Should the Pats sign more WR's?

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

    Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    Just wondering if the Pats should sign so many WR"s that the rookies never get on the field? It seems that is what most of the fans want. More veterans. I don't think the Pats need anymore veteran WR's as last years rookies are going to be better this year than they were last year and some of them had better numbers than the Vets everyone wants the Pats to sign. Just seems silly to me.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    I think they should maybe draft one because this is such a deep receiver class, but as far as signing veterans, no.  I think we're good.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Just wondering if the Pats should sign so many WR"s that the rookies never get on the field? It seems that is what most of the fans want. More veterans. I don't think the Pats need anymore veteran WR's as last years rookies are going to be better this year than they were last year and some of them had better numbers than the Vets everyone wants the Pats to sign. Just seems silly to me.

    [/QUOTE]

    LaFell basically would replace Thompkins (he fell out of favor and was healthy scratched by the end of the season) or if Dobson isn't ready to go by the start of season he'd play Dobsons role. Amendola might be cut before camp ends depending on how they fell about him. Even if he's not cut him and Edelman are both players that have the inury question mark around them and Boyce is a major unknown. It wouldn't hurt to bring in an additional guy to have at least in camp or if there is an upgrade (ie a true #1 or 2 type) isn't it the point to get better? That's essentially what they are doing bringing in LaFell and pretty much pushing Thompkins out of the line up.

    The thing is you have no clue if the rooks will get better. When was the last rook WR who made significant improves from year 1 to year 2. It's doesn't mean you have to completely push them out but getting another solid vet WR does make it easier if they don't improve. Don't you wish we had another solid vet last year?

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    Sid Rice, on a prove-it contract, is interesting. Not so much anybody else.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    Is there anyone left?  I believe all the good guys are gone.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Is there anyone left?  I believe all the good guys are gone.

    [/QUOTE]

    Santonio Holmes

    Kenny Britt

    Sidney Rice

    Miles Austin

    Jerricho Cotchery

    That's about it.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    ...and Lance Moore.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    The problem with the rookies is the main guy (Dobson) has a pretty serious foot injury and lets not forget that although he may improve, he has a long way to go. It looked like Thompkins really struggled towards the end and of course Boyce was a mystery. So the rookies may or may not be the future here, it's not like any of them were top ten picks in the draft...it doesn't hurt to add a quality veteran receiver or two.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    I think they need one more, and it seems like the Pats think so as well since they're still shopping.  A veteran would be ideal, but I'm not sure any of the available free agents is worth signing.  Rice and Britt have shown the most talent in the past, but both have big red flags.  Maybe bring one into camp on a minimum deal with nothing guaranteed and see what happens, but I'd hate to go into camp having to rely on one of those two working out. 

    With a deep draft class, maybe you draft one in the first few rounds.  I don't think the Pats can afford to trade anyone, either, but that would be another approach. 

    You've also got to get a DT, an interior OL, a TE, and maybe even a LB, a safety, and a back-up DE, so it's a challenge. Only so many draft picks to use.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from m. a. pat. Show m. a. pat's posts

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?



    I'm not sure what last year's rookies will bring to the table this season.

    Thompkins: he'll be 26 in camp this year and as mentioned above was benched in the second half of the year. Has he leveled out and reached his ceiling or  can he get any better?

    Dobson: showed explosiveness after surpassing Thompkins on the depth chart and Brady seemed to look for him when he was on the field. IMO he was really progressing until getting hurt (nice 80 yard catch against the Steelers where he blew past two DB's). Can he stay healthy and keep improving?

    Boyce: rarely saw the field until the latter part of the season. Seeing him in the Houston game was an eye opener. A ton of talent but can he learn how to play the position at this level?

    I think Dobson and Boyce have great talent but this needs to translate to the field. I'd hate for the Pats to have to draft another receiver this year. As Pro mentioned they still have a lot of holes to fill.

