Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

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

    Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    barring injuries or us landing Fitzgerald in a blockbuster trade in August.


     


    I have heard lots of "meh" when it comes to Lafell. Lots of posters are down on the signing because they heard he drops the ball.(cant be worse than the rooks last year) and that he played in a run oriented offense.


     


    Ok, Why is this a bad thing?  Judging by the RB committee we have and the picks used on the O line, it seems like the Pats are open to more running. In fact I think they have wanted to run for a while now, but BB being the smart guy he is, knows that you cant run 60-40 with a D that cant get off the field. Last year it was supposed to happen but our D was depleted by midseason so we were back to riding Brady's arm as usual.


     


    Now as much as I like Dobson, he is rich mans Todd Pinkston until he shows more. Lafell by comparison IS a legit NFL veteran WR who may not have outstanding #'s but his QB is also an immature albeit talented one who has a ways to go. Lafell has great size for the position but more importantly knows how to use it. I hear lots of folks questioning if he will be productive?  Well I guess they didnt see when Brady was throwing TD passes to Dedric Ward and JJ Stokes one year. Lafell is a Blocker, 1st and foremost. He is a capable WR who may not carry the team but surely will make plays when his # is called.


     


    The Reason I say he is a lock, not only to make the team but as a starter is pretty simple. The guy is a GREAT BLOCKER. I know, not flashy but picture Hines Ward...Always being praised for blocking downfield. Last night while I was watching NFL yearbooks. They were showing a play from the Panthers last season. It was Long run by D.WIlliams I believe. The play focused on the runner but the whole time I was saying to myself, I bet Lafell was down field blocking and sure enough when they panned to D.W. running into the endzone, there was Lafell at the 15 yard line, still blocking his guy, 60 YARDS DOWNFIELD. Now at the time BB drafted McCourty and said he was a 4 down player, there was some groans but I understood afterwards(Still not a great returner) but I get why he said it.


     


    This is the same w/Lafell. People will say yea yea, everybody blocks, so what? To me this is gonna be his calling card. Being physical in the run game to the point of guys wanted to avoid him and then once we run playaction, he will be WIDE open. I am looking for a Big Year on the ground in part due to his prowess in blocking and I also believe he is going contribute a lot in the passing game after we establish the run. This may be the year we use the run to setup the pass instead of vice versa. Anyway, sorry for long winded post, but I had to put my thoughts out there on this guy. Some folks think I am always negative when in it comes to BB getting players when In actuality you will find that Ive made posts endorsing most the players BB has picked up including Ocho, Chung, Meri, Hobbs, McCourty, Mayo,etc  but apparently I am not allowed to change my opinion once they dont show well on the field. So here I am, endorsing yet another BB pickup with high hopes. If HE DOES not produce anything and the pickup turns out be a bad one, please dont call me negative nancy when I say so.  I have seen far more negative posters than me when it comes to players and there arent many guys I slam before they actually play a down.


     


    Conversely there are some here who thinks its better to fit rookies for tan, canton jackets before they play a snap in the league...


     


     


     


     


     


    "A lot of bookies are probably mad at us right now, but we don't give a damn, ... We're the champs!!"


     


    Ty Law after his team defeated the Rams in SB 36.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    I read the whole thing.

    Think he will also cause match up problems for some teams. The Patriots are usually field smallish receivers but I can imagine against some teams on some downs having Gronk, Lafell and Dobson together create a vertical mismatch somewhere on the field.

    Lafell was better than the Pats rookies...Boyce, and Thomkins had over 10% drops and less than 50% catch rate, Dobson had 9.7% drops with a 51% catch rate.

    Lafell had a 7.0% drop rate last year with a 57% catch rate.

    Considering the sample size , 86 targets and he only dropped 6 balls. Dropping 2 less would make him actually over average.

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

    I read the whole thing.

    Think he will also cause match up problems for some teams. The Patriots are usually field smallish receivers but I can imagine against some teams on some downs having Gronk, Lafell and Dobson together create a vertical mismatch somewhere on the field.

    Lafell was better than the Pats rookies...Boyce, and Thomkins had over 10% drops and less than 50% catch rate, Dobson had 9.7% drops with a 51% catch rate.

    Lafell had a 7.0% drop rate last year with a 57% catch rate.

    Considering the sample size , 86 targets and he only dropped 6 balls. Dropping 2 less would make him actually over average.




    Thanks for posting those numbers. I never looked them up but I knew it seemed like a non issue, esp. when you considered how many the rooks dropped but we were still able to win a lot of games. What I noticed last year when Gronk went out?  The rest of the available guys were all UNDER 6 ft and we had huge problems scoring in the redzone. With Dobson, Lafell, KT, the Idea is to atleast have one of them healthy at all times to start winning these jump balls as we know Tommy's accuracy goes down a bit when throwing 40 plus yards.

    Tommy is no Cam Newton with all his athleticism and cannon arm but Cam is No Brady with all his experience, smarts and pinpoint midrange accuracy. I think Lafell can excel in the Intermediate game where Brady thrives.

    I was excited about the pick and will remain so until I see a reason not to. Preseason should be Fun!

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    I have high hopes for Lafell here, but I didn't like the fact that he was only available for 1 OTA due to some type of injury.  He better get that fixed ASAP, what rever it was,

    *******************************

    Be a Fan!  But don't be a Homer Fan!

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

     

     You know, I agree with you.  I've been high on this kid since they signed him.  I didn't know all that much about him, but when the Pats picked him up, I watched the coaches tape of a bunch of Panthers games and honestly I liked what I saw.  I don't think he dropped all that many passes.  And like you say, he blocks very well.  And he's got some versatility.  They used him as an H back a lot.  He's not a downfield burner, but he can go deep a bit and he has the size to be a good target in tighter quarters near the LOS. 

     

    You never know of course, but as you said, he at least has a few years of NFL experience under his belt so he's not going to be completely green.

