Why not Pierre Garcon?

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

    Why not Pierre Garcon?

    There have been a lot of discussions about WR's that are either old or over priced. Pierre Garcon is 26, fast and averaged 13.5 per catch with six touchdowns and 947 yards last year without Peyton Manning. Unless he gets overpriced, it seems to me the perfect fit for NE.

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

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    I agree Mike.  I said a while back I had a funny feeling Garcon was the kind of guy BB might target.  One thing I think BB will like is that Garcon has proved he can play in a complex offense, where receivers have to make lots of reads and stay on the same page as the QB. Garcon's not flashy, but he's been a pretty good contributor in that Colts offense, he's probably not going to break the bank, and he just seems like the sort of guy BB would take a second look at.  Wouldn't be surprised at all if he came here--and I think he'd help the team.  He's got the speed to stretch the field and, while he's not huge, he's not a smurf. 

    Bring in Garcon and Colston and I think you'd have some reasonable veterans to diversify the passing attack. If you can sign Welker too, I think you'd have a great receiving corp without having to spend way too much.  


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

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Why not? The freakin' guy has a French name!  That's why!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmcintosh. Show andrewmcintosh's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    he does seem to be a player on the rise...what kind of money do we think he'll be commanding?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    He does have a wimpy name, but seems to be a good player. Then again, what Colts receiver doesn't have a girl name? Pierre Garcon? Jacob Tammy? And, CRAP, there's one or two more but I can't remember them. That makes this post a lot less convincing....
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    how well would he run routes, can he stretch the field, how well does he block?

    Saw some highlights, noticed he takes a lot of chances, runs east west and backwards a little bit. He's 6 ft....so, it'd be nicer to get a taller WR who can get physical. He does seem to have soft hands tho...
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmcintosh. Show andrewmcintosh's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    I wish the Pats could go back in time and find some way to get Hakeem Nicks on the team....He's exactly the type of player they need, a guy who can flat out beat the guy trying to cover him.  Anyways getting back on track, doesn't Garcon have a bit of a hands issue?  I seem to recall him dropping balls more often than you'd like.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mgraham. Show mgraham's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]Why not? The freakin' guy has a French name!  That's why!
    Posted by Getzo[/QUOTE]
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from mgraham. Show mgraham's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]Why not? The freakin' guy has a French name!  That's why!
    Posted by Getzo[/QUOTE]
    mais oui
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon? : mais oui
    Posted by mgraham[/QUOTE]

    HA!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    I agree too. Not many people are talking about him, and he'd be a guy that can help them out for a long time. I think this could happen if they're proactive and give him a nice contract very early in FA. 

    Honestly, a guy like Garcon is more valuable than Welker IMO because they don't have a guy like Garcon on the roster. Hernandez and edelman can handle
    welker's routes (clearly not as well, not saying that). In other words, I'd rather have Garcon, Gronk, hern, and edelman than welker, gronk, hern, and branch. I don't think safeties would be squatting on the pats so often with garcon. If they can figure out a way to have welker and a good deep threat, than all the better. 

    Clearly welker is better than edelman, but when welker's been out edelman has proven to be a theat (vs jets, balt, and houston in 2009, miami in 2010).


    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]I agree Mike.  I said a while back I had a funny feeling Garcon was the kind of guy BB might target.  One thing I think BB will like is that Garcon has proved he can play in a complex offense, where receivers have to make lots of reads and stay on the same page as the QB. Garcon's not flashy, but he's been a pretty good contributor in that Colts offense, he's probably not going to break the bank, and he just seems like the sort of guy BB would take a second look at.  Wouldn't be surprised at all if he came here--and I think he'd help the team.  He's got the speed to stretch the field and, while he's not huge, he's not a smurf.  Bring in Garcon and Colston and I think you'd have some reasonable veterans to diversify the passing attack. If you can sign Welker too, I think you'd have a great receiving corp without having to spend way too much.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]There have been a lot of discussions about WR's that are either old or over priced. Pierre Garcon is 26, fast and averaged 13.5 per catch with six touchdowns and 947 yards last year without Peyton Manning. Unless he gets overpriced, it seems to me the perfect fit for NE. MikeSki
    Posted by mikeskii[/QUOTE]

         Right you are, Mike. I'd much rather see the Pats bring him aboard, than the ancient Reggie Wayne.
     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joel63. Show Joel63's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

     I can't believe some of these posts. Yeah, he drops balls. He will not be a Patriot. And Garcon over Welker? You need your Patriots card revoked! Really guys, it's Brandon Lloyd. And I for one, like it. Just having fun fellas.  :)
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pancakespwn. Show Pancakespwn's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Because his hands are made out of butter. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    If they are going to pick up a "deep threat" hopefully its not someone who is old and has lost or is about to lose a step. I like the idea of a younger guy if they are going to go that route. Imo a running game will open things up more for this offense. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]If they are going to pick up a "deep threat" hopefully its not someone who is old and has lost or is about to lose a step. I like the idea of a younger guy if they are going to go that route. Imo a running game will open things up more for this offense. 
    Posted by sporter81[/QUOTE]

    they need both. some defenses are more vulnerable to a running game... some to a solid wide out game. i want them to have what they need to attack the other team however it makes sense. 

    also a i believe a good wide out game helps in two other ways.
    1) it will help the running game, slot and te as it keeps the d from crowding the middle
    2) it will also help tb, as it will be harder for the d to show something before snap and then do something different after, without tb seeing it.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Okay guy with 66 posts since 2009. 

