Re: Show me rookie WRs who are awesome after 10 days please
posted at 9/17/2013 9:58 AM EDT
In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
You have 100% missed the point.
The problem isn't Thompkins. It isn't Boyce. It isn't Sudfeld. It isn't Dobson.
It's the fact that they're all on the team as rookies at the same time. The only other receivers are an injured TE, an injured WR and a Special Teams guy.
No one expects any rookie to be a miracle worker. They should get limited playing time and limited targets while they learn everything.
The GM has proven, once again, his story is a lot greater than his results.
Then what exactly is "your" point?
Patriots brought in the following Vets:
Hawkins: (Beat out by a rookie)
Jones: (Beat out by a rookie)
Jenkins: (Beat out by a rookie)
Amendola: (Made the team) [Argument "could" be made he was more a replacement for Llyod and NOT welker)
Blount: (Made the team)
Washington: (On the team)
Patriots tried to get or keep the following Vets:
Welker: Apparently offered him a better deal than what he ended up with. Was attempting to pay him what the "market" not the "patriots" was dictacting his value to be. He or his attorney did not like or want it. ...and because there were other options out there affecting the supply and demand of the market place, Welker and his attorney tried to play the stall game. Hoping the other options would sign elsewhere, changing the supply and demand equation, forcing the Pats into a bad negotating situation. The Patriots wisely said we are not going to allow that. Current injury to Amendola and all it was still the correct business move imo.
Sanders: Offered him a deal. The steelers matched. Before everyone jumps at the chance to say the Patriots have so much cap blah blah, they could have offered 1 mil more. Let me point out that if the steelers wanted him they could have done a number of things with existing contracts to still match the higher tender. PatsEng goes on and on about that very thing all the time.
Lloyd: Asked him back. He said no, not just to Pats, but everyone.
Patriots had returning:
Gronk: (he will be back, you are not temporarily replacing him with a stud, just a patch)
Hernandez: (who knew his situation would happen? Happened after draft and you are not finding a talent of his caliber laying about the streets. Everyone loved that the Pats extended him early. No one should be a fraud and say they didn't. Argument "could" be made that he as well as Edelman were going to be looked at to fill Welkers role.
Hooman: (Made the team)
Fells: (Beat out by a rookie)
Edelman: (Made the team, currently leading league in receptions)
Vareen: (Made the team)
I certainly am not sure I get what your point or other peoples point is. Everyone acts like the Patriots did NOT bring in any Veteran WR's. I must be missing something because it appears that they did but those WR's were beat out by the rookies. I clearly do not see the point trying to be made. Are you suggesting keeping the lesser quality WR's because they have more years in the league?
So in the end just exactly what, in detail, did you want the Patriots to do? It would be nice to show it as a guaranteed success as well, if you can.
Love how you always spin and disrespect Edelman or are you leaving him out completely and referring to Slater?
Edelman, if that is "your" special teams guy you are referring to is only currently tied for leading the NFL in receptions.
It probably won't stay that way but as long as it is. Then it is what it is and you have to give him his due.
Not to inject myself into a back-and-forth but rather to offer commentary on Low's post.
I've actually read what you've posted, Low, and am hard-pressed to find fault with the approach that BB took or with your analysis of it. Given the approach that the team takes, year in and year out, and the well-examined need to refresh the wide receiver position, we probably have as good a result as we could expect given the circumstances.