     

    We'll have to see what they do with the mix of run and pass.  I'd be very surprised if they were a 60-40 run first team. Even 50-50 is unusual nowadays.  But they could get a bit closer to 50-50 than they have been.  The league average last year was 58% pass, 42% run.  The Pats were right about at that average.  Typically, they've been close to the league average most years, though the pass percentage league wide has been going up. 

     

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    There won't be a quantum leap in running percentage unless the interior of the line shows substantial improvement.    Wendell and Connolly can't push people around.   It remains to be seen whether either/both of these guys are still with the team and/or whether the rookies are any better.

    You can't sustain drives if you can't pick up that proverbial 3rd and 2 on the ground.

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    LaFell is a Givens type that will be useful at the X when they need it for blocking as much he will be a red zone option as well.

    HIs rep is the drops, but Newton isn't the most accurate QB either. It all comes down to him getting into the offense and if Brady allows him into the now infamous Circle of Trust that has all but ruined our postseasons in recent years.

    If that happens, this WR group will be very balanced, deep and vary in skill set.  We'll have two larger WRs in Dobson and LaFell, two smaller slot based guys in Edelman and Amendola and Thompkins and Boyce in the mix as well.

     



    Hopefully Billy wont banish him to his now infamous dog house. 

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    If his blocking is as good as you say it is, then you are right, he will be starting from day one. Bill loves dynamic players like that - guys that can contribute in other ways - I hope he can catch the ball too, and it looks like he can based off his numbers last season.

    You mention running the ball more, the question I have is who is going to do it? Because Ridley is a guy I just don't trust anymore, Vareen will be hurt, Bolden will be injured and average at best...that leaves James White and Houston. Can either of those two be reason enough to run it more? Too me White is the key. What I definitely expect to see more of is passes to the backs where Lafell's blocking would come in useful.

     

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    If we are starting a receiver because he is good at blocking and not for his receiving ability then that means we are in trouble. A receivers primary job is in the passing game. Any blocking ability is added icing. You can have better blocking receivers who aren't up to snuff receiving but those typically are specialists that you don't start. Not saying he wouldn't help with the running game but blocking receivers are the last thing on the entire offense you should have to worry about for the running game and I would argue the threat of play action to a better receiver who isn't even a good blocker has a more positive effect on the running game than a good blocking receiver who is a mediocre receiver. Heck, unless the run is to his side of the field outside the T then he isn't even involved for that portion of the play so what % of run plays would he actually effect with his blocking ability to begin with? If LaFell is starting it's more an indication just how bad (talent wise) our starting receivers are and less an indication that running is now the primary focus. Don't forget, unless you are the 4th/5th WR or lower on the depth chart your primary responsibility is to get open and catch the ball everything else is secondary.

    Trust me, I'm an engineer!

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    Pro, you are right. I dont see them getting to 60/40 on average but there are some games I can see it like when we play the bills. I just want them to be able to run when the D is expecting it. I dont want to watch old Redskins football. I just feel that running first and setting up playaction is Bradys best tool. We saw them get back to it a bit last year but the line didnt always hold up.

     

    Catfish, I am hoping wendell,connolly are placed in backup roles and the rookies are quick studies. Its not like they are anything special but probably got signed because we hadnt got their replacements yet. Baby steps is fine. Just get the tough yards so Brady doesnt have to do it all.

     

    Rusty, thanks for more of your meaningless brady bashing disguised in your analysis.

    Hurl, I think White does figure to be a big part of their plans weather Ridley holds the ball or not, this is still a run by committee team. I think Ridley HAD the chance to be the guy but didnt convince BB and thats why White is here IMO. So I believe we have the horses. Just need balance, not overkill w/the run.

     

    "A lot of bookies are probably mad at us right now, but we don't give a damn, ... We're the champs!!"

    Ty Law after his team defeated the Rams in SB 36.

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    In response to PatsEng's comment:


    If we are starting a receiver because he is good at blocking and not for his receiving ability then that means we are in trouble. A receivers primary job is in the passing game. Any blocking ability is added icing. You can have better blocking receivers who aren't up to snuff receiving but those typically are specialists that you don't start. Not saying he wouldn't help with the running game but blocking receivers are the last thing on the entire offense you should have to worry about for the running game and I would argue the threat of play action to a better receiver who isn't even a good blocker has a more positive effect on the running game than a good blocking receiver who is a mediocre receiver. Heck, unless the run is to his side of the field outside the T then he isn't even involved for that portion of the play so what % of run plays would he actually effect with his blocking ability to begin with? If LaFell is starting it's more an indication just how bad (talent wise) our starting receivers are and less an indication that running is now the primary focus. Don't forget, unless you are the 4th/5th WR or lower on the depth chart your primary responsibility is to get open and catch the ball everything else is secondary.


    Trust me, I'm an engineer!





    Patseng, I think you misunderstood my post.  You are acting like Lafell CANT catch. I never said that. I said he will be start over guys like Dobson, KT because of Experience and blocking. Any player you line up outside HAS to be able to catch and lets not act like Lafell hasnt been on the field a lot. My point was that his blocking was above average and his size doesnt hurt. Wes was a great blocker too....but he was 5'8 180. Lafell, at 6'2 220 will be more effective. He will still get balls thrown to him. I am basically saying Lafell plays over the 2nd years guys due to his veteran status and his blocking. Every NFL WR has to be able to catch.


     


    No offense dude, but you seem to be the captain of the debbie downers club. I dont see how you found a way to inject negativity into this but dude, whats up w/you?  You have been nothing but negative on every post for like a year now.


    It seems at some point in the last 2 years you snapped and try to only see the bad things in every signing. I expect it now. Whenever someone tries to feel good about someone, you come in with a negative outlook. Is this just from being fed up w/BB or does this have to do with your personal life? Serious question. You are a good poster but you have been a crabby patty for quite some time now..