    They can't sign everyone, and in the past they've made tough decisions (Seymour. Branch, Samual). A younger Garcon (who brings a unique skill set) would be very valuable.

    Just having fun though :)



    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE] I can't believe some of these posts. Yeah, he drops balls. He will not be a Patriot. And Garcon over Welker? You need your Patriots card revoked! Really guys, it's Brandon Lloyd. And I for one, like it. Just having fun fellas.  :)
    Posted by Joel63[/QUOTE]
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from pyegian. Show pyegian's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Garcon over Welker, you have to be kidding me.  Garcon is a middle of the road, solid receiver who is known in Indy for being flashy but inconsistent, Welker is the NFL leader in receptions over the last 5 years and is absolutely perfect for the Patriots offense.  Garcon could easily be a flameout bust in New England, like others before him.  I'd like to get him as the 4th option in our passing game, but instead of Welker would be downright ludicrous.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from yakv. Show yakv's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    2010 stats with peyton  
    13 dropped passes  
     
    Meanwhile, Pierre Garcon ranked as the fourth worst wideout in terms of drop percentage at 15.29%. 85 catachable balls were sent his way, and he dropped 13 of them. 
     
    No Thanks
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hetchinspete. Show Hetchinspete's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]I agree too. Not many people are talking about him, and he'd be a guy that can help them out for a long time. I think this could happen if they're proactive and give him a nice contract very early in FA.  Honestly, a guy like Garcon is more valuable than Welker IMO because they don't have a guy like Garcon on the roster. Hernandez and edelman can handle welker's routes (clearly not as well, not saying that). In other words, I'd rather have Garcon, Gronk, hern, and edelman than welker, gronk, hern, and branch. I don't think safeties would be squatting on the pats so often with garcon. If they can figure out a way to have welker and a good deep threat, than all the better.  Clearly welker is better than edelman, but when welker's been out edelman has proven to be a theat (vs jets, balt, and houston in 2009, miami in 2010). In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon? :
    Posted by Rockdog1293000[/QUOTE]

    You're sleeping with your head stuck in the wrong location if you think Edelman could replace Welker !!
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]I agree too. Not many people are talking about him, and he'd be a guy that can help them out for a long time. I think this could happen if they're proactive and give him a nice contract very early in FA.  Honestly, a guy like Garcon is more valuable than Welker IMO because they don't have a guy like Garcon on the roster. Hernandez and edelman can handle welker's routes (clearly not as well, not saying that). In other words, I'd rather have Garcon, Gronk, hern, and edelman than welker, gronk, hern, and branch. I don't think safeties would be squatting on the pats so often with garcon. If they can figure out a way to have welker and a good deep threat, than all the better.  Clearly welker is better than edelman, but when welker's been out edelman has proven to be a theat (vs jets, balt, and houston in 2009, miami in 2010). In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon? :
    Posted by Rockdog1293000[/QUOTE]

    RockD, you bring up a great point when you bring up the entire receiving corp vs. individual play. Some folks are only keying on Welker's skillz and trying to retain him.  So, if fans look at what the greatest weakness is for the passing game - it would have to be that we are missing a player who can both lengthen he field AND someone who teams have a hard time matching up with or cause coverage problem. Getting Colston or Jackson might be a better choice, and then using Edelman in the slot. Does Edelman fill Welker shoes? No,but the team's offense overall seems better


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

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon? : You're sleeping with your head stuck in the wrong location if you think Edelman could replace Welker !!
    Posted by Hetchinspete[/QUOTE]

    I think you missed the point. Noone can match  Welker's productivity easily. The question is - as a whole - does the receiving corp get better if welker is let go and the Patriots sign a guy like Colston or Jackson? To take it a step further, do the Patriots pick up a 3rd TE who can help block for the RB corp or PU a guy like Heath Evans? Our RB corp was 20th in 2011, #8 in 2010.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from teibore1. Show teibore1's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Colston wants too much money or he'd be staying in NO with a MVP caliber QB running an explosive offense.  Lloyd has had only one really good season in his 7 years in the league (would he sign a 1 year deal?).  Wayne is 35, same age as Moss.  VJax is a diva.  Bowe has had some issues and has been suspended.  Garcon could be a good fit depending on what type of contract you're looking at but there is a lot of risk.  They have been a number of #2 WR's putting up near 1000 yards only to switch teams and not have the same production - Anquain Boldin and Steve Breaston most recently comes to mind.  Another cheaper option could be Laurent Robinson.  He has had some injury issues and states he wants to stay in Dallas (as the #3) but until they sign him it is still an option.
     

Share