

If the Patriots were really exploiting the coverage on Moss, he'd soon be catching more because Hernandez, Tate and Gronk would be waltzing into the end zone so often, they'd have to change the defense.

Just like with gentleman Ben Watson, teams will let you complete six yard sideline passes with no YAK all day, rather than let Moss get uncorked.

It's a waste of a weapon. Moss doubled and tripled and the only thing open was 5 yard Welker passes? I'm sorry, design some plays that take advantage of these distortions created by Moss for touchdowns.

It's really getting ridiculous.

2nd year wideout and two first year tight ends. Give them time to work into the system and their roles.

 

[Ring 6]

If the Patriots were really exploiting the coverage on Moss, he'd soon be catching more because Hernandez, Tate and Gronk would be waltzing into the end zone so often, they'd have to change the defense.

Just like with gentleman Ben Watson, teams will let you complete six yard sideline passes with no YAK all day, rather than let Moss get uncorked.

It's a waste of a weapon. Moss doubled and tripled and the only thing open was 5 yard Welker passes? I'm sorry, design some plays that take advantage of these distortions created by Moss for touchdowns.

It's really getting ridiculous.

Huh?
The Jets, in the 2nd half, played Moss man to man. Aside from that, when every other team tried to take them away, we have scored 117 points in 3 games. How is it not working?
Do you really think the counter to a defense taking away the deep ball to Moss is to throw a deep ball to someone else? I'll take the 80% completions % and wide open running game we countered with tonight over thinking offense is about 1 play scores.

 

[RayClay]

2nd year wideout and two first year tight ends. Give them time to work into the system and their roles.

I'll grant you we don't have a tried and true rotation, but I rarely see defenses being set up play to play. Lots odf fancy WR screens and so on, but I don't see Moss wide open, or plays like the big Hernandez run after the catch against Cinci (I think) often enough.

Yes, I know we can put up a lot of points in spurts, but we also stall too often for all the firepower we have IMO. This game was a lark, but I miss what Charlie Weis could do with tools like Troy Brown (3rd down receiver and special teamer up til then), Patten and Wiggins and not much else.

I can't imagine what he'd draw up for a situation where he ran Moss into a triple team, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a five yard sideline pass.

 

[Patspsycho]

Well that depends on how you define production. The standard definition is what you produce. Moss hasn't produced hardly anything by that standard.
But I know thats not your point, and I agree things happen just by Moss being out there drawing coverage.
I will say that Moss has dropped some passes this year, a TD tonight and a key one that turned into an Int vs the Jets, that was a huge turning point.
Not really trying to pile on Moss, but it does seem he serves more as a decoy this year than a pass catcher. I would suppose if this continues teams will start to change coverage schemes and he will go nuts.

He consistently draws double-teams. On the Woodhead TD, both he and Welker drews double-teams and that allowed Woodhead to sail in for the TD.

 

[RayClay]

Huh?
The Jets, in the 2nd half, played Moss man to man. Aside from that, when every other team tried to take them away, we have scored 117 points in 3 games. How is it not working?
Do you really think the counter to a defense taking away the deep ball to Moss is to throw a deep ball to someone else? I'll take the 80% completions % and wide open running game we countered with tonight over thinking offense is about 1 play scores.

No, I think a pass to a vacated area with room to run, like we did with Hernandez the other week. Almost went for a TD, but at least it was aggressive. Why should they stop doubling Moss? I wouldn't.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Moss isn't a "tons of targets and receptions" guy, traditionally. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Welker and Hernandez finish the year ahead of him in receptions. I do think he'll be #1, #2 at worst in yards though.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Well that depends on how you define production. The standard definition is what you produce. Moss hasn't produced hardly anything by that standard.
But I know thats not your point, and I agree things happen just by Moss being out there drawing coverage.
I will say that Moss has dropped some passes this year, a TD tonight and a key one that turned into an Int vs the Jets, that was a huge turning point.
Not really trying to pile on Moss, but it does seem he serves more as a decoy this year than a pass catcher. I would suppose if this continues teams will start to change coverage schemes and he will go nuts.

Claiming that Tate has been more productive than Moss in the receiving game really shouldn't be dignified with a response, but screw it.

If you call a couple TDs and getting doubled on single play "hardly anything" in the way of production, then you should probably take your evaluation methods back to the drawing table. You could make a good case for Tate's production if you factor in his ST play, but you're not doing that.

 

[Ring 6]

He consistently draws double-teams. On the Woodhead TD, both he and Welker drews double-teams and that allowed Woodhead to sail in for the TD.

