Why David Nelson?

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

     

    I dont consider him a outside WR. Sure he is 6'6, but runs a 4.6 which is good for that height but you combine that with his slight frame and he aint getting off the line. Maybe he isnt a TE either but bottomline he is redundant, if we cant agree on that than we disagree and I would set my aims higher that Nelson....

     



    He's rounded up 6'5" and ran a 4.54 according to his combine numbers so not sure where you are pulling your data from. And how would he be redundant? Aaron Hernandez is 6'1" and ran a 4.7 40 at the combine. They are two completely different players. Nelson is a full .15s faster then Hern, 4" taller, had a better vertical, and a better 3 cone.

     

    Hern WR/TE tweener, Nelson WR there is no redundancy

     



    There is a difference between timed speed and football speed and like I said, I dont wanna change your opinion , we just disagree. I dont think we have a need for him, I dont thnk he is the answer outside and I thnk we should aim higher. If people are talking of cutting lloyd after going for 74/900, what are people expecting from Nelson with cheaper money and coming off an ACL.  I dont care about cone drills and all that unless you are a CB. If he doesnt bulk up , he will struggle to beat man coverage as weve seen already with LLoyd and I dont think Nelson is better than lloyd outside of you "projecting" what he will do here. The redundancy comes in when u have a bunch of mediocre 4.6 guys (Hern, LLoyd, Nelson) and none of them can seperate outside or take the top off. He looks explosive coming out that slot with Linebackers on him...but show me the tape of him dominating outside...

     



    So I just want to be sure of this. You don't think a 6'5" WR with a 38" vertical can gain separation from the average CB in the NFL which comes in ~5'11"  with a vertical of 34"? That 10" difference in maximum reach won't make a difference in gaining separation at all? It's a good thing no one told him in 11' or he never would of had those 68recs

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    If he had recovered from the ACL injury and did not lose a step, he sounds intriguing. He would be an much needed upgrade from Branch at this point of Deion's career.

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

     

    I dont consider him a outside WR. Sure he is 6'6, but runs a 4.6 which is good for that height but you combine that with his slight frame and he aint getting off the line. Maybe he isnt a TE either but bottomline he is redundant, if we cant agree on that than we disagree and I would set my aims higher that Nelson....

     



    He's rounded up 6'5" and ran a 4.54 according to his combine numbers so not sure where you are pulling your data from. And how would he be redundant? Aaron Hernandez is 6'1" and ran a 4.7 40 at the combine. They are two completely different players. Nelson is a full .15s faster then Hern, 4" taller, had a better vertical, and a better 3 cone.

     

    Hern WR/TE tweener, Nelson WR there is no redundancy

     



    There is a difference between timed speed and football speed and like I said, I dont wanna change your opinion , we just disagree. I dont think we have a need for him, I dont thnk he is the answer outside and I thnk we should aim higher. If people are talking of cutting lloyd after going for 74/900, what are people expecting from Nelson with cheaper money and coming off an ACL.  I dont care about cone drills and all that unless you are a CB. If he doesnt bulk up , he will struggle to beat man coverage as weve seen already with LLoyd and I dont think Nelson is better than lloyd outside of you "projecting" what he will do here. The redundancy comes in when u have a bunch of mediocre 4.6 guys (Hern, LLoyd, Nelson) and none of them can seperate outside or take the top off. He looks explosive coming out that slot with Linebackers on him...but show me the tape of him dominating outside...

     

     



    So I just want to be sure of this. You don't think a 6'5" WR with a 38" vertical can gain separation from the average CB in the NFL which comes in ~5'11"  with a vertical of 34"? That 10" difference in maximum reach won't make a difference in gaining separation at all? It's a good thing no one told him in 11' or he never would of had those 68recs

     




    Once again SHOW ME THE TAPE! You want to sign guy based on his measurables?? I dont get impressed with that and then factor in what he is gonna miss coming off injury....maybe .4 of his 40 time and what do those numbers mean??  You wanna make this into a debate, I dont. We disagree,. I believe it was you in the offseason that kept arguing with me that Landry wouldnt last 4 games let alone a whole season and he was too bulky to run?  lol, I cant recall.  Forgive me if I got you wrong but my point is, Im not gonna change my mind, if Im wrong, bring it back to me when it happens, if not...Lets end it.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    Here are the points that make people interested:

    1. BB wanted him as an UDFA

    2. He burned the Pats in at least one game (anyone remember that about Welker?) Welker wasn't exactly Welker before he came to NE - he had a little success, but not big numbers.

    3. He is tall, has good hands, and has a wide catch radius.

    4. He has had decent success playing with a mediocre QB on a bad team. And has done that in a cold weather open stadium.

    5. He would be cheap.

    I don't think anyone sees him as Moss, or Wallace, or Bowe, and he isn't going to be a great deep threat. He is more in the range of a Lloyd - a #2/3 wide out that will run the right routes and catch the balls thrown in his direction. Think of him as a replacement for Branch in a much younger body with a lot more height and at a smaller cap hit.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    In response to mia76's comment:

    Here are the points that make people interested:

    1. BB wanted him as an UDFA

    2. He burned the Pats in at least one game (anyone remember that about Welker?) Welker wasn't exactly Welker before he came to NE - he had a little success, but not big numbers.