    Any news on the Boyce injury toward the end of the year? Everything is always "hush hush" with the Pats. Just wondering if I missed something.

     

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    What about Louis Murphy he was pretty good with Oakland and there 5th string QB.. and Tiquon Underwood is out there, return of the high top?

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    I'm sure there will be mid-talent guys who will still be available just before camp opens such as Moore, Cotchery, Holmes, etc. We will surely pick up one or two more around that time, unless someome comes in around the vet min.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    So how does the depth chart look like as of now? Something like this?

    Edelman
    Lafell
    Amendola
    Dobson
    Boyce
    Thompkins
    Harrison
    Slater

    I think there is talent in this group, but injury concerns across the board. Is there a true #1 receiver in the group? Maybe not, but then again they haven't had a true #1 since Moss was traded.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    They more than likely will try and add another WR. Lance Moore will be in town today and I think he's the kind of receiver who might actually understand the system and thrive in it. However if mike Benjamin is available when # 29 is called they should jump all over him.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    I, too, think the Pats have higher priority needs than WR at this point.  If one is available that will add camp competition and perhaps contribute during the season fine. 

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    Maybe for competition but of the current crop most of them are almost locks to make the roster. I would be very surprised to see either Edelman, Slater, Dobson, or Boyce cut, and thats leaves 2-3 spots for Lafell, Amendola, Harrison and Thompkins.

    Given the contracts for Lafell and Amendola I assume they make the roster as well, so that leaves Harrison and Thompkins to compete for a spot that may or may not be there at all. Why would a WR with any kind of possible market come here unless Amendola is cut? It just seems too long a shot to make the roster. 

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Just wondering if the Pats should sign so many WR"s that the rookies never get on the field? It seems that is what most of the fans want. More veterans. I don't think the Pats need anymore veteran WR's as last years rookies are going to be better this year than they were last year and some of them had better numbers than the Vets everyone wants the Pats to sign. Just seems silly to me.

    [/QUOTE]

    on the offensive side of the ball, the OL needs depth - and another pass catching TE would be good. No more WRs needed, IMO.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So how does the depth chart look like as of now? Something like this?

    Edelman
    Lafell
    Amendola
    Dobson
    Boyce
    Thompkins
    Harrison
    Slater

    I think there is talent in this group, but injury concerns across the board. Is there a true #1 receiver in the group? Maybe not, but then again they haven't had a true #1 since Moss was traded.

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess I see that as mostly second-tier talent--unless last year's rookies make big jumps forward this year.  Whether a roster full of #2 and #3 receivers is enough depends a bit on what offensive weapons they have elsewhere.  If Gronk is on the field, they'll be okay.  If he's not, I think they need someone else who is going to demand extra attention from the defense.  It could be a receiving back (Vereen), it could be Dobson if he is healthy and takes the next step up, or it could be another TE.  But as it is, I'm not sure I'm fully comfortable with who they've got to catch the ball.  At the same time, I also think they are only about one player away . . . and they've still got plenty of opportunties to get that single player.  

     

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So how does the depth chart look like as of now? Something like this?

    Edelman
    Lafell
    Amendola
    Dobson
    Boyce
    Thompkins
    Harrison
    Slater

    I think there is talent in this group, but injury concerns across the board. Is there a true #1 receiver in the group? Maybe not, but then again they haven't had a true #1 since Moss was traded.

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess I see that as mostly second-tier talent--unless last year's rookies make big jumps forward this year.  Whether a roster full of #2 and #3 receivers is enough depends a bit on what offensive weapons they have elsewhere.  If Gronk is on the field, they'll be okay.  If he's not, I think they need someone else who is going to demand extra attention from the defense.  It could be a receiving back (Vereen), it could be Dobson if he is healthy and takes the next step up, or it could be another TE.  But as it is, I'm not sure I'm fully comfortable with who they've got to catch the ball.  At the same time, I also think they are only about one player away . . . and they've still got plenty of opportunties to get that single player.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I hear you, or I think I do...