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    In response to TripleOG's comment:


    Patseng, I think you misunderstood my post.  You are acting like Lafell CANT catch. I never said that. I said he will be start over guys like Dobson, KT because of Experience and blocking. Any player you line up outside HAS to be able to catch and lets not act like Lafell hasnt been on the field a lot. My point was that his blocking was above average and his size doesnt hurt. Wes was a great blocker too....but he was 5'8 180. Lafell, at 6'2 220 will be more effective. He will still get balls thrown to him. I am basically saying Lafell plays over the 2nd years guys due to his veteran status and his blocking. Every NFL WR has to be able to catch.

    No offense dude, but you seem to be the captain of the debbie downers club. I dont see how you found a way to inject negativity into this but dude, whats up w/you?  You have been nothing but negative on every post for like a year now.

    It seems at some point in the last 2 years you snapped and try to only see the bad things in every signing. I expect it now. Whenever someone tries to feel good about someone, you come in with a negative outlook. Is this just from being fed up w/BB or does this have to do with your personal life? Serious question. You are a good poster but you have been a crabby patty for quite some time now..




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    You really haven't been reading my posts much then or only picking up on the negative ones (it's human nature so I expect the latter) but I have been very positive about the defensive moves in the offseason. I've been down on the receiver moves because that was a big issue last season. Without Gronk our RZ was abysmal and none of the WR's could generate separation last year. When I look at LaFell, he's a decent 3rd/4th WR and if we had the upfront talent would be a decent pickup but in the end it's the same group we brought back last year and if you are counting on LaFell to be a starter then how could you not see that as being an issue for this upcoming year? That's like getting excited over having Caldwell as a starting receiver. Being positive is one thing but getting excited over someone who should be a role player because we lack upfront talent in that position is a bit disingenuous. As far as every WR can catch I present Slater and for Welker well his 1st role was as a receiver his blocking ability was just a great perk but something tells me he wouldn't lose reps if he was just average at it.

    But in the last 2 years let's see what I've been down about:

    • Amendola singing - how has that worked so far?
    • Not getting younger and better talent at the DT position - worked out well last year
    • Didn't like settling for Gregory and T. Wilson at S - worked out well
    • Having to rely on Talib as a starter due to injury history - and he got hurt

    The things I have been down about it turned out I had a reason to be down about them from the beginning. I think not getting better depth at TE is a mistake (we'll have to see how this plays out) and have concerns over the upfront talent at WR (again we'll have to see how it plays out) but really there's a point of being positive and a point of just being blind to reality. Having a discussion takes perspective from both sides and seeing that a guy who's a mediocre WR through his career is even discussed as a possible starter has to beg the question why if there were other better receiving options on the roster. 

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    In response to PatsEng's comment:



     




    In response to TripleOG's comment:





    Patseng, I think you misunderstood my post.  You are acting like Lafell CANT catch. I never said that. I said he will be start over guys like Dobson, KT because of Experience and blocking. Any player you line up outside HAS to be able to catch and lets not act like Lafell hasnt been on the field a lot. My point was that his blocking was above average and his size doesnt hurt. Wes was a great blocker too....but he was 5'8 180. Lafell, at 6'2 220 will be more effective. He will still get balls thrown to him. I am basically saying Lafell plays over the 2nd years guys due to his veteran status and his blocking. Every NFL WR has to be able to catch.




    No offense dude, but you seem to be the captain of the debbie downers club. I dont see how you found a way to inject negativity into this but dude, whats up w/you?  You have been nothing but negative on every post for like a year now.




    It seems at some point in the last 2 years you snapped and try to only see the bad things in every signing. I expect it now. Whenever someone tries to feel good about someone, you come in with a negative outlook. Is this just from being fed up w/BB or does this have to do with your personal life? Serious question. You are a good poster but you have been a crabby patty for quite some time now..




     






    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


     


    You really haven't been reading my posts much then or only picking up on the negative ones (it's human nature so I expect the latter) but I have been very positive about the defensive moves in the offseason. I've been down on the receiver moves because that was a big issue last season. Without Gronk our RZ was abysmal and none of the WR's could generate separation last year. When I look at LaFell, he's a decent 3rd/4th WR and if we had the upfront talent would be a decent pickup but in the end it's the same group we brought back last year and if you are counting on LaFell to be a starter then how could you not see that as being an issue for this upcoming year? That's like getting excited over having Caldwell as a starting receiver. Being positive is one thing but getting excited over someone who should be a role player because we lack upfront talent in that position is a bit disingenuous. As far as every WR can catch I present Slater and for Welker well his 1st role was as a receiver his blocking ability was just a great perk but something tells me he wouldn't lose reps if he was just average at it.


     


    But in the last 2 years let's see what I've been down about:







      • Amendola singing - how has that worked so far?



     




      • Not getting younger and better talent at the DT position - worked out well last year



     




      • Didn't like settling for Gregory and T. Wilson at S - worked out well



     




      • Having to rely on Talib as a starter due to injury history - and he got hurt






    The things I have been down about it turned out I had a reason to be down about them from the beginning. I think not getting better depth at TE is a mistake (we'll have to see how this plays out) and have concerns over the upfront talent at WR (again we'll have to see how it plays out) but really there's a point of being positive and a point of just being blind to reality. Having a discussion takes perspective from both sides and seeing that a guy who's a mediocre WR through his career is even discussed as a possible starter has to beg the question why if there were other better receiving options on the roster. 


     





    Well Its offseason and I only check in from time to time so its possible. I was just really making sure you were ok.


     


    All the things you mentioned are worthy for concern but to me you are making too much of the WR position. For years here there has been a debate of us needing a deep threat to win it all yet Randy is retired with no rings and was one of the best deep threats in history. Last year we saw Peyton get Punched in the mouth with his high flying offense with all pro bowlers in every slot. We arent gonna get more talented than that and why would you want a top flight WR after watching that??


