Should the Pats sign more WR's?

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?


    Think they might try to pull Tony Gonzalez out of retirement as the season goes on and use him as another big target to go along with Gronk, Lafell ?

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    LaFell is the only addition to a unit that struggled last season and still has many question marks due to injury and/or youth concerns. While there is certainly a significant amount of potential in the existing receiving corps, there is no clear guaranteed producer among them. This is a shame, IMRHO, given they have one of the best QBs in the league. 

     

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to rtuinila'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]

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

    [/QUOTE]

    I actually don't agree that their talent recently is better than their talent in the past.  

     

     
  4. 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]

    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.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There's truth to the limited number of weapons, but again the lack of WRs contributed to that. On any play, you have 5 positions to fill with eligible receivers/ball carriers. Ideally, you have 8 or 9 different players who you rotate through those five positions to present the defense with different challenges and combinations to defend.  If you're building a team, you want both quality and diversity at all of the 8 or 9 roster positions. Ideally, you have something similar to this:

    • A running back (Ridley)
    • A blocking back (Develin)
    • A receiving back (Vereen)
    • A big TE (Gronk)
    • A quicker, receiving TE (TBD)
    • A quick slot receiver (Edelman/Amendola)
    • A bigger possession receiver (LaFell/Thompkins)
    • A fast receiver who can get open deep (Dobson?)
    • A fourth receiver (best of the remaining receivers, preferably a guy with some deep or perimeter skills)
    • About four more guys who are back ups (back up RB or two, maybe a third TE, a fifth and even sixth receiver)

    My concern with the Pats are the slots in red.  Gronk is red because of injury.  Hoomanawanui is more the third TE in my opinion, so we still need a second (and I agree with you that getting one is a high priority, higher even than getting another receiver).  Nevertheless, I think the deep receiver and fourth receiver are still question marks.  Maybe Dobson and Boyce will fill those roles, but I would really like one more guy with either proven skills (a decent veteran) or high potential (a higher draft pick) in the mix to challenge Dobson and Boyce.  

     

     

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There's truth to the limited number of weapons, but again the lack of WRs contributed to that. On any play, you have 5 positions to fill with eligible receivers/ball carriers. Ideally, you have 8 or 9 different players who you rotate through those five positions to present the defense with different challenges and combinations to defend.  If you're building a team, you want both quality and diversity at all of the 8 or 9 roster positions. Ideally, you have something similar to this:

    • A running back (Ridley)
    • A blocking back (Develin)
    • A receiving back (Vereen)
    • A big TE (Gronk)
    • A quicker, receiving TE (TBD)
    • A quick slot receiver (Edelman/Amendola)
    • A bigger possession receiver (LaFell/Thompkins)
    • A fast receiver who can get open deep (Dobson?)
    • A fourth receiver (best of the remaining receivers, preferably a guy with some deep or perimeter skills)
    • About four more guys who are back ups (back up RB or two, maybe a third TE, a fifth and even sixth receiver)

    My concern with the Pats are the slots in red.  Gronk is red because of injury.  Hoomanawanui is more the third TE in my opinion, so we still need a second (and I agree with you that getting one is a high priority, higher even than getting another receiver).  Nevertheless, I think the deep receiver and fourth receiver are still question marks.  Maybe Dobson and Boyce will fill those roles, but I would really like one more guy with either proven skills (a decent veteran) or high potential (a higher draft pick) in the mix to challenge Dobson and Boyce.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd make Vereen red too. He's actually missed as many games as Gronk I believe.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There's truth to the limited number of weapons, but again the lack of WRs contributed to that. On any play, you have 5 positions to fill with eligible receivers/ball carriers. Ideally, you have 8 or 9 different players who you rotate through those five positions to present the defense with different challenges and combinations to defend.  If you're building a team, you want both quality and diversity at all of the 8 or 9 roster positions. Ideally, you have something similar to this:

    • A running back (Ridley)
    • A blocking back (Develin)
    • A receiving back (Vereen)
    • A big TE (Gronk)
    • A quicker, receiving TE (TBD)
    • A quick slot receiver (Edelman/Amendola)
    • A bigger possession receiver (LaFell/Thompkins)
    • A fast receiver who can get open deep (Dobson?)
    • A fourth receiver (best of the remaining receivers, preferably a guy with some deep or perimeter skills)
    • About four more guys who are back ups (back up RB or two, maybe a third TE, a fifth and even sixth receiver)

