We Do Not Need Any More Receivers

[VrabelMayeWin]

After the draft, bb suggested that "Brady better win now".

That sounded good before he knew that Branch would be gone and Jackson would miss all of training camp.

:bricks:

 

[SeanBruschi54]

Maybe the Patriots take a run at Stokely?

The Colts may release Brandon Stokley this offseason.

Stokley tore his Achilles' tendon in 2006 and is due a $2.1 million base salary to go with a $500,000 roster bonus in March. Indianapolis might use a first-day pick on a receiver if Stokley doesn't get healthy soon. Feb. 6 - 10:13 am et

I'm not against it he has the potential to be a very good WR in our system.

 

[ATippett56]

Maybe the Patriots take a run at Stokely?


I'm not against it he has the potential to be a very good WR in our system.

Stokely is injury prone and I don't want any Colts on this Patriots team.

 

[unoriginal]

Yup.

Sure, Caldwell played better than Branch this year. And Gaffney may have played better than Givens. The problem is that Caldwell and Gaffney didn't play better than Branch and Givens did during our Super Bowl runs.

They did, however, play better than Branch and Givens' first year in this offense.

 

[AzPatsFan]

No, let's not.

Top flight = top coin, unless you're referring to picking up someone who's in the "middle class" and hoping he's top flight. It's possible that, for instance, someone will hope that, pay top coin for bennett, and put my personal first choice to rest. Know what? I don't care. Knock him off the list.

A "top flight" WR is not desireable in an offense that thrives on spreading the ball around, based on "bang for the buck," "return on investment," however you want to phrase it. Of course, that's unless you get one in the draft -- which we just (possibly) did last year. Here's how I see it:

For a "top flight" free agent, you have a ceiling that's below "top flight," based on the tried and true, Sirius-radio-commercial-tested concept that Brady does not play favorites. Now, were Brady looking to one guy first every play, the lazy way to do it, the top flight guy would pan out, but Brady's effectiveness would be reduced to playing pitch and catch with his new toy. And how do you justify $6M+ APY, if he's not your "favorite"?

So there's a point at which he's a great upgrade within a spread offense, and there's another point at which he's a superstar, and maybe even a little antithetical to the spread offense. So, you change the offense to maximize his talents. But Brady's signature talent is the ability to find the open guy, making a collection of anyone else's 2s and 3s into a group of 1a, 1b, etc. receivers. You've already paid for that talent, and now you have to pay for Mr. Top Flight Receiver.

I don't want to say it's a black and white, zero-sum game, but I would say that the Pats can do well with an infusion of competence and depth, and someone like Bennett would even represent an upgrade. But if you go above the "middle class" of receivers in the FA market, you are getting in a bidding war to secure an asset you've already paid for, via Brady's abilities in a spread attack. So past the middle class, you get diminishing returns.

If you keep using 1st and 2nd rounders, you're jumping the gun based on not evaluating your current talent (in the person of Chad Jackson.) Giving up on Jackson after a first season would be a rookie mistake, unless the Pats' personnel see something you see, and I don't. I doubt it. I think it's a matter of him being a first year guy who was hurt a lot. Haven't heard BB call him a bust yet. So unless the Pats' coaches see Chad as a bust, I would think a "need" pick for WR in the early rounds would be a very bad move.

Now a value move, that's something else. If someone the Pats covet falls to them, when they think he goes ten picks higher, of course they jump. Otherwise I don't see WR as a first day selection.

But then, the Pats never do what I think they will on draft day :beersign:

PFnV

Brilliant analysis. It really summarizes the Superstar Dilemma that Belichick has faced and has consciously decided to go the other route. Few Blue Chippers and lots and lots of Red Chippers.

I chose to call it the Superstar plays "too big" mentality. His playing space takes away from others; in this case the Brady skill of "spreading it around" and the other merely good, receivers of "working all the time to get open, and getting the ball, if open" .

Putting all the eggs in a single basket may work in MLB, but football players incur injuries. Superstars are impossible to replace without changing and adjusting the team dramatically. That is tough to do in the heat of battle, when a "Blue Chip", (Superstar), goes down.