    Looking solely at the WR's there is not a #1, but plenty of #2-3 talent. Of the remaining free agents, is there a legit #1 talent that does not come with a red flag? The draft is a lottery - more or less - so that would leave a trade as a way to get a true #1. I don't think that is the way they want to go.

    IMO, the WR's were fine last year. What hurt them was that both Gronk and Vereen were out for so long. Those two will be key this year, or at the very least to have some capable backups, which I think we lacked.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So how does the depth chart look like as of now? Something like this?

    Edelman
    Lafell
    Amendola
    Dobson
    Boyce
    Thompkins
    Harrison
    Slater

    I think there is talent in this group, but injury concerns across the board. Is there a true #1 receiver in the group? Maybe not, but then again they haven't had a true #1 since Moss was traded.

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess I see that as mostly second-tier talent--unless last year's rookies make big jumps forward this year.  Whether a roster full of #2 and #3 receivers is enough depends a bit on what offensive weapons they have elsewhere.  If Gronk is on the field, they'll be okay.  If he's not, I think they need someone else who is going to demand extra attention from the defense.  It could be a receiving back (Vereen), it could be Dobson if he is healthy and takes the next step up, or it could be another TE.  But as it is, I'm not sure I'm fully comfortable with who they've got to catch the ball.  At the same time, I also think they are only about one player away . . . and they've still got plenty of opportunties to get that single player.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I hear you, or I think I do...

    Looking solely at the WR's there is not a #1, but plenty of #2-3 talent. Of the remaining free agents, is there a legit #1 talent that does not come with a red flag? The draft is a lottery - more or less - so that would leave a trade as a way to get a true #1. I don't think that is the way they want to go.

    IMO, the WR's were fine last year. What hurt them was that both Gronk and Vereen were out for so long. Those two will be key this year, or at the very least to have some capable backups, which I think we lacked.

    [/QUOTE]

    Danish, I think your second sentence is right--but the reason for that, I think, is because what you say in your first sentence isn't right.  In my opinion, because the receivers weren't very good on their own, the Pats really needed someone outside the WR group to be on the field to make the passing game work--i.e., Gronk and (to a much lesser extent) Vereen. 

    In the AFC Championship game, I think we saw what happens when Gronk is out.  The Broncos felt comfortable leaving just one safety in coverage and bringing 8 or even 9 defenders up into the box.  The Pats tried to hit Edelman (who was mostly single covered) deep or on the perimeter a bunch of times but without much success.  Dobson made one or two nice plays downfield, but also wasn't enough to force the Broncos out of that defense.  Those 8 or 9 defenders up close to the LOS easily shut down the run and really took out all the underneath passing routes.  We needed to have more of a receiving threat on the perimeter and downfield to get the Broncos to change up what they were doing so effectively, and we just didn't have it. 

    I like the LaFell signing because I think his size will make it harder for defenders to cover him near the LOS on underneath routes.  I also think he has a bit more perimeter and even deep potential than guys like Edelman.  If Dobson develops into the receiver who can be a threat downfield, then Dobson, LaFell, and Edelman/Amendola will give us a nicely balanced group.  But if Dobson isn't that guy, I think we need someone else to make the WR corp really effective. 

    Of course, if you bring in Gronk, the WRs don't matter as much, because Gronk changes the whole dynamic of the offense and forces the defense to key on him. 

     

     

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    I agree up to a point. But in my mind it is also a numbers game. In games without Gronk and Vereen the team was limited in what they could do, and especially in obvious passing situations.

    Whereas they "normally" would have as many as 5 possible targets, maybe 3 WRs, Gronk, and Vereen they only had 3, Edelman and 2 rookies. Of course a real #1 receiver would have made a difference, but to me the most significant thing was the complete lack of threats in the passing game from our RBs and TEs. I think you need at least the threat of passing to your 3rd down RB or to the TE, and they couldn't do that last year.