    My concern with the Pats are the slots in red.  Gronk is red because of injury.  Hoomanawanui is more the third TE in my opinion, so we still need a second (and I agree with you that getting one is a high priority, higher even than getting another receiver).  Nevertheless, I think the deep receiver and fourth receiver are still question marks.  Maybe Dobson and Boyce will fill those roles, but I would really like one more guy with either proven skills (a decent veteran) or high potential (a higher draft pick) in the mix to challenge Dobson and Boyce.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd make Vereen red too. He's actually missed as many games as Gronk I believe.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree vareen is made of glass. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mbeaulieu07. Show mbeaulieu07's posts

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to WazzuWheatfarmer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree with this.

    WR class is absolutely loaded, so there should be value to be had at the position.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    ex Packer James Jones!!!!!!!!!

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?


    I would like the Patriots to take a look at Marc Mariani, Titans free agent, who was a Pro Bowl return guy before breaking his leg and missing the last 2 seasons.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to ultpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ex Packer James Jones!!!!!!!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Didn't he sign with the Raiders yesterday?

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There's truth to the limited number of weapons, but again the lack of WRs contributed to that. On any play, you have 5 positions to fill with eligible receivers/ball carriers. Ideally, you have 8 or 9 different players who you rotate through those five positions to present the defense with different challenges and combinations to defend.  If you're building a team, you want both quality and diversity at all of the 8 or 9 roster positions. Ideally, you have something similar to this:

    • A running back (Ridley)
    • A blocking back (Develin)
    • A receiving back (Vereen)
    • A big TE (Gronk)
    • A quicker, receiving TE (TBD)
    • A quick slot receiver (Edelman/Amendola)
    • A bigger possession receiver (LaFell/Thompkins)
    • A fast receiver who can get open deep (Dobson?)
    • A fourth receiver (best of the remaining receivers, preferably a guy with some deep or perimeter skills)
    • About four more guys who are back ups (back up RB or two, maybe a third TE, a fifth and even sixth receiver)

    My concern with the Pats are the slots in red.  Gronk is red because of injury.  Hoomanawanui is more the third TE in my opinion, so we still need a second (and I agree with you that getting one is a high priority, higher even than getting another receiver).  Nevertheless, I think the deep receiver and fourth receiver are still question marks.  Maybe Dobson and Boyce will fill those roles, but I would really like one more guy with either proven skills (a decent veteran) or high potential (a higher draft pick) in the mix to challenge Dobson and Boyce.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd make Vereen red too. He's actually missed as many games as Gronk I believe.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm being optimistic because he's not hurt now, but, yeah, I could see that . . . 

     
  12. 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:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There's truth to the limited number of weapons, but again the lack of WRs contributed to that. On any play, you have 5 positions to fill with eligible receivers/ball carriers. Ideally, you have 8 or 9 different players who you rotate through those five positions to present the defense with different challenges and combinations to defend.  If you're building a team, you want both quality and diversity at all of the 8 or 9 roster positions. Ideally, you have something similar to this:

    • A running back (Ridley)
    • A blocking back (Develin)
    • A receiving back (Vereen)
    • A big TE (Gronk)
    • A quicker, receiving TE (TBD)
    • A quick slot receiver (Edelman/Amendola)
    • A bigger possession receiver (LaFell/Thompkins)
    • A fast receiver who can get open deep (Dobson?)
    • A fourth receiver (best of the remaining receivers, preferably a guy with some deep or perimeter skills)
    • About four more guys who are back ups (back up RB or two, maybe a third TE, a fifth and even sixth receiver)

    My concern with the Pats are the slots in red.  Gronk is red because of injury.  Hoomanawanui is more the third TE in my opinion, so we still need a second (and I agree with you that getting one is a high priority, higher even than getting another receiver).  Nevertheless, I think the deep receiver and fourth receiver are still question marks.  Maybe Dobson and Boyce will fill those roles, but I would really like one more guy with either proven skills (a decent veteran) or high potential (a higher draft pick) in the mix to challenge Dobson and Boyce.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd make Vereen red too. He's actually missed as many games as Gronk I believe.

    [/QUOTE]

    I would put them all in red. All it takes is one shot to the knee and then the guy is injury prone!

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to trouts' comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I would like the Patriots to take a look at Marc Mariani, Titans free agent, who was a Pro Bowl return guy before breaking his leg and missing the last 2 seasons.