If a "Red Chip" goes down, simply plug in another "Red Chiip" (simply good) player and life goes on, little adjustment needed.

 

[BradyManny]

I'm feeling increasingly confident in my belief that Chad Jackson will be a great player starting next season. It's a bummer I gotta wait so long to find out if I'm right.

Anyway, bottom line, if the coaching staff believes Jackson can contribute next season, our wide receiving core is set.

 

[Oswlek]

My thoughts:

We don't *need* (although it would sure help) a guy who is absolutely better than Caldwell and Gafney...

But NE most certainly needs more receivers. Caldwell, prior to this past year, had never even played a full half-season. Brown can't be counted on to be more than a role player (if he even comes back) for more than a game or two. Jackson obviously left a sour taste in many mouths and health had much to do with that.

So, assuming the worst case scenerio (which, based on the past is more probable than not) a three WR set of Gafney/Childress/Smith does not sound very explosive to me.

NE needs to bring in some guys to at least upgrade the depth to David Patten-type levels.

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

My thoughts:

We don't *need* (although it would sure help) a guy who is absolutely better than Caldwell and Gafney...

But NE most certainly needs more receivers. Caldwell, prior to this past year, had never even played a full half-season. Brown can't be counted on to be more than a role player (if he even comes back) for more than a game or two. Jackson obviously left a sour taste in many mouths and health had much to do with that.

So, assuming the worst case scenerio (which, based on the past is more probable than not) a three WR set of Gafney/Childress/Smith does not sound very explosive to me.

NE needs to bring in some guys to at least upgrade the depth to David Patten-type levels.

I think we should continue to draft WR in the lower rounds. It seems to be a 50/50 proposition. For every P.K. Sam, there is a David Givens. For every Bethel Johnson, there is a Deion Branch....

 

[mgteich]

I agree with regard to the early rounds. So, then we should draft two players on Day One, expecting to get ONE Branch.

I disagree with regard to late rounds; the odds are nowhere near 50% at finding a Givens in Round 4-7. However, it certainly worth the try. I'm fine with draft two wide receivers in the late rounds, with the HOPE than one makes the 53-man squad.

I think we should continue to draft WR in the lower rounds. It seems to be a 50/50 proposition. For every P.K. Sam, there is a David Givens. For every Bethel Johnson, there is a Deion Branch....

 

[DaBruinz]

Yes, we are. Our offense was repeatedly abused by aggressive defenses this year. Brady was being blitzed, the run game was run blitzed. We had safeties in our backfield all season. It's a problem.

Sorry, but this just isn't true. Nor can you look at things in a vacuum. There are some very good defense out there that we had to face. You have to give them credit for the occasional safety blitz that wasn't picked up.

At the beginning of the season, things weren't good, I agree. But a large part of that was the new receivers and Brady not being on the same page. But, Brady had issues of his own. It wasn't just the receivers.

When the receivers finally got on track, it wasn't until mid-season and then Gabriel got dumped beecause he didn't want to be coached and didn't want to be a team player. Gaffney was on the team, but had only been here for 2 weeks. So, he was behind the curve as well. It wasn't until near the end of the season that both he and Caldwell were on the same page as Brady, but, by then, Watson was out with an injury and Maroney was just coming back from one.

In the San Diego game, the Pats went up against one of the best pass rushing teams in the league. What happened? The Pats didn't allow a sack to Merriman or Phillips. The offense got the Pats 24 points and the defense held them to 21. Caldwell and Gaffney had 17 receptions that game. Granted, it was for only 183 yards, but the patterns they were calling were short to help off-set the San Diego Pass rush.

Could the Pats use a "BONIFIDE" number #1 receiver? Yep. So could about half the teams in the league. Seriously. Look around. What teams have true #1 game breakers. Arizona. Dallas. Detroit. Oakland. Pittsburgh. Indianapolis. Cinncinnati. Baltimore. Each of those teams has major flaws (inclduing Indy).