     


    Lafell is a 3rd or 4th WR based on what? Your bloated expectations for this offense? He was a # 2 in Carolina for a couple years. Is he the Ideal # 1? Well no, but we have Gronk as our # 1. How many teams have the best option at every spot?  And again, how did it work for Denver? If you are THAT good on O you are probably shaky in your D somewhere. My outlook is this. BB has taken measures to fix the D and it should be very good. This is all you need to be happy. Weve seen for years that having a great O means nothing. Cmon man, dont tell me you have gone the route of TFB and think we need R.Moss to win. D.Patten and T.Brown were just fine when our D was ranked very high. I expect that again this year and you are selling Lafell short like he is a rookie free agent. Watch some film on the kid.


     


    Just look at Lafell as a much more seasoned, bigger version of Givens. Givens may have developed into a better route runner. If we play Great D and run and use playaction, Lafell is gonna be a big factor in that IMO. I dont see how you can sell him short when he hasnt even played here yet. Brady>Cam and based on the players he has made, I expect a better Lafell and he is coming off a 49 catch, 5 TD season in a running offense. Chillax mang


     


     


     


    As far as Amendola and all that, yea it look bad in hindsight but he is here. Not gonna beat that horse anymore. Lets move on with high hopes for a great season

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    Receivers that block have a huge advantage, they know the play, can really set up their man, and usually big plays are because receivers block downfield. Only thing do they have the heart. Love seeing Wideouts, blocking, shows me they are hard workers, and team first guys.


     


     


     


    Say all you want about Welker, but that guy was a tough little SOB, he always blocked. That rubs off on other receivers, too.

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:


    Hey, maybe working with the great Tom Brady and his more demanding nature will make Lafell a better receiver and the "blocking" will be just icing on the cake.

    I doubt Cam Newton is going to make any one better at this point in his career.

     




    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     





    Patseng, I think you misunderstood my post.  You are acting like Lafell CANT catch. I never said that. I said he will be start over guys like Dobson, KT because of Experience and blocking. Any player you line up outside HAS to be able to catch and lets not act like Lafell hasnt been on the field a lot. My point was that his blocking was above average and his size doesnt hurt. Wes was a great blocker too....but he was 5'8 180. Lafell, at 6'2 220 will be more effective. He will still get balls thrown to him. I am basically saying Lafell plays over the 2nd years guys due to his veteran status and his blocking. Every NFL WR has to be able to catch.




    No offense dude, but you seem to be the captain of the debbie downers club. I dont see how you found a way to inject negativity into this but dude, whats up w/you?  You have been nothing but negative on every post for like a year now.




    It seems at some point in the last 2 years you snapped and try to only see the bad things in every signing. I expect it now. Whenever someone tries to feel good about someone, you come in with a negative outlook. Is this just from being fed up w/BB or does this have to do with your personal life? Serious question. You are a good poster but you have been a crabby patty for quite some time now..




     






    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

     

     

     

    You really haven't been reading my posts much then or only picking up on the negative ones (it's human nature so I expect the latter) but I have been very positive about the defensive moves in the offseason. I've been down on the receiver moves because that was a big issue last season. Without Gronk our RZ was abysmal and none of the WR's could generate separation last year. When I look at LaFell, he's a decent 3rd/4th WR and if we had the upfront talent would be a decent pickup but in the end it's the same group we brought back last year and if you are counting on LaFell to be a starter then how could you not see that as being an issue for this upcoming year? That's like getting excited over having Caldwell as a starting receiver. Being positive is one thing but getting excited over someone who should be a role player because we lack upfront talent in that position is a bit disingenuous. As far as every WR can catch I present Slater and for Welker well his 1st role was as a receiver his blocking ability was just a great perk but something tells me he wouldn't lose reps if he was just average at it.

     

     

     

    But in the last 2 years let's see what I've been down about:

     






        • Amendola singing - how has that worked so far?




     




        • Not getting younger and better talent at the DT position - worked out well last year




     




        • Didn't like settling for Gregory and T. Wilson at S - worked out well




     




        • Having to rely on Talib as a starter due to injury history - and he got hurt






     

    The things I have been down about it turned out I had a reason to be down about them from the beginning. I think not getting better depth at TE is a mistake (we'll have to see how this plays out) and have concerns over the upfront talent at WR (again we'll have to see how it plays out) but really there's a point of being positive and a point of just being blind to reality. Having a discussion takes perspective from both sides and seeing that a guy who's a mediocre WR through his career is even discussed as a possible starter has to beg the question why if there were other better receiving options on the roster. 

     

     

     

     




    Well Its offseason and I only check in from time to time so its possible. I was just really making sure you were ok.

     

     

     

     

    All the things you mentioned are worthy for concern but to me you are making too much of the WR position. For years here there has been a debate of us needing a deep threat to win it all yet Randy is retired with no rings and was one of the best deep threats in history. Last year we saw Peyton get Punched in the mouth with his high flying offense with all pro bowlers in every slot. We arent gonna get more talented than that and why would you want a top flight WR after watching that??

     

     

     

    Lafell is a 3rd or 4th WR based on what? Your bloated expectations for this offense? He was a # 2 in Carolina for a couple years. Is he the Ideal # 1? Well no, but we have Gronk as our # 1. How many teams have the best option at every spot?  And again, how did it work for Denver? If you are THAT good on O you are probably shaky in your D somewhere. My outlook is this. BB has taken measures to fix the D and it should be very good. This is all you need to be happy. Weve seen for years that having a great O means nothing. Cmon man, dont tell me you have gone the route of TFB and think we need R.Moss to win. D.Patten and T.Brown were just fine when our D was ranked very high. I expect that again this year and you are selling Lafell short like he is a rookie free agent. Watch some film on the kid.

