What should BB have done about the WR position.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from patriotrain. Show patriotrain's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to expertmike's comment:

    They should have resigned Welker.  And/or signed any one of Stallworth, Lloyd or Branch.

    They shouldn't have signed a career injury risk, especially while gutting the team of so many other experienced players. 

    They should have simplified the offense - let the rooks use their athletic abilities to contribute.  Brady's out there trying to execute calculus with a collection of guys who count on their fingers.  Where is the coaching leadership to force these guys to get in-synch?

    They shouldn't have had Brady restructure his contract then not get additional talent and allow the existing talent level to be greatly diminished.  Makes management look slimly. 

    Shouldn't disassemble a highly successful team without reason unless/until you can replace with something better. 

    Total management irresponsibility. 

     

     

     

     

     

      



    the rookies will work out , give it time, we're 2-0, its all going to be good

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrnkBnhm. Show FrnkBnhm's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to PATSchampsSB's comment:

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:

    [QUOTE]

    In response to PATSchampsSB's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:

    [QUOTE]

    In response to PATSchampsSB's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    with the 48th pick of the 2012 nfl draft patriots could select T.Y hilton

    Higher Drops per throw than anyone in the league.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think he is explosive. I would like to have him on the team. 

    [/QUOTE]

    We have Josh Boyce.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah man, he is explosive, let`s see if he starts getting more involved in the offense, why isn`t he being used?

    [/QUOTE]

    How do we have any idea whether or not he is capable of being "explosive" at the NFL level?  7 catches for 71 yards on 12 targets in the preseason is hardly off the chart.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:



    LLoyd, Branch, Welker, Fells, even Woody who was catching alot and all part of the record breaking offense, and all gone.    Dobson, Tompkins, Sudfeld, Boyce.   And yes, old man Branch has been on the team for years, as a receiver.  Who'd they replace Moss with?  There has been no receiver upgrade since then except the oft injured gronk and the serial killer........ and then all at once.

    Terrible management, no anticipation, ignoring obvious red flags,  4 rookies as plan A, b, c, d.

    Looks like ur making the s hit up, tough guy.

     



    Only 3 of the guys you listed were WR and counting Branch is a joke.  He didn't even put up 150 yards and scored ZERO tds last season.  Hardly a part of the offense.  Plus you said we were replacing 4 receivers with rookies which is obviously false.

    Woody was supposed to be replaced by Vereen aka not a rookie.

    Amendola and Edelman were supposed to replace Welker aka not rookies.

    Gronk and Hernandez weren't even supposed to be replaced.  Gronk isn't and Hernandez is only being replaced because he f'ing killed someone not because the team dumped him.

    So the only receiver the Patriots dumped who needed to replaced by a rookie was Lloyd.  You are making shyt up like I said.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    Belichick always has an eye on the future. Many fans who want it all now hate this approach. The rest of us love it because it means the Patriots will be in contention for years to come.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    Belichick always has an eye on the future. Many fans who want it all now hate this approach. The rest of us love it because it means the Patriots will be in contention for years to come.



    Awesome post.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

    In response to PATSchampsSB's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to PATSchampsSB's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to PATSchampsSB's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    with the 48th pick of the 2012 nfl draft patriots could select T.Y hilton

     

     

    Higher Drops per throw than anyone in the league.

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    I think he is explosive. I would like to have him on the team. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    We have Josh Boyce.

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Yeah man, he is explosive, let`s see if he starts getting more involved in the offense, why isn`t he being used?

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    How do we have any idea whether or not he is capable of being "explosive" at the NFL level?  7 catches for 71 yards on 12 targets in the preseason is hardly off the chart.

    [/QUOTE]

    He was nursing a foot injury, he has been ever since he was drafted. Let me remind you how fast this guy is, he's a 4.33 fast WR with a better shuttle, cone and bench reps than any of the big name slot WRs. Including Welker, Edelman and, my personal favorite, Victor Cruz. 

