Why not Pierre Garcon?

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

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    And the way I think about it, they should try to resign Gronk next year (and maybe even Hernandez if I can dream) to a deal so any accounting for deals this year should take that into effect. I think we can all agree players like gronk don't come along too often. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    I'll put Pierre Garcon on my "possibly" list.  Assuming that it takes a second rounder to pry him loose from Indy (he's a RFA), then the Patriots have every reason to make him maybe a $3 million per year offer and then see if Indy matches it.  Indy probably will, but it's good to see Indy squirm and cough up money that they don't have. 

    He has long arms and is strong so that he can fight off jams at the line well.  He's great for the bubble screen.  He's somewhat of a downfield threat and he's a good leaper, so that if he's only single covered, Brady will try him sometimes.  He's fully experienced.  If the Patriots line up a downfield threat that commands double coverage, then that leaves only nine players for, you know the story, who covers Hernandez?

    My other "possibly" RFA would be Robert Meachem.  N.O. already has a more important wide receiver to sign with limited cash available.  If Meachem could be left lightly protected and if he could be pried loose, he's tall, he's very quick in the Patriots mold, and he's fast enough to cause issues downfield.  He scored touchdowns on 10% of all of his passes.  A highly effective red zone offense is a wonderful thing, and it requires one more tall defender on the opponent's defense.  Many opponents' defenses are lucky to have one tall defender, and then who covers Gronkowski? 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joel63. Show Joel63's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Rockdog,

    I forgot to mention the part about driving up the price for the Steelers. In fact, I believe that even if the Patriots aren't the team to make an offer for Wallace, someone will. Cleveland has plenty of leverage in this draft. On a side note, do you think BB has a long term plan for Underwood here? I only ask because he must see something and perhaps with a complete offseason, OTA's and camp maybe he develops as the deep threat. What's the book on his hands? I'm not sure but it seems to me that he may drop a few catchable balls. I only recall a couple of plays with him. The O'brien blow up and a deep route that he short armed and just dropped. Thoughts?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Hey Joel,

    For all I know Underwood might be a good player going forward, but I would assume he's a 4A player based on what we all saw last year. The pats were screaming for anyone to step up to be a good intermediate to deep threat, and no one stepped up. Going back a year, it seems like Tate doesn't have good deep skills either. With all that info I can see a big improvement if they actually get a deep threat that Brady trusts (this is obviously huge, as I think it's obvious Brady more or less writes off unreliable options). It's exciting to think about how great the offense could become if they add that threat. It didn't work with Ocho but that shouldn't prevent them from trying to find the right guy. Maybe it's not Garcon. Has there been any chatter re Lloyd? That seems to be the most intuitive answer. 

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]Rockdog, I forgot to mention the part about driving up the price for the Steelers. In fact, I believe that even if the Patriots aren't the team to make an offer for Wallace, someone will. Cleveland has plenty of leverage in this draft. On a side note, do you think BB has a long term plan for Underwood here? I only ask because he must see something and perhaps with a complete offseason, OTA's and camp maybe he develops as the deep threat. What's the book on his hands? I'm not sure but it seems to me that he may drop a few catchable balls. I only recall a couple of plays with him. The O'brien blow up and a deep route that he short armed and just dropped. Thoughts?
    Posted by Joel63[/QUOTE]
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joel63. Show Joel63's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Rockdog,

    I haven't heard anything regarding Lloyd as of late. I only read his comments about following Josh. McDaniels really brought out his ability in the two seasons they were together and I for one loved the production. In NE there are so many other weapons that he may see a lot of single coverage (or others will) and TB will exploit those matchups. Remember his favorite receiver? "The open one."  :)
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Ha. the open receiver is the true #1. My hope is that it'll be the deep receiver next year in some instances. 

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]Rockdog, I haven't heard anything regarding Lloyd as of late. I only read his comments about following Josh. McDaniels really brought out his ability in the two seasons they were together and I for one loved the production. In NE there are so many other weapons that he may see a lot of single coverage (or others will) and TB will exploit those matchups. Remember his favorite receiver? "The open one."  :)
    Posted by Joel63[/QUOTE]
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pyegian. Show pyegian's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    I just don't think a long term deal for Welker will hamstring the team from signing other players, including another receiver.  He's not going to get Fitzgerald money, $15 million a year.  I think he'll settle for around $7.5-8 million a year, which is incredible value for the production.  That still leaves money to sign a stretch the field receiver and a safety.  Then they can draft pass rush.  Let's not forget how many receivers completely flame out in New England because of difficulty with the system and earning Brady's trust.  The fact that Welker already has that adds immensely to his value.  Next year's receiving corps should be Gronk, Hern, Welker, FA (Lloyd, Wayne, Garcon, Meachem, etc), and Branch (3rd receiver).  Branch shouldn't be a #2 but he has plently left to be the 3rd guy, especially since we run 2 TE sets.  Adding a legit #2 will do exactly what we all know this offense needs, and we ABSOLUTELY can get that guy while also retaining Welker.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SilverSun. Show SilverSun's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon? : Rock and anonymis, you're both right on here.  A lot of fans look at the gaudy reception numbers for Gronk, Welker, and Hernandez and think we have great talent.  Well, individually, we do.  But football is a game where you win not just by having great individual talent but by having the right combinations of talent.  Having three great receivers who all play in the short middle of the field isn't a great situation, no matter how good all those receivers are individually.  In some ways the Pats might be better off with a little less individual talent in that part of the field and more useful talent in other parts of the field (running back, deep receiver, perimeter receiver, third-down back).  The other thing that fans frequently don't get is that Welker's massive reception total isn't necessarily a good thing--while it's great Welker can catch that many balls, it's not a good thing that we're throwing to him that much.  It shows the offense is overdependent on too few people.  It's not a sign of a healthy offense to be as unbalanced toward two or three people as this one is.   I'd like to keep Welker--he brings a lot to the team.  But he's a guy in a truly healthy offense we should be throwing to about half as frequently as we do now.  A lot of his balls should be going to other receivers or being handed off to backs.  This offense relies way too heavily on just three guys.  Add one or two real deep/perimeter receivers and a back who can both run and catch well out of the backfield and you'd have something special. As it is, it's way too narrowly constructed around three (or four if you include Branch) receivers.   
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Good post, Pro!  We got bigger FA needs on D, so let's go there with our $$$.
    Like, get us Mike Griffin at FS and Mario Williams at DE from Texan's who have cap problems and that's all the FA signings we need.  We can do a WR and other help in the draft, IMO.
     

Share