     

     

     

    Just look at Lafell as a much more seasoned, bigger version of Givens. Givens may have developed into a better route runner. If we play Great D and run and use playaction, Lafell is gonna be a big factor in that IMO. I dont see how you can sell him short when he hasnt even played here yet. Brady>Cam and based on the players he has made, I expect a better Lafell and he is coming off a 49 catch, 5 TD season in a running offense. Chillax mang

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    As far as Amendola and all that, yea it look bad in hindsight but he is here. Not gonna beat that horse anymore. Lets move on with high hopes for a great season




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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    Sorry, I somehow f&*ked that response up.

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    Well Its offseason and I only check in from time to time so its possible. I was just really making sure you were ok.

    All the things you mentioned are worthy for concern but to me you are making too much of the WR position. For years here there has been a debate of us needing a deep threat to win it all yet Randy is retired with no rings and was one of the best deep threats in history. Last year we saw Peyton get Punched in the mouth with his high flying offense with all pro bowlers in every slot. We arent gonna get more talented than that and why would you want a top flight WR after watching that??

    Lafell is a 3rd or 4th WR based on what? Your bloated expectations for this offense? He was a # 2 in Carolina for a couple years. Is he the Ideal # 1? Well no, but we have Gronk as our # 1. How many teams have the best option at every spot?  And again, how did it work for Denver? If you are THAT good on O you are probably shaky in your D somewhere. My outlook is this. BB has taken measures to fix the D and it should be very good. This is all you need to be happy. Weve seen for years that having a great O means nothing. Cmon man, dont tell me you have gone the route of TFB and think we need R.Moss to win. D.Patten and T.Brown were just fine when our D was ranked very high. I expect that again this year and you are selling Lafell short like he is a rookie free agent. Watch some film on the kid.

    Just look at Lafell as a much more seasoned, bigger version of Givens. Givens may have developed into a better route runner. If we play Great D and run and use playaction, Lafell is gonna be a big factor in that IMO. I dont see how you can sell him short when he hasnt even played here yet. Brady>Cam and based on the players he has made, I expect a better Lafell and he is coming off a 49 catch, 5 TD season in a running offense. Chillax mang

    As far as Amendola and all that, yea it look bad in hindsight but he is here. Not gonna beat that horse anymore. Lets move on with high hopes for a great season




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I don't think they need a deep threat but I do think they need better targets, yes. Last year the receiving core couldn't get it done and reminded a lot of 06'. Last years WR corp was actually compared a lot to 06' prior to the season and it seemed to live out that way. For the rooks I hope they develop but it's hard to get a read on them since they were either injured or didn't show good strides as the year developed. Boyce was never on the field, Dobson stayed pretty level all year and made similar mistakes at the end of the season as he did at the beginning. Thompkins regressed to the point BB benched him. Brady doesn't need Pro-bowlers at every slot but he does need players who can generate separation in key situations and last years crew didn't show that they could.

    LaFell just looks like a #3 to me. He doesn't run sharp routes, isn't particularly fast, can use his big body to  box out but doesn't do a great job at creating separation, and doesn't have ideal hands as a starter. Carolina doesn't exactly have the best WR's either so being a #2 there doesn't mean much, what I do is compare him to the other #2's around the league and I would say he doesn't fit in with all the other #2's around the league. Heck, I think Dobson showed as much last year as LaFell showed in his entire career so that's how I see him as a #3/4 type and not a #2. Expecting him to be a starter I would say is much more bloated expectations than to think he'll put up his career average which is decent #3/4 type numbers.

    Why do you keep bringing up Den? Did I say I every wanted their WR corp once in any of my statements? I would like more upfront talent, yes, but that doesn't mean they have to all be all-pro's either. If you have two receiving threats teams have to account for (Gronk counts when he's on the field), and at least 1 legitimate good receiving threat behind them then that's fine. The problem is Gronk is mostly hurt and I would put Edelman in the legit good receiving threat (when healthy) but that still leaves you 1 receiving threat teams have to account for even if Gronk and Edelman both stay healthy and there isn't a lot of evidence to show both will.

    The point on Amendola was that those things you are trying to get on me for that you said I was negative about, well maybe there was a reason I was negative about it to begin with. For you it was hindsight, for me it was foresight but at the time I heard the same thing as you are currently saying yet in the end maybe I was right in my concern but you wouldn't guess it from comments of people dismissing it and saying why so negative all the time. There's a difference between being negative and being realistic and when you are right more often than wrong it's called being realistic about the situation.

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    If he can't pick up the system and playbook then his skill set will be useless and he'll be cut by the end of preseason.  Joey Galloway and Chad Johnson weren't bad receivers, they just weren't a fit in our system.  That being said I see a lot of David Givens in Lafell, he could very well catch on, he doesn't have to be dynamic as much as consistent.

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    In response to PatsEng's comment:


    In response to TripleOG's comment:


    Well Its offseason and I only check in from time to time so its possible. I was just really making sure you were ok.


    All the things you mentioned are worthy for concern but to me you are making too much of the WR position. For years here there has been a debate of us needing a deep threat to win it all yet Randy is retired with no rings and was one of the best deep threats in history. Last year we saw Peyton get Punched in the mouth with his high flying offense with all pro bowlers in every slot. We arent gonna get more talented than that and why would you want a top flight WR after watching that??


    Lafell is a 3rd or 4th WR based on what? Your bloated expectations for this offense? He was a # 2 in Carolina for a couple years. Is he the Ideal # 1? Well no, but we have Gronk as our # 1. How many teams have the best option at every spot?  And again, how did it work for Denver? If you are THAT good on O you are probably shaky in your D somewhere. My outlook is this. BB has taken measures to fix the D and it should be very good. This is all you need to be happy. Weve seen for years that having a great O means nothing. Cmon man, dont tell me you have gone the route of TFB and think we need R.Moss to win. D.Patten and T.Brown were just fine when our D was ranked very high. I expect that again this year and you are selling Lafell short like he is a rookie free agent. Watch some film on the kid.