Arizona - Don't play as a team.
Dallas - T.O. is a "ME" player and dropped a league leading 15 passes. Many in critical situations.
Detroit - No QB. Lack of WR depth. Lack of O-line. Defensive issues.
Oakland - Randy "i'll play when I want to play" Moss. Major issues on that team.
Pittsburgh - Their QB defines mediocre. No depth behind Hines Ward.
Cinncinnati - 9 players got arrested in 15 months. Lack of discipline.
Baltimore - They didn't use Mason properly and he was non-existant much of the year. The McNair/Mason bond seemed non-existant.

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

I agree with regard to the early rounds. So, then we should draft two players on Day One, expecting to get ONE Branch.

I disagree with regard to late rounds; the odds are nowhere near 50% at finding a Givens in Round 4-7. However, it certainly worth the try. I'm fine with draft two wide receivers in the late rounds, with the HOPE than one makes the 53-man squad.

I think drafting WR in the first round are a risky proposition, unless they are a Mark Clayton type quality.

 

[mgteich]

I agree, but our need justifies the risk. I believe that drafting two greatly increases our chances at getting one Clayton. I will have a very short Day One board. I have no interest in Day One except for WR, CB and perhaps a stud DE/LB.

I think drafting WR in the first round are a risky proposition, unless they are a Mark Clayton type quality.

 

[dhamz]

In the San Diego game, the Pats went up against one of the best pass rushing teams in the league. What happened? The Pats didn't allow a sack to Merriman or Phillips. The offense got the Pats 24 points and the defense held them to 21. Caldwell and Gaffney had 17 receptions that game. Granted, it was for only 183 yards, but the patterns they were calling were short to help off-set the San Diego Pass rush.

We had 5 3 and outs in that game. We had another 3 playe drive that ended with a pick. We had a 2 play and pick drive. Three of our scoring drives were 33 yards or less. With the exception of the end of the first half and the last drive of the game did you really think we showed anything on offense all day?

Could the Pats use a "BONIFIDE" number #1 receiver?

Why does "we need to improve our WRs" always get spun into "we need to get TO or Chad Johnson, etc."?

There is a balance between what the Patriots currently have at WR and going out and investing the $ that the Colts or Bengals invest at the position. It is the level of WR we have played with for the past few years prior to this one. Why would anyone be against getting our WRs back to that level?

 

[maverick4]

We had 5 3 and outs in that game. We had another 3 playe drive that ended with a pick. We had a 2 play and pick drive. Three of our scoring drives were 33 yards or less. With the exception of the end of the first half and the last drive of the game did you really think we showed anything on offense all day?

There is a balance between what the Patriots currently have at WR and going out and investing the $ that the Colts or Bengals invest at the position. It is the level of WR we have played with for the past few years prior to this one. Why would anyone be against getting our WRs back to that level?

Our receivers are no worse than what they've always been. We won Superbowls with Patten (a cast-off), Givens (a converted 7th rd pick), Troy (an overachieving small receiver), and Branch (a young draft pick). If you criticize our offense and think it needs a major upgrade, then look at the coordinator instead of the receivers.

 

[upstater1]

Our receivers are no worse than what they've always been. We won Superbowls with Patten (a cast-off), Givens (a converted 7th rd pick), Troy (an overachieving small receiver), and Branch (a young draft pick). If you criticize our offense and think it needs a major upgrade, then look at the coordinator instead of the receivers.

No one here is saying we can't win a Super Bowl with only Caldwell and Gaffney. After all, we did win with Patten, Brown and Wiggins (though I think Brown in 2001 far exceeds what our WRs give us now). As for McDaniels, he was the OC last year when this offense set passing records for the Pats in the Brady era.

 

[upstater1]

Sorry, but this just isn't true. Nor can you look at things in a vacuum. There are some very good defense out there that we had to face. You have to give them credit for the occasional safety blitz that wasn't picked up.