     

    He's dynamic. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

     

     

    We have over $10mil in space right now. There's room for everyone he listed and still have enough cap for in season signings

     

     



    People keep quoting this number.  Some people even quote higher numbers like 13 or 14 million.  I have never seen a source with either of those numbers. 

     

     

    The NFLPA has the Pats at 7.4 million.

     



    The NFLPA report is the reliable one.  It was 10 million during camp, then went up to 14, and is now in the 7s.  It keeps changing as they make deals or certain deadlines are passed which reqiure them to make credits against the cap.  

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

     

    Re building a position like WR completely in one year is near impossible.  If Bb should have done anything different, he probably should have been doing it going all the wat back to 2009.  At a minimum, he maybe should have signed one solid veteran before last season or the year before.  

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    LLoyd, Branch, Welker, Fells, even Woody who was catching alot and all part of the record breaking offense, and all gone.    Dobson, Tompkins, Sudfeld, Boyce.   And yes, old man Branch has been on the team for years, as a receiver.  Who'd they replace Moss with?  There has been no receiver upgrade since then except the oft injured gronk and the serial killer........ and then all at once.

     

    Terrible management, no anticipation, ignoring obvious red flags,  4 rookies as plan A, b, c, d.

    Looks like ur making the s hit up, tough guy.

     

     



    Only 3 of the guys you listed were WR and counting Branch is a joke.  He didn't even put up 150 yards and scored ZERO tds last season.  Hardly a part of the offense.  Plus you said we were replacing 4 receivers with rookies which is obviously false.

     

    Woody was supposed to be replaced by Vereen aka not a rookie.

    Amendola and Edelman were supposed to replace Welker aka not rookies.

    Gronk and Hernandez weren't even supposed to be replaced.  Gronk isn't and Hernandez is only being replaced because he f'ing killed someone not because the team dumped him.

    So the only receiver the Patriots dumped who needed to replaced by a rookie was Lloyd.  You are making shyt up like I said.

    [/QUOTE]

    Count again,... Einstein, threw in Woody for good measure.  Replaced by and injured, Ir'd player who is not playing.  So who gets his catches?   BRANCH< LLOYD< WELKER< FELLS .  Who the hell gives you the right to just drop Branch?   He was a vet receiver for the NEP. 

    True or false?

    3 rookie receivers replaced 3 vet receivers.  Correct?

    1 rookie uda fa TE replaces a Vet TE.   TE's play catch too.   Correct?

    What part of this s hit don't you get?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Re building a position like WR completely in one year is near impossible.  If Bb should have done anything different, he probably should have been doing it going all the wat back to 2009.  At a minimum, he maybe should have signed one solid veteran before last season or the year before.  



    He was busy putting his chips together on the D side.  

    I think he was happy having AH, Gronk, Amendoal, Vereen and Edelman as his playmakers.  With one rookie getting some serious reps.  

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

    How do we have any idea whether or not he is capable of being "explosive" at the NFL level?  7 catches for 71 yards on 12 targets in the preseason is hardly off the chart.



    this is true for all the rookies on both sides of the ball. However, I think they should get as many real time reps anyway. We'll find out later in the season how they pan out.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    We have over $10mil in space right now. There's room for everyone he listed and still have enough cap for in season signings

     



    People keep quoting this number.  Some people even quote higher numbers like 13 or 14 million.  I have never seen a source with either of those numbers. 

     

    The NFLPA has the Pats at 7.4 million.

    [/QUOTE]

    Their own numbers don't add up. roughly they would be ~800k under the cap with ~$5.6mil carry over. $5.6 + .8 =/= $7.4 it should only be $6.4 but regardless looking at their cap number the still had enough for lark (vet min) and either Sanders or Welker and still have enough for emergency funds during the year for in season moves

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to expertmike's comment:

    They should have resigned Welker.  And/or signed any one of Stallworth, Lloyd or Branch.