    Just look at Lafell as a much more seasoned, bigger version of Givens. Givens may have developed into a better route runner. If we play Great D and run and use playaction, Lafell is gonna be a big factor in that IMO. I dont see how you can sell him short when he hasnt even played here yet. Brady>Cam and based on the players he has made, I expect a better Lafell and he is coming off a 49 catch, 5 TD season in a running offense. Chillax mang


    As far as Amendola and all that, yea it look bad in hindsight but he is here. Not gonna beat that horse anymore. Lets move on with high hopes for a great season





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    I don't think they need a deep threat but I do think they need better targets, yes. Last year the receiving core couldn't get it done and reminded a lot of 06'. Last years WR corp was actually compared a lot to 06' prior to the season and it seemed to live out that way. For the rooks I hope they develop but it's hard to get a read on them since they were either injured or didn't show good strides as the year developed. Boyce was never on the field, Dobson stayed pretty level all year and made similar mistakes at the end of the season as he did at the beginning. Thompkins regressed to the point BB benched him. Brady doesn't need Pro-bowlers at every slot but he does need players who can generate separation in key situations and last years crew didn't show that they could.


    LaFell just looks like a #3 to me. He doesn't run sharp routes, isn't particularly fast, can use his big body to  box out but doesn't do a great job at creating separation, and doesn't have ideal hands as a starter. Carolina doesn't exactly have the best WR's either so being a #2 there doesn't mean much, what I do is compare him to the other #2's around the league and I would say he doesn't fit in with all the other #2's around the league. Heck, I think Dobson showed as much last year as LaFell showed in his entire career so that's how I see him as a #3/4 type and not a #2. Expecting him to be a starter I would say is much more bloated expectations than to think he'll put up his career average which is decent #3/4 type numbers.


    Why do you keep bringing up Den? Did I say I every wanted their WR corp once in any of my statements? I would like more upfront talent, yes, but that doesn't mean they have to all be all-pro's either. If you have two receiving threats teams have to account for (Gronk counts when he's on the field), and at least 1 legitimate good receiving threat behind them then that's fine. The problem is Gronk is mostly hurt and I would put Edelman in the legit good receiving threat (when healthy) but that still leaves you 1 receiving threat teams have to account for even if Gronk and Edelman both stay healthy and there isn't a lot of evidence to show both will.


    The point on Amendola was that those things you are trying to get on me for that you said I was negative about, well maybe there was a reason I was negative about it to begin with. For you it was hindsight, for me it was foresight but at the time I heard the same thing as you are currently saying yet in the end maybe I was right in my concern but you wouldn't guess it from comments of people dismissing it and saying why so negative all the time. There's a difference between being negative and being realistic and when you are right more often than wrong it's called being realistic about the situation.





    These are all fair points. So my response is who? Who did you want in here that is much better than him who we could still afford?  Decker?  The guy that Dennard shut down?  I dont like him THAT much. You are saying you arent impressed with Dobson, KT, Boyce...Ok, fine but you also dont think Lafell is gonna start? So who DO you have starting here?  Like I said, I am trying to see BB's vision. What I see is bigger players who dont really rely on speed as much as positioning. Playaction after running usually opens up holes so no need to worry about seperation. I thought KT was well on his way to a great rookie year until he landed on his hip. Also, Dobson was making strides(Could not catch back shoulder fade early and then mastered it later) but also had the foot injury as a setback. Boyce, well I havent been sold on him but he was a 5th rounder and if he gets cut, it will be a numbers game.


    Did BB make a mistake paying Amendola because Edleman turned out to be the guy? IDK, maybe but it aint my money and like I said, he fixed the D. We payed Revis 12 million. Whats left for a prima donna WR?


    If forced to choose between difference maker on O or on D, I will choose D 10 times out of 10. We have Brady, he IS the difference maker but if BB didnt get Revis or Browner, you would feel good if Andre Johnson was here?

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    If he can't pick up the system and playbook then his skill set will be useless and he'll be cut by the end of preseason.  Joey Galloway and Chad Johnson weren't bad receivers, they just weren't a fit in our system.  That being said I see a lot of David Givens in Lafell, he could very well catch on, he doesn't have to be dynamic as much as consistent.




    That would be a shame, but in his defense, Ocho and Galloway were OLD dogs. You know what they say about teaching an old dog new tricks. The guys that have struggled are the TOO OLD Vets(Galloway, Ocho, even Moss stopped looking like a fit once he got old)  and the Green Rookies(Price, Tate, Jackson)

    When we have gotten players off their 1st contract, the results have generally been good. (Wes Welker, Jabbar Gaffney, Reche Caldwell)

     

    So I dont expect those issues from Lafell unless he is just dumb or slow and I trust BB did his due diligence after the Ocho Fiasco

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

    These are all fair points. So my response is who? Who did you want in here that is much better than him who we could still afford?  Decker?  The guy that Dennard shut down?  I dont like him THAT much. You are saying you arent impressed with Dobson, KT, Boyce...Ok, fine but you also dont think Lafell is gonna start? So who DO you have starting here?  Like I said, I am trying to see BB's vision. What I see is bigger players who dont really rely on speed as much as positioning. Playaction after running usually opens up holes so no need to worry about seperation. I thought KT was well on his way to a great rookie year until he landed on his hip. Also, Dobson was making strides(Could not catch back shoulder fade early and then mastered it later) but also had the foot injury as a setback. Boyce, well I havent been sold on him but he was a 5th rounder and if he gets cut, it will be a numbers game.

     

    Did BB make a mistake paying Amendola because Edleman turned out to be the guy? IDK, maybe but it aint my money and like I said, he fixed the D. We payed Revis 12 million. Whats left for a prima donna WR?

