Re: Amendola The worst signing by the Pats, considering the cost, ever
posted at 1/20/2014 8:55 AM EST
In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
But, you know, it's okay. The Pats don't need recievers. They've got Austin Collie and Mulligan. Life is good.
They had great recievers: Gronk and Hernandez. They also had Edelman, Amendola + 3 rookies.
You think they should have added more to that? Maybe they should sign 8 WRs this off season?
Crime and injury screwed them.
Tell me - who were they supposed to pick up in September? Were their all pro WRs available?
Your bawling is understandable - you are emotional. But instead of repeating your yoga mantra "we need a WR" - why don;t you explain how and why a team that had Gronk and Hernandez locked up with huge contracts would pay for #1 WRs? They had already signed Amendola to save money.
What exactly did you expect? The team with ytwo all pro 23 year old TEs and two excellent slot recievers and 3 rookie WRs to go out and sign more?
They had two great TEs. WRs, not so much. The fact is the Pats haven't invested enough in WRs since Moss was let go. They've needed a decent non-slot receiver since 2010 (and Moss's decline was starting to show in 2009). Why hasn't that position been addressed in a serious way four seasons later? Branch, Stallworth, Lloyd all were stop-gap measures. Dobson was a bit of longshot.
Sure, the two TE offense looked great if both TEs stayed on the field. Lose one, though, and we're no better than other teams with one good receiving TE--but we don't have any WRs other than slots.
This would all be fine if we had a defense like Seattle's or San Francisco's but we don't. We need an offense that can score. We can't do that with a middling running game and with a receiving group who's best target is Julian Edelman.