I'm not disputing that.
But in the past he produced as well, so far this year he has not. Which is fine because its working.
But we will need to adapt to defenses changing that strategy if things keep going as they are right now (heavy coverage and no passes to Moss)

 

[Ring 6]

No, I think a pass to a vacated area with room to run, like we did with Hernandez the other week. Almost went for a TD, but at least it was aggressive. Why should they stop doubling Moss? I wouldn't.

If the double Moss all day and we score ignore him and score 40 points a game, they will change that. The Jets did.

 

[Ring 6]

Claiming that Tate has been more productive than Moss in the receiving game really shouldn't be dignified with a response, but screw it.

If you call a couple TDs and getting doubled on single play "hardly anything" in the way of production, then you should probably take your evaluation methods back to the drawing table. You could make a good case for Tate's production if you factor in his ST play, but you're not doing that.

Ok, so perhaps you should actually read what I write before you attack me for something I didnt say.

I have accepted throughout the thread that Moss contributes more than what he produces.
I also said IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU DEFINE PRODUCTION and the common definition of production is what you produce, which for a WR is catching the ball.
In 4 games Moss has 9 catches for 139 yards. Seasonalized that would be 36 receptions and 556 yards. That would not be considered productive by anyone.
Finally, where did I say Tate was more productive?

Pergaps instead of throwing an insult at me, you should take your reading skills to the 'drawing table'

 

[Ring 6]

No, I think a pass to a vacated area with room to run, like we did with Hernandez the other week. Almost went for a TD, but at least it was aggressive. Why should they stop doubling Moss? I wouldn't.

Thats what they are doing though. You arent going to get 40 yard passes every play.
I mean we could run a Martz offense and try to get big plays every snap but then we will lead the league in turnovers and sacks like he always does.
A 5 yard pass to Welker that gets completed 90% of the time is good thing

 

[BradyFTW!]

Ok, so perhaps you should actually read what I write before you attack me for something I didnt say.

I have accepted throughout the thread that Moss contributes more than what he produces.
I also said IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU DEFINE PRODUCTION and the common definition of production is what you produce, which for a WR is catching the ball.
In 4 games Moss has 9 catches for 139 yards. Seasonalized that would be 36 receptions and 556 yards. That would not be considered productive by anyone.
Finally, where did I say Tate was more productive?

Pergaps instead of throwing an insult at me, you should take your reading skills to the 'drawing table'

I didn't insult you at all. I didn't even mention you, except to say that you should probably take your definition of production back to the drawing board. I'm disputing the idea that, for a WR, production = catches. I get that maybe you're a little sensitive that everyone's trashing on your thread, but the premise is just ridiculous. Catches are a one dimensional, at best, way to define production.

It ignores TDs and yardage, obviously, but it also ignores the fact that he makes everyone else's jobs way easier. If you want to explain that by saying that it falls under the umbrella of contribution, but not production, then once again, I'm not sure how that's even worth a response. "It's not (subjective term); clearly it's (synonym for that subjective term)."

 

[Ring 6]

I didn't insult you at all. I didn't even mention you, except to say that you should probably take your definition of production back to the drawing board.

THAT IS the insult

I'm disputing the idea that, for a WR, production = catches.

Who said that?

I get that maybe you're a little sensitive that everyone's trashing on your thread,

What is the point of that comment.

but the premise is just ridiculous. Catches are a one dimensional, at best, way to define production.

You are making a straw man argument.
When did I say this? In fact you claimed I did once, I pointed out I didnt say that, and then you do it again?

It ignores TDs and yardage, obviously, but it also ignores the fact that he makes everyone else's jobs way easier. If you want to explain that by saying that it falls under the umbrella of contribution, but not production, then once again, I'm not sure how that's even worth a response. "It's not (subjective term); clearly it's (synonym for that subjective term)."[/quote]

 

[BradyFTW!]

THAT IS the insult

It's an insult to say that you chose a sucky method for evaluating WRs? Duno what to tell you, then: it's the truth. Sorry if it hurts your feelings. I've done a crappy job of evaluating players plenty of times; it's bound to happen when you make regular observations. No need to get defensive about a simple observation.

Who said that?


You are making a straw man argument.
When did I say this? In fact you claimed I did once, I pointed out I didnt say that, and then you do it again?

You wrote, and I quote: "the common definition of production is what you produce, which for a WR is catching the ball." How is claiming that you equated catches with production a straw man, when you explicitly wrote it? I wasn't even inferring anything from what you wrote: took it 100% at face value.