     

    If forced to choose between difference maker on O or on D, I will choose D 10 times out of 10. We have Brady, he IS the difference maker but if BB didnt get Revis or Browner, you would feel good if Andre Johnson was here?




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I think my original statement was that if LaFell was starting then we are in trouble, so my statement would hold true that the only way LaFell should be starting is that we didn't have the upfront talent in front of him. As I said before, LaFell as a role player or as the 3rd/4th WR on the team is fine but if he's going to be one of your top 2 for any given period that to me signals an issue with the quality of receivers on the team.

    As for WR's I would put into that type of threat category I think they could have targeted this offseason vs LaFell:

    Maclin would have been a good choice. He looks primed to break out. Nicks name was tossed around and certainly when he's on his game could give you a better option. There are other trade names out there too (and no I'm not thinking Fitz or Johnson) but I don't think they needed to go big name just something better than what they currently have if LaFell is in serious discussion as a possible starter.

    Why even bring up the D? That's just deflecting. I'm a big D man and loved Revis and Browner (Muz was 1st on Browner bandwagon I was 2nd) and would chose D over O any day but that doesn't mean you can't have some decent weapons on O either. There was space to be made and space available to get a sub $6mil/yr WR in here as a starting WR in addition to what they got or a better caliber #2 TE to give the O more versatility and insurance in case Gronk goes down. Now it won't get you a premier WR in here but it will get you a starting caliber guy and one with less question marks than our current guys. The issue being is you paid Amendola to be that guy and he wasn't that type of guy before we even signed him. What he did last year is an average year for him and I expect him to be the same moving forward. Bad mistake for sure and hurt the team. Speaking of which, why do people lump Amendola and Edelman together? They were completely separate deals and if Edelman got an offer form another team he was gone but since he didn't he was coming back regardless of what WR BB brought in to replace Welker. Not sure why people think they are linked in some fashion. 

    Hopefully you are right LaFell's the guy and you know what, if this was 11' or 12' and LaFell was just a piece great, but he has a chance to play a significant role and to me that's as troubling as thinking Caldwell would be a starter I don't think LaFell is suited for that much of a role.

    I just don't understand the extremes people use for examples. Usually when I talk about potential targets I don't mention premier players ever but more starting caliber players with reasonable contracts. But, whenever you question it why is it people use the biggest names on the market to make their points when we all know that's not who people mean?

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

    These are all fair points. So my response is who? Who did you want in here that is much better than him who we could still afford?  Decker?  The guy that Dennard shut down?  I dont like him THAT much. You are saying you arent impressed with Dobson, KT, Boyce...Ok, fine but you also dont think Lafell is gonna start? So who DO you have starting here?  Like I said, I am trying to see BB's vision. What I see is bigger players who dont really rely on speed as much as positioning. Playaction after running usually opens up holes so no need to worry about seperation. I thought KT was well on his way to a great rookie year until he landed on his hip. Also, Dobson was making strides(Could not catch back shoulder fade early and then mastered it later) but also had the foot injury as a setback. Boyce, well I havent been sold on him but he was a 5th rounder and if he gets cut, it will be a numbers game.

     

    Did BB make a mistake paying Amendola because Edleman turned out to be the guy? IDK, maybe but it aint my money and like I said, he fixed the D. We payed Revis 12 million. Whats left for a prima donna WR?

     

    If forced to choose between difference maker on O or on D, I will choose D 10 times out of 10. We have Brady, he IS the difference maker but if BB didnt get Revis or Browner, you would feel good if Andre Johnson was here?




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I think my original statement was that if LaFell was starting then we are in trouble, so my statement would hold true that the only way LaFell should be starting is that we didn't have the upfront talent in front of him. As I said before, LaFell as a role player or as the 3rd/4th WR on the team is fine but if he's going to be one of your top 2 for any given period that to me signals an issue with the quality of receivers on the team.

    As for WR's I would put into that type of threat category I think they could have targeted this offseason vs LaFell:

    Maclin would have been a good choice. He looks primed to break out. Nicks name was tossed around and certainly when he's on his game could give you a better option. There are other trade names out there too (and no I'm not thinking Fitz or Johnson) but I don't think they needed to go big name just something better than what they currently have if LaFell is in serious discussion as a possible starter.

    Why even bring up the D? That's just deflecting. I'm a big D man and loved Revis and Browner (Muz was 1st on Browner bandwagon I was 2nd) and would chose D over O any day but that doesn't mean you can't have some decent weapons on O either. There was space to be made and space available to get a sub $6mil/yr WR in here as a starting WR in addition to what they got or a better caliber #2 TE to give the O more versatility and insurance in case Gronk goes down. Now it won't get you a premier WR in here but it will get you a starting caliber guy and one with less question marks than our current guys. The issue being is you paid Amendola to be that guy and he wasn't that type of guy before we even signed him. What he did last year is an average year for him and I expect him to be the same moving forward. Bad mistake for sure and hurt the team. Speaking of which, why do people lump Amendola and Edelman together? They were completely separate deals and if Edelman got an offer form another team he was gone but since he didn't he was coming back regardless of what WR BB brought in to replace Welker. Not sure why people think they are linked in some fashion. 

    Hopefully you are right LaFell's the guy and you know what, if this was 11' or 12' and LaFell was just a piece great, but he has a chance to play a significant role and to me that's as troubling as thinking Caldwell would be a starter I don't think LaFell is suited for that much of a role.

    I just don't understand the extremes people use for examples. Usually when I talk about potential targets I don't mention premier players ever but more starting caliber players with reasonable contracts. But, whenever you question it why is it people use the biggest names on the market to make their points when we all know that's not who people mean?