    Gronk is so good that, as you say, he changes the dynamic of the offense. And as of now, there is a huge dropoff from Gronk to Hoomanawanui. I just think that it would be wiser to focus more on getting a TE that can produce in the passing game than going after one of them remaining free agent WRs, none of whom really strike me as a significant upgrade.

     

     

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

    Just wondering if the Pats should sign so many WR"s that the rookies never get on the field? It seems that is what most of the fans want. More veterans. I don't think the Pats need anymore veteran WR's as last years rookies are going to be better this year than they were last year and some of them had better numbers than the Vets everyone wants the Pats to sign. Just seems silly to me.

     

     

    LaFell basically would replace Thompkins (he fell out of favor and was healthy scratched by the end of the season) or if Dobson isn't ready to go by the start of season he'd play Dobsons role. Amendola might be cut before camp ends depending on how they fell about him. Even if he's not cut him and Edelman are both players that have the inury question mark around them and Boyce is a major unknown. It wouldn't hurt to bring in an additional guy to have at least in camp or if there is an upgrade (ie a true #1 or 2 type) isn't it the point to get better? That's essentially what they are doing bringing in LaFell and pretty much pushing Thompkins out of the line up.

    The thing is you have no clue if the rooks will get better. When was the last rook WR who made significant improves from year 1 to year 2. It's doesn't mean you have to completely push them out but getting another solid vet WR does make it easier if they don't improve. Don't you wish we had another solid vet last year?



    Yeah, but you also have no clue if the Vet will get thrown to. See Amendola last year. He also fell out of favor with Brady. Basically see all veteran WR brought in not named Welker, Moss or Lloyd. Much more likely the rook will improve with playing time. They won't improve without it.


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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So how does the depth chart look like as of now? Something like this?

    Edelman
    Lafell
    Amendola
    Dobson
    Boyce
    Thompkins
    Harrison
    Slater

    I think there is talent in this group, but injury concerns across the board. Is there a true #1 receiver in the group? Maybe not, but then again they haven't had a true #1 since Moss was traded.

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess I see that as mostly second-tier talent--unless last year's rookies make big jumps forward this year.  Whether a roster full of #2 and #3 receivers is enough depends a bit on what offensive weapons they have elsewhere.  If Gronk is on the field, they'll be okay.  If he's not, I think they need someone else who is going to demand extra attention from the defense.  It could be a receiving back (Vereen), it could be Dobson if he is healthy and takes the next step up, or it could be another TE.  But as it is, I'm not sure I'm fully comfortable with who they've got to catch the ball.  At the same time, I also think they are only about one player away . . . and they've still got plenty of opportunties to get that single player.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Something to think about, the Pats won three superbowls with "second-tier talent". They have won none with first-tier talent.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from DPG182. Show DPG182's posts

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?


    Now Im totally aware that this is a pipedream and will most likely never happen, but for the sake of argument, is it even finanncially possible for the Pats to pull a trade for someone like Fitzgerald? We can all dream about loading up even more, but would this even be possible? and if so what would it take to pull off?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pats7393. Show Pats7393's posts

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    THe #1 receiver is Gronk, I know its a different position but when you look at teams except for a few exceptions like Atlanta but most have a #1 stud and then average players because they can't afford to have multiple diva contracts.  

    So way I see Gronk is NEs Megatron or Cincy Green ect, problem is, Gronk is on the bench more than the field.  I hope this kid gets to play a full season.  Has worked too hard everytime to get back and then boom down again.

    I don't think Pats need a true #1 because their game plan changes game to game.  They will use RBs in one game, the other slot receiver another outside depending the other team's weaknesses.  Paying a #1 guy IMO doesn't get bang for the buck unless its someone they draft and have cheap for a few years.

    They do need someone with Slater's speed who's more polished as a WR to make D respect the deep ball.  Dobson or Boyce could be that guy but we'll see.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share