    They shouldn't have signed a career injury risk, especially while gutting the team of so many other experienced players. 

    They should have simplified the offense - let the rooks use their athletic abilities to contribute.  Brady's out there trying to execute calculus with a collection of guys who count on their fingers.  Where is the coaching leadership to force these guys to get in-synch?

    They shouldn't have had Brady restructure his contract then not get additional talent and allow the existing talent level to be greatly diminished.  Makes management look slimly. 

    Shouldn't disassemble a highly successful team without reason unless/until you can replace with something better. 

    Total management irresponsibility. 

     

     

     

     

     

      



    Why is it that people with expert in their name rarely are?

    The reason the receiving corp was disassembled was it didn't work. How many superbowls did they win? 0!

    Hate to tell you but the talent level was raised considerably. Even an "expert" should be able to see that.

    Wouldn't you rather have a guy that makes the tough catches over one that drops the tough catches? I would!

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.


    Rootaninny.

    Where are these tough catches you speak of? 

    The rookie receivers have shown the most glaring weaknesses on the offense, as Kenbrell Thompkins (6 of 21 for 89 yards), Aaron Dobson (3 of 10 for 56 yards) and Josh Boyce (no targets) have only caught 9 of 31 passes (29.0 percent) for 145 yards and one touchdown. Brady has completed 65 percent of his throws elsewhere, but he wouldn't pin the offense's deficiencies on the rookies

    You do realize they have to win the division, by winning games, to sniff the SB.   Rookies shouldn't be starting as a position of need.   Rookies should be the 4-6th option.   29% completion to anyone other than Edelman (who will be hurt), is not going to cut it.  This team may miss the Playoffs if things don't improve dramatically. TRUTH!

    Going from the #1, O to the 27th is not going to cut it.

    Would you stack the Pats 2-0 against Denvers 2-0?

    What if they played Denver and anyone else with a pulse in the first 2 games?  63-3/Denver!

    Would they still be 2-0?

    Reality check.  I think we know the answer to that.


    "The worse New England has gotten on defense, the better Brady has been forced to become -- with 109 touchdowns, 20 interceptions and a 39-9 record the past three seasons. "

    CLARK JUDGE______7/13/13_____________________________________
                                  
                             

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Count again,... Einstein, threw in Woody for good measure.  Replaced by and injured, Ir'd player who is not playing.  So who gets his catches?   BRANCH< LLOYD< WELKER< FELLS .  Who the hell gives you the right to just drop Branch?   He was a vet receiver for the NEP. 

    True or false?

    3 rookie receivers replaced 3 vet receivers.  Correct?

    1 rookie uda fa TE replaces a Vet TE.   TE's play catch too.   Correct?

    What part of this s hit don't you get?



    The top 5 receivers from last years team were Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, Lloyd and Woodhead.  Fells and Branch weren't even major contributors for this team and barely saw the field.  Of the top 5 guys that actually made up the passing offense we only chose to dump 3 of them and two were replaced with vets.  Lloyd is the only one that they were counting on the rookies to replace.  Vereen was supposed to replace Woodhead and Amendola/Edelman were supposed to replace Welker.  Last time I checked Edelman is still healthy and has 20 catches through 2 games so Welker hasn't been replaced with a rookie.  Sudfeld is replacing Hernandez not Gronk.  Hooman is replacing Gronk because he is the superior blocker.  Sudfeld wouldn't be playing if Hernandez was on the roster.

    You keep blasting BB for dismantling the record setting offense and replacing them with rookies and then two of your examples were barely involved in the record setting offense.  Branch and Fells scored zero TDs and combined for under 250 yards receiving last season. The offense wouldn't be any better if those two guys were on the roster.  Of course this is all bs because your original premise was that BB is an idiot for using rookies when in fact he had vets lined up to replace 2 of the 3 the guys he actually dumped (Woodhead and Welker) and now you are shifiting the goalposts trying to include injured guys after I exposed you for the liar you are.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.


