Receivers.

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

    Re: Receivers.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I whined about it? No, I blamed brady for an ill advised throw where the play never had a chance.  Note how brady is worse without establishing a run.

    [/QUOTE]


    You whined about a throw that hit the receiver perfectly and the receiver flubbed it right into the defender's arms. This is just another reason why you have zero credibility around here. You just can't overcome your psychotic obsession, and you don't know the game.

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

    Re: Receivers.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If we're just talking about today I would say Brady just wasn't that sharp with his passes, that being said the receivers have all dropped some easy ones all season, that happens...  

    Welker is the best slot receiver in the game, unfortunately he wants to get paid like a #1.  Lloyd makes the impossible catches and seems to drop the easiest ones, he is a near impossible cover on timing routes.  

    We could look at every positional group and say "what if" but while we're thin at WR we still have talent.  Woody is as good as any slot receiver found elsewhere and Hernandez makes a solid outside threat with his size.  We'll never s[end a high pick on a sexy WR, we'll probably never spend that kind of free agent money there either...

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't have a real problem with who is in the receiver corps. It's what they're doing. Fight for the damned ball. Make at least an effort. Don't stand there being a spectator while a turnover puts us behind the eightball. The great majority of Brady's INTs for a while now could have been avoided if these receivers were being coached up to standards. Take the damned guy out if you have to, but don't just stand there looking like a dope.
    Virtually all Brady's INTs are right there. He doesn't overthrow guys into some safety's arms like so many do. Most all of these are receivers going where they aren't supposed to or watching the ball be taken from them.

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

    Re: Receivers.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't have a real problem with who is in the receiver corps. It's what they're doing. Fight for the damned ball. Make at least an effort. Don't stand there being a spectator while a turnover puts us behind the eightball. The great majority of Brady's INTs for a while now could have been avoided if these receivers were being coached up to standards. Take the damned guy out if you have to, but don't just stand there looking like a dope.
    Virtually all Brady's INTs are right there. He doesn't overthrow guys into some safety's arms like so many do. Most all of these are receivers going where they aren't supposed to or watching the ball be taken from them.

    [/QUOTE]

    Last night one INT was tipped, not his fault, but he grossly under threw the other INT by trying to rifle it in when he should have lofted it with some touch.  He overthrew Hernandez on a third down attempt as well as being off on a few other passes...  I just think he was off yesterday, we still won so this is just nitpicking.  That we can still win a game without him being at peak efficiency is a good thing.

     

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

    Re: Receivers.

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Obviously, the Pats have been highly successful as currently constructed. But I have to admit, after watching Calvin Johnson, AJ Green, Anquan Bolden and Dez Bryant this week, it would be enticing to see the Pats with a receiver with those type of physical gifts (without being a diva/head case, that is).

    Course, you have to be at the top of the draft to get most of those guys, and you have to be willing to commit a lot of money to the receiver position. Those two things work against the Pats' philosophy.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was thinking the same thing watching those guys yesterday (that Baldwin kid looked pretty good in Seattle last night too). With Gronk out; other than Welker, the middle of the field beyond 10 yards is completely missing!

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

    Re: Receivers.

    The guy I'm really starting to wonder about is Vareen, this was supposed to be his coming out party season and yet he has done nothing. An undrafted (once suspended) running back has played more and meant more to this team than Vareen. This guy was a second round pick and he has given us nothing. First it was the injuries...what is it now? We lose our best pass catcher (Gronk) and this kid is a pass catching running back and he gave us nothing. I really thought he was going to be part of this offense in a pass catching role.

    Lloyd to me is an upgrade over what we had last year - nothing huge - but an upgrade. If Gronk can come back healthy (and that's a bigger if than I think we realize) we will be fine. To me the receivers are the least of this team's worries right now...a defense that gets blocked consistently is what really worries me. I bet there will be pass blocking instructional videos out there some day - with our defensive front seven in them - on how to nulify pass rushing and blitzing.

     

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

    Re: Receivers.

    NE needs a WR opposite Lloyd, but really, not an ace. And that is only because of age/vacancy. They have enough talent on offense. There just aren't enough REPS to show off all the talent. 

    Spend money on defense ... it's where its needed. 

    It would show results a lot more easily. Another legit pass rusher or two. A dominant End. 

    If NE adds ANOTHER talented offensive player I'm going to scream. I want thsi draft to be one OL, and a bunch of defensive players. 