    [/QUOTE]

    He is too injury prone, too many red flags!

     
  14. 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:

     

    I would put them all in red. All it takes is one shot to the knee and then the guy is injury prone!



    yep, one shot to the knee explains everything! like back problems, collar bone, hamstring, quads, wrists, ankles. One shot to the knee explains everything! I don't know why anyone hasn't figured this out before. Or is it that they get injury repeatedly over the course of their career for years upon years with multiple injures that makes them injury prone  >.>

    btw I feel bad for Amendola and Vereen they haven't had that shot to the knee you speak of yet but they get injured so often it must be coming. It's the only way to explain it.

     
  15. 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]

     

    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.


     

    [/QUOTE]

    So wouldn't it behove you to hedge your bets and bring in more players to test out? I could be wrong but typically if I'm not sure about something I don't try the bare minimum and say there done I'm sure it will be fine. I would do more than the bare minimum and see what works best.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    The Patriots had some difficulty in the red zone offense when Gronk was absent. So, not sure why peeps are obsessed about the WR depth - and not working on the depth at the TE position. 

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Patriots had some difficulty in the red zone offense when Gronk was absent. So, not sure why peeps are obsessed about the WR depth - and not working on the depth at the TE position. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I think you have to look at the so-called skill positions (RB, FB, TE, and WR) as a group and see if the combination of players gives you what you need to have an effective offense.  The Pats are currently either very weak at TE (with Gronk out) or not very deep at TE (with Gronk in), so addressing that position is necessary.  Whether the addition of another TE would negate the need for another good WR depends on the quality and skills of the TE acquired. If they get a TE who is a very good receiver, then getting another WR is less important.  If they fill the TE position with a guy who's mostly a blocker, then acquiring another good WR remains important. 

    This sort of parallels what is happening in the defensive backfield. Earlier in the offseason (especially after Gregory was let go) I would have said a safety was important for them to pick up.  But with the quality and depth they now have at corner, I'm not sure getting another safety is so critical anymore.  

    I guess what I'm saying is that you can't look at each position in isolation.  Instead, you've got to look at the combination of different players at related positions and ask whether the collection of players you have in those positions will be effective. 

     

     

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Patriots had some difficulty in the red zone offense when Gronk was absent. So, not sure why peeps are obsessed about the WR depth - and not working on the depth at the TE position. 

    [/QUOTE]

    for a couple years; before gronk went down the first time, i bespoke of the need to have a backup to the 2 elite tes we had that could do the job if one went down as our offense was predicated on having 2 elite te's. lost at least 1 sb because of that.  dont get me started on wr's. less a predicate of the offense but a big wr who can separate wouldve opened up the offense greatly. bb is almost all in this year. we'll see what he does abotu actually developing a consistent pass rush (or does he not optimize with the big tough press corners he has).  a niklas (big te)in the draft? better o lineman, dts, cover lb to add, safety? we'll see.

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    WR isn't the problem.

    Does anyone really believe that Brady is still a great QB after sucking in every playoff exit since the 2005 season?

    • 2005 @Denver - his red zone pick-6 turns a 10-9 game into a 17-6 hole.
    • 2006 @Indy - Ended game with a pick
    • 2007 - PFF passing grade in SB42 (-3.4)
    • 2009 - AFC WC PFF grade (-5.3)
    • 2010 - AFC DIV PFF passing grade (-0.8)
    • 2011 - SB46 PFF passing grade (+1.0) In comparison, Eli's was (+8.0).
    • 2012 AFCCG PFF grade (-0.6)
    • 2013 AFCCG PFF grade (+0.9). Peyton's was (+4.7).

    Now that Brady will turn 37 in 2014, I don't expect him to get better.

    What makes matters worse is that Vereen is a substandard 3rd down back. Brady needs a reliable check down at the position. BB reached for Vereen in the 2nd round of the 2011 draft, didn't want to pay to keep Woodhead, in 2013, and passed up Sproles, who could have been had for a song. A good 3D-back would be more welcome than another WR Brady can't throw to.

     

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

    Re: Should the Pats sign more WR's?

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to trouts' comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I would like the Patriots to take a look at Marc Mariani, Titans free agent, who was a Pro Bowl return guy before breaking his leg and missing the last 2 seasons.

    [/QUOTE]

    He is too injury prone, too many red flags!

    [/QUOTE]


    He would have come cheap but he resigned with the Titans. In 2011 he scored TDs of punts and on KO returns.

     

Share