    I think they intended to run a lot of Gronk, Hernandez, Amendola, and whoever won the last position to replace Lloyd (Boyce, or Thompkins) with Vereen as a skilled pass catcher in the backfield.  I like that set but obviously things have happenned.  

    I also like Edelman was the WR backup.

    You could make the case that Amendola is too injury prone, but they did have Edelman as well.  You could say they should have gone after Sanders harder, and that may be true.  But they did get several vets and invest 3 draft picks in WR.  I think the fact that their four best pass catchers are out (three temporarily in Amendola, Gronk, and Vereen, Hernandez permanently) was just too unexpected.  

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    Belichick takes the long view, not the popular view. I get that most think they should take advantage of Brady while he is there and surround him with all manner of expensive toys. I just don't think that's not how this guy thinks. He will do it by trading if he can find the right guys and the right trading partners, like Moss/Welker in '07. But he's not going to bring in a Mike Wallace and pay him that kind of money, ever.

    The long view means he'd always rather let a guy go a year early than a year late. It means he will not spend on free agents, generally because: 1. they're rarely worth it, and 2. he doesn't want to upset the salary/ego balance of his own players.

    He has no problem paying guys like Wilfork and Mankins and so on, but he'll never do that with a player from another team. He made an exception with Adalius and it didn't work out.

    He's had success bring in scrap heap guys (Rodney, others) and he will keep doing it, even if most don't work out. They're low cost, low risk. 

    Obviously, the plan for pass catchers involved Gronk and Hernandez and a couple of veteran guys to go with the new draft picks he wanted to bring in. Probably planned on keeping Welker but not sure how broken up he was to lose him. I also don't think they went to the trouble of signing Sanders if they thought Pitt would match. But again, they have their structure with FAs and they're not going to veer much from that.

    Stuff happens and the plan is adjusted. They'll figure it out. 

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    Belichick takes the long view, not the popular view. I get that most think they should take advantage of Brady while he is there and surround him with all manner of expensive toys. I just don't think that's not how this guy thinks. He will do it by trading if he can find the right guys and the right trading partners, like Moss/Welker in '07. But he's not going to bring in a Mike Wallace and pay him that kind of money, ever.

    The long view means he'd always rather let a guy go a year early than a year late. It means he will not spend on free agents, generally because: 1. they're rarely worth it, and 2. he doesn't want to upset the salary/ego balance of his own players.

    He has no problem paying guys like Wilfork and Mankins and so on, but he'll never do that with a player from another team. He made an exception with Adalius and it didn't work out.

    He's had success bring in scrap heap guys (Rodney, others) and he will keep doing it, even if most don't work out. They're low cost, low risk. 

    Obviously, the plan for pass catchers involved Gronk and Hernandez and a couple of veteran guys to go with the new draft picks he wanted to bring in. Probably planned on keeping Welker but not sure how broken up he was to lose him. I also don't think they went to the trouble of signing Sanders if they thought Pitt would match. But again, they have their structure with FAs and they're not going to veer much from that.

    Stuff happens and the plan is adjusted. They'll figure it out. 

     



    Good post Muzz.

    things would have looked a lot different if Hern, Vereen and Gronk were all playing. 

    it appears bb totally revamped the offense but really didn't. We are seeing the effect if injuries and lots if them at once. It would be enough to cripple any team. Miracously the pats have won.

    the concern is if they will get back who they have from injury and get to play together to make a difference. Lets hope it's not to late to affect the season outcome. Until then, dobson, Boyce and thompkins will have to step up. If we can hold it together and get all these guys healthy we will be fine.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from expertmike. Show expertmike's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    [/QUOTE]


    Why is it that people with expert in their name rarely are?

     

    The reason the receiving corp was disassembled was it didn't work. How many superbowls did they win? 0!

    Hate to tell you but the talent level was raised considerably. Even an "expert" should be able to see that.