    IT's not enough to break records be #1 every year? Are they shooting for an offense that *actually* scores 40 points every single week? It's not going to happen.

    Just get a defense that can reliably play itself into the top five for points, reliably get 3 & outs, etc. IT will make a world of a difference. 

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Receivers.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    NE needs a WR opposite Lloyd, but really, not an ace. And that is only because of age/vacancy. They have enough talent on offense. There just aren't enough REPS to show off all the talent. 

    Spend money on defense ... it's where its needed. 

    It would show results a lot more easily. Another legit pass rusher or two. A dominant End. 

    If NE adds ANOTHER talented offensive player I'm going to scream. I want thsi draft to be one OL, and a bunch of defensive players. 

    IT's not enough to break records be #1 every year? Are they shooting for an offense that *actually* scores 40 points every single week? It's not going to happen.

    Just get a defense that can reliably play itself into the top five for points, reliably get 3 & outs, etc. IT will make a world of a difference. 

    [/QUOTE]


    You can also throw in the fact that Brady doesn't need a first round guy or high priced free agent reciever to be successful, he made Reche Caldwell look good. Branch was nothing in Seattle without Brady. Welker would never be catching 100 balls a season without Brady. Two 22 year old tightends have 40 million in their pockets right now because of Brady (and neither was a first round pick). You are correct - spend it on defense...draft for defense...add an offensive lineman too.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Receivers.

    In response to freediro's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Didn't he trade up for two great defenders last year? Those guys worked out great. He even found some good late round talent in Dennard. You can't win them all. However, he has struck out every single time when it comes to a stud WR. On tehe flip side he got guys like Gronk and Hern in the middel rounds. Could be A LOT worse!

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, he traded picks for Moss and Welker (not to mention 85). He also drafted Branch and Givens back in the day and did OK with them, so no he hasn't whiffed every time. The busts were Jackson, Johnson and Tate, although Tate is still playing and looks like we'll be seeing him in the first round.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Receivers.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    NE needs a WR opposite Lloyd, but really, not an ace. And that is only because of age/vacancy. They have enough talent on offense. There just aren't enough REPS to show off all the talent. 

    Spend money on defense ... it's where its needed. 

    It would show results a lot more easily. Another legit pass rusher or two. A dominant End. 

    If NE adds ANOTHER talented offensive player I'm going to scream. I want thsi draft to be one OL, and a bunch of defensive players. 

    IT's not enough to break records be #1 every year? Are they shooting for an offense that *actually* scores 40 points every single week? It's not going to happen.

    Just get a defense that can reliably play itself into the top five for points, reliably get 3 & outs, etc. IT will make a world of a difference. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Stallworth was fine.  We just need one guy who can run downfield across from Lloyd.  Doesn't have to be Megatron, but needs to be more than Slater or an aging Branch.  

    Lloyd has been a good addition, though I wish he got more YAC.  While he makes some nice catches on the sidelines (and occasionally in the middle), he doesn't really threaten to do much once the ball is in his hands.  I'd like safeties to have to worry about someone breaking a play for 50 or 60 yards periodically.  We don't have a receiver who really threatens that. 

    Offense, though, is fine when healthy, as long as the O line plays well.  I haven't really liked the O line the past two games though.  Feel they're not getting much push in the running game and are getting beat by pass rushers too often.  

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Receivers.

    In response to SUZUKIGSXR's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Don't worry. Belichick will decide too draft a wide reciever in the 6th round of april's draft, while also passing on more talented options in the early rounds, knowing that his plan will be to bring Branch back again, and maybe even Troy Brown and Stanley Morgan also. Or at the very least, Bill will draft a QB in the 5th round, and convert him to reciever. Fret not. lol

    [/QUOTE]

    T.O. available.........

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

    Re: Receivers.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't have a real problem with who is in the receiver corps. It's what they're doing. Fight for the damned ball. Make at least an effort. Don't stand there being a spectator while a turnover puts us behind the eightball. The great majority of Brady's INTs for a while now could have been avoided if these receivers were being coached up to standards. Take the damned guy out if you have to, but don't just stand there looking like a dope.
    Virtually all Brady's INTs are right there. He doesn't overthrow guys into some safety's arms like so many do. Most all of these are receivers going where they aren't supposed to or watching the ball be taken from them.