    Well I liked Nicks too. Not sure why we didnt kick those tires. He ended up on a one year deal. I just think its more of a non issue at the moment. Last year was the trying year where we HAD to use rookies and we still ended up in good shape, good record, bye week,etc. You dont think the rookies will play better and that we can spread around the ball where Lafell does not have to be the man? Gronk is THEE man here. If healthy you KNOW he is getting the Lions share. Edleman caught over 100 balls last year. Dobson and KT should be role players this year and are more experienced. I see that as a positive. You are taking the "starter" role too serious. In 2009, B.Tate started outside all year and was never THEE guy but we still managed to win games. This was Pre Gronk mind you. We have Vareen/White to catch out backfield. Lafell starting doesnt mean he is the # 2 option. If Amendola is healthy, I  see Gronk, Edleman, Amendola All in front of Lafell in terms of pecking order. I think he will thrive in that role. Stallworth was our # 2 on a SB team(46 catches). He didnt have to do much so I dont know why you think we HAVE to throw Lafell 100 balls. Thats my point in his blocking. He doesnt have to catch balls to make an impact man. Just wait and see what I mean. We have plenty of weapons. Are they all great? No but with the D we have, Im certain we will get a few first downs.  The same thing happened last year. Lots of fans worried about how our offense will move without Wes. Our O is gonna be fine. It always has been. Its our D that has been the issue and it looks to be much improved.

    Thx for the discussion. I gotta run now. Check back later.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronk1. Show ronk1's posts

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    there simply are not many WR's, vet's or rook's, that hit the ground running their first year in this offense. Galloway, Ocho, Holt, Price, tate all come to mind quickly, surely there are many others.


    that will be they key to Lafell seeing the field or not. he is not going to see snaps because he is a good down field blocker. he needs to earn snaps by out playing the other WR's, and assuming health, he will be behind JE, DA, and Dobson on the depth chart


    should be a good camp battle between Lafell, KT and Boyce for that 4th spot


    taking in context of most every 1st year WR in the BB era, Dobsons rookie year is that much more impressive

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

    Re: Why B.Lafell Is a lock and should be starting week 1

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

    These are all fair points. So my response is who? Who did you want in here that is much better than him who we could still afford?  Decker?  The guy that Dennard shut down?  I dont like him THAT much. You are saying you arent impressed with Dobson, KT, Boyce...Ok, fine but you also dont think Lafell is gonna start? So who DO you have starting here?  Like I said, I am trying to see BB's vision. What I see is bigger players who dont really rely on speed as much as positioning. Playaction after running usually opens up holes so no need to worry about seperation. I thought KT was well on his way to a great rookie year until he landed on his hip. Also, Dobson was making strides(Could not catch back shoulder fade early and then mastered it later) but also had the foot injury as a setback. Boyce, well I havent been sold on him but he was a 5th rounder and if he gets cut, it will be a numbers game.

     

    Did BB make a mistake paying Amendola because Edleman turned out to be the guy? IDK, maybe but it aint my money and like I said, he fixed the D. We payed Revis 12 million. Whats left for a prima donna WR?

     

    If forced to choose between difference maker on O or on D, I will choose D 10 times out of 10. We have Brady, he IS the difference maker but if BB didnt get Revis or Browner, you would feel good if Andre Johnson was here?




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I think my original statement was that if LaFell was starting then we are in trouble, so my statement would hold true that the only way LaFell should be starting is that we didn't have the upfront talent in front of him. As I said before, LaFell as a role player or as the 3rd/4th WR on the team is fine but if he's going to be one of your top 2 for any given period that to me signals an issue with the quality of receivers on the team.

    As for WR's I would put into that type of threat category I think they could have targeted this offseason vs LaFell:

    Maclin would have been a good choice. He looks primed to break out. Nicks name was tossed around and certainly when he's on his game could give you a better option. There are other trade names out there too (and no I'm not thinking Fitz or Johnson) but I don't think they needed to go big name just something better than what they currently have if LaFell is in serious discussion as a possible starter.

    Why even bring up the D? That's just deflecting. I'm a big D man and loved Revis and Browner (Muz was 1st on Browner bandwagon I was 2nd) and would chose D over O any day but that doesn't mean you can't have some decent weapons on O either. There was space to be made and space available to get a sub $6mil/yr WR in here as a starting WR in addition to what they got or a better caliber #2 TE to give the O more versatility and insurance in case Gronk goes down. Now it won't get you a premier WR in here but it will get you a starting caliber guy and one with less question marks than our current guys. The issue being is you paid Amendola to be that guy and he wasn't that type of guy before we even signed him. What he did last year is an average year for him and I expect him to be the same moving forward. Bad mistake for sure and hurt the team. Speaking of which, why do people lump Amendola and Edelman together? They were completely separate deals and if Edelman got an offer form another team he was gone but since he didn't he was coming back regardless of what WR BB brought in to replace Welker. Not sure why people think they are linked in some fashion. 

    Hopefully you are right LaFell's the guy and you know what, if this was 11' or 12' and LaFell was just a piece great, but he has a chance to play a significant role and to me that's as troubling as thinking Caldwell would be a starter I don't think LaFell is suited for that much of a role.

    I just don't understand the extremes people use for examples. Usually when I talk about potential targets I don't mention premier players ever but more starting caliber players with reasonable contracts. But, whenever you question it why is it people use the biggest names on the market to make their points when we all know that's not who people mean?




    Interesting comments - I always appreciate your opinion - you were right on Armstead and most likely are right on Lafell. I'm holding out hope that with a better quarterback Lafell will be on the upswing of his career...he's young enough, he's got experience, he produced decently last year and physically he has some tools. We shall see.

    I'd be more than happy with Lafell if he gave us a little something on the outside and managed to come down with 60 catches. To me that would mean that he took a little of the heat off of guys like Edelman and Gronk, believe it or not I thought Lloyd did a decent job in that department (not great), but enough to keep defenders honest. It all comes down to Gronk, if he's healthy the sky is the limit, if not we have no advantage and will be ordinary against the good defenses. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share