Very good defenses? That Colts defense is a crap defense that plays incredibly aggressive. They are daring every team to throw on them. And guess what, as far as winning playoff games go, the Colts D did their job, winning over offenses from KC, to Baltimore, to New England and the Bears. The problem is, I don't like the company we're keeping.

 

[maverick4]

No one here is saying we can't win a Super Bowl with only Caldwell and Gaffney. After all, we did win with Patten, Brown and Wiggins (though I think Brown in 2001 far exceeds what our WRs give us now). As for McDaniels, he was the OC last year when this offense set passing records for the Pats in the Brady era.

As I said before, I could care less about passing records. I am addressing the complaint by some people about how our offense couldn't generate first downs in the playoffs, and how it was somehow the receivers' fault more than the coordinator's fault.

 

[Rob0729]

Our receivers are no worse than what they've always been. We won Superbowls with Patten (a cast-off), Givens (a converted 7th rd pick), Troy (an overachieving small receiver), and Branch (a young draft pick). If you criticize our offense and think it needs a major upgrade, then look at the coordinator instead of the receivers.

I think the combination of Branch, Givens, Brown, and Patten was far better than what we had this past season, but I don't think we need a big upgrade. Caldwell and Gaffney will be pretty good #2 or #3 WRs, but neither are #1s. We don't need an elite #1, but we need an average to above average one like Branch.

Also, you can't look at where someone was drafted or the fact that they were a cast offs of another team as any indication of quality of the player. Sometimes people don't see talent or a player doesn't fit into a system. Colston in New Orleans was a rookie seventh round draft pick and he out performed most seasoned WRs. Mike Furrey was a converted safety and he was the 14th ranked WR in the league. Donald Driver was a 7th round pick and he was fifth in the league in receiving yards this year.

I also think our OC is fine too. He needs to improve his in game play calling a bit, but this year's offense stacks up against any Weis Patriots offense other than the 2004 season when Corey Dillon was the best RB in the league if you factor in games played. His average yards per game played was the best in the league.

 

[Kdo5]

QUESTION
Would would rather have had Branch and Givens playing for the patriots in the playoffs, or Caldwell and Gaffney? Is it close for anyone?

I am not questioning any FO decision, just stating what I think is obvious. We would have been more likely to be in the SB if we had better receivers.

I could honestly care less about Givens. I dont remember him as incredible in the post season. The good thing about his games in the playoffs was that he scored a TD in nearly all of the games I think. Impressive but its not like he was constantly making big plays in a single game. Gaffney's post season was better than any of Givens post seasons.

And yes Branch was a great asset in the playoffs. Caldwell's huge dropped catch that led to a FG was bad yet I honestly do not believe we would have made it past the Divisional playoffs if it werent for Gaffney and Caldwell's contributions against the Chargers. The recievers should get hardly any blame for us not reaching the SB. Sure we all know about Caldwell dropping a simple pass but our defense was really badly struggling to stop the Colts offense anyways. The fact that the Colts were moving fairly easy down the field in the second half may have lost us the game.

 

[Kdo5]

I think the combination of Branch, Givens, Brown, and Patten was far better than what we had this past season, but I don't think we need a big upgrade. Caldwell and Gaffney will be pretty good #2 or #3 WRs, but neither are #1s. We don't need an elite #1, but we need an average to above average one like Branch.

Also, you can't look at where someone was drafted or the fact that they were a cast offs of another team as any indication of quality of the player. Sometimes people don't see talent or a player doesn't fit into a system. Colston in New Orleans was a rookie seventh round draft pick and he out performed most seasoned WRs. Mike Furrey was a converted safety and he was the 14th ranked WR in the league. Donald Driver was a 7th round pick and he was fifth in the league in receiving yards this year.

I also think our OC is fine too. He needs to improve his in game play calling a bit, but this year's offense stacks up against any Weis Patriots offense other than the 2004 season when Corey Dillon was the best RB in the league if you factor in games played. His average yards per game played was the best in the league.

And if that player who is capable of a #1 spot on the roster asks for what Branch wanted, Dont count on us getting one.