    [/QUOTE]

    Last night one INT was tipped, not his fault, but he grossly under threw the other INT by trying to rifle it in when he should have lofted it with some touch.  He overthrew Hernandez on a third down attempt as well as being off on a few other passes...  I just think he was off yesterday, we still won so this is just nitpicking.  That we can still win a game without him being at peak efficiency is a good thing.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Could be his hand was sore from being hit. 

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

    Re: Receivers.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    NE needs a WR opposite Lloyd, but really, not an ace. And that is only because of age/vacancy. They have enough talent on offense. There just aren't enough REPS to show off all the talent. 

    Spend money on defense ... it's where its needed. 

    It would show results a lot more easily. Another legit pass rusher or two. A dominant End. 

    If NE adds ANOTHER talented offensive player I'm going to scream. I want thsi draft to be one OL, and a bunch of defensive players. 

    IT's not enough to break records be #1 every year? Are they shooting for an offense that *actually* scores 40 points every single week? It's not going to happen.

    Just get a defense that can reliably play itself into the top five for points, reliably get 3 & outs, etc. IT will make a world of a difference. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Stallworth was fine.  We just need one guy who can run downfield across from Lloyd.  Doesn't have to be Megatron, but needs to be more than Slater or an aging Branch.  

    Lloyd has been a good addition, though I wish he got more YAC.  While he makes some nice catches on the sidelines (and occasionally in the middle), he doesn't really threaten to do much once the ball is in his hands.  I'd like safeties to have to worry about someone breaking a play for 50 or 60 yards periodically.  We don't have a receiver who really threatens that. 

    Offense, though, is fine when healthy, as long as the O line plays well.  I haven't really liked the O line the past two games though.  Feel they're not getting much push in the running game and are getting beat by blitzers too often.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    That's not his fault. They  have got to get him involved on some slants immediately on the first drive, if at all possible.  Target others not named Welker or Hernandez, so the DB has to be responsible for him on other routes.

    It's so obvious.  Go back to week 1 when we hammered the rock in Tenn. Lloyd was open all over the place and deep, and that was his first game.

    Get Brady under Center, run the ball, target him on slants or a screen and that's what you'll see create those opps for YAC or deep balls be better options later in the game.

    I asked for this same thing last year with Ochocinco.  Lloyd is a better fit, knowing the system, etc, but it's HOW they use our best flanker that is important.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Run game would help, Rusty, but the O line has not been getting much push and defenses seem to be preparing more for the run than they were early in the season.  We're not seeing so much soft nickel defense, I don't think. 

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

    Re: Receivers.

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SUZUKIGSXR's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Don't worry. Belichick will decide too draft a wide reciever in the 6th round of april's draft, while also passing on more talented options in the early rounds, knowing that his plan will be to bring Branch back again, and maybe even Troy Brown and Stanley Morgan also. Or at the very least, Bill will draft a QB in the 5th round, and convert him to reciever. Fret not. lol

    [/QUOTE]

    T.O. available.........

    [/QUOTE]

    We've got Aiken . . .

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

    Re: Receivers.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SUZUKIGSXR's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Don't worry. Belichick will decide too draft a wide reciever in the 6th round of april's draft, while also passing on more talented options in the early rounds, knowing that his plan will be to bring Branch back again, and maybe even Troy Brown and Stanley Morgan also. Or at the very least, Bill will draft a QB in the 5th round, and convert him to reciever. Fret not. lol

    [/QUOTE]

    T.O. available.........

    [/QUOTE]

    We've got Aiken . . .

    [/QUOTE]

    Is Max McGee still alive? He was clutch. Hungover, but still clutch. Who's his agent? Have his #? If hes not around, find Belitnikoff.

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

    Re: Receivers.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I whined about it? No, I blamed brady for an ill advised throw where the play never had a chance.  Note how brady is worse without establishing a run.

    [/QUOTE]


    Gee! There ya go. Right on the cusp of perhars the most holiest of days in Chroatianity, you have to go out here and suggest to Babbe that maybe, JUST maybe, Brady is partly to blame for thios INT's! NOT very charitable of you. And just when he's breaking in his new Tommy Terrific combo Big Boy's Pants and jammies........ Have you no shame?????

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: Receivers.

    With the added 4 drops yesterday, the Jags lead the league with 41 drops. You think TB would love to black jack someone's a rse with those numbers?

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share