    Wouldn't you rather have a guy that makes the tough catches over one that drops the tough catches? I would!

    [/QUOTE]

    ==============================================

    The receiving corp didn't work?  Pats were the NFL #1 scoring offense last year: 34.8 ppg.   So far this year they are 24th of 32: 18 ppg.   Good thing BB raised the talent level considerably.   Good thing we got guys who can make the tough catches.

    Why so much reluctance on this board to call out BB for unnecessarily diminishing this team?

    Has cap money.  Has long had one of the best QBs in NFL history.  Could/should have phased-in young receivers over a few years.  Interesting that he's never been able to pick or develop one - until now - he suddenly hits the jackpot with three rookie receivers, all superior to the vets, according to you.

    Understand that those in positions of authority are not automatically right.  When they grow increasingly bone headed, it's good to think and talk about it.   BB's gotta be flustrated with the bad drafting outcomes.  Bad Chad Johnson outcome. Bad AH outcome, especially just after resigning him.  Bad luck with Gronk.  Seems like he's adopted a scorched earth policy wrt these rookie receivers - force fit em in there - flailing about.

     

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to expertmike's comment:

     

     


    Why is it that people with expert in their name rarely are?

     

    The reason the receiving corp was disassembled was it didn't work. How many superbowls did they win? 0!

    Hate to tell you but the talent level was raised considerably. Even an "expert" should be able to see that.

    Wouldn't you rather have a guy that makes the tough catches over one that drops the tough catches? I would!

    [/QUOTE]

    ==============================================

    The receiving corp didn't work?  Pats were the NFL #1 scoring offense last year: 34.8 ppg.   So far this year they are 24th of 32: 18 ppg.   Good thing BB raised the talent level considerably.   Good thing we got guys who can make the tough catches.

    Why so much reluctance on this board to call out BB for unnecessarily diminishing this team?

    Has cap money.  Has long had one of the best QBs in NFL history.  Could/should have phased-in young receivers over a few years.  Interesting that he's never been able to pick or develop one - until now - he suddenly hits the jackpot with three rookie receivers, all superior to the vets, according to you.

    Understand that those in positions of authority are not automatically right.  When they grow increasingly bone headed, it's good to think and talk about it.   BB's gotta be flustrated with the bad drafting outcomes.  Bad Chad Johnson outcome. Bad AH outcome, especially just after resigning him.  Bad luck with Gronk.  Seems like he's adopted a scorched earth policy wrt these rookie receivers - force fit em in there - flailing about.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How well did that receiving corp do in the superbowl, not very. They became the Manning Colts, great regular season and fantasy football numbers but choke on the big stage.

    Ah, we won't call BB out because he didn't diminish the team. He brought in more talented rookies with greater upside to compliment TB for the rest of his career. Now comes the fun part of watching them grow.

    Yes amazing how that happened, three rookies beat out all the vets they let go. And those rookies are bigger and faster than the vets they replaced. And on top of that they are better at stretching the field than the vets were. They also don't turn turtle as soon as they catch the ball and get YAC!

    Almost forgot to mention how not going after big name receivers allowed the Pats to build one of the best D's in the league. I'm surprised an expert can't see all of that.

    BTW are you really Ron Borges?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from stillgridlocked. Show stillgridlocked's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    The Pats have a limited window to take advantage of Brady, does everyone agree on that?

    The future is now because once TB is gone this value pick thing isn't likely to get a hall of fame draftee in the 6th round.

    When Brady retires BB will be at the social security office after also retiring.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to stillgridlocked's comment:

    The Pats have a limited window to take advantage of Brady, does everyone agree on that?

    The future is now because once TB is gone this value pick thing isn't likely to get a hall of fame draftee in the 6th round.

    When Brady retires BB will be at the social security office after also retiring.



    You realize he probably has at least 5 years left right? You also realize what the Pats had wasn't working right?

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share