    3. He is tall, has good hands, and has a wide catch radius.

    4. He has had decent success playing with a mediocre QB on a bad team. And has done that in a cold weather open stadium.

    5. He would be cheap.

    I don't think anyone sees him as Moss, or Wallace, or Bowe, and he isn't going to be a great deep threat. He is more in the range of a Lloyd - a #2/3 wide out that will run the right routes and catch the balls thrown in his direction. Think of him as a replacement for Branch in a much younger body with a lot more height and at a smaller cap hit.



    Here's the difference with Welker, he produced in college, and even MIA liked him enough to at least tender him.

    To me, he's just a value guy. He would be a great replacement over Branch, over Lloyd? I don't think so. He's proven nothing except for the fact that he can eat a patriots secondary and perform well in gym shorts

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    In response to mia76's comment:

    Here are the points that make people interested:

    1. BB wanted him as an UDFA

    2. He burned the Pats in at least one game (anyone remember that about Welker?) Welker wasn't exactly Welker before he came to NE - he had a little success, but not big numbers.

    3. He is tall, has good hands, and has a wide catch radius.

    4. He has had decent success playing with a mediocre QB on a bad team. And has done that in a cold weather open stadium.

    5. He would be cheap.

    I don't think anyone sees him as Moss, or Wallace, or Bowe, and he isn't going to be a great deep threat. He is more in the range of a Lloyd - a #2/3 wide out that will run the right routes and catch the balls thrown in his direction. Think of him as a replacement for Branch in a much younger body with a lot more height and at a smaller cap hit.




    as a peice to the puzzle and 4th WR, Im fine with that, but my point was we have some complimentary peices already but still dont have a # 1. Nelson isnt a 1 or a 2 and we dont know if LLoyd is gonna be cut so Nelson to me is low on the totem pole until we get a # 1 WR , thats all Im saying and I dont think he offers more than Lloyd...maybe something different but I dont know....not impressed that much...but for 1 or 2 milly, sure , bring him in

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    Btw,

     

    Fair discussion. Unlike some posters, seems like we can refrain from resorting to name calling and just stick with the football!

    TripleOG, PatsEng and others, it's been a pleasure discussing.

     

    My mind still hasn't changed on this guy. Every argument on why we should get him still goes back to his size or his combine numbers, not football ability. Ive also read suited better suited in the slot in maybe a Jimmy Graham type role (not saying he's as good as Graham). Looking at the Past roster, that's not what they need unless Welker is let go.

     

    If BB lets go of Lloyd and goes in with Nelson as a starter, then I'll root for the guy to prove me wrong.

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

    Btw,

     

    Fair discussion. Unlike some posters, seems like we can refrain from resorting to name calling and just stick with the football!

    TripleOG, PatsEng and others, it's been a pleasure discussing.

     

    My mind still hasn't changed on this guy. Every argument on why we should get him still goes back to his size or his combine numbers, not football ability. Ive also read suited better suited in the slot in maybe a Jimmy Graham type role (not saying he's as good as Graham). Looking at the Past roster, that's not what they need unless Welker is let go.

     

    If BB lets go of Lloyd and goes in with Nelson as a starter, then I'll root for the guy to prove me wrong.




    this ^

     

    yea and if you havent noticed, rusty, his followers and his emenies havent been around today or else may be a diff. story.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

    Btw,

     

    Fair discussion. Unlike some posters, seems like we can refrain from resorting to name calling and just stick with the football!

    TripleOG, PatsEng and others, it's been a pleasure discussing.

     

    My mind still hasn't changed on this guy. Every argument on why we should get him still goes back to his size or his combine numbers, not football ability. Ive also read suited better suited in the slot in maybe a Jimmy Graham type role (not saying he's as good as Graham). Looking at the Past roster, that's not what they need unless Welker is let go.

     

    If BB lets go of Lloyd and goes in with Nelson as a starter, then I'll root for the guy to prove me wrong.



    I agree an overall good discussion that is somewhat enjoyable

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    I could live with a WR corps of Wes, Lloyd, Edelman and Nelson. Assuming health and return to "norm" for all I would think Nelson capable of being the #2 or #3 ahead of Lloyd and maybe Edelman. 

    Remember the game Nelson had against the Pats in 2011? He also gives the Pats height in the red zone as he is 6'5". I thought he was breaking out in 2011 with 60 catches and 700 yards. 

    The question, as with every WR ever signed by the Pats, can he learn the offense, and can Brady get comfortable with him. I assume that's where BB's relationship with Urban Meyer helps. 

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    I could live with a WR corps of Wes, Lloyd, Edelman and Nelson. Assuming health and return to "norm" for all I would think Nelson capable of being the #2 or #3 ahead of Lloyd and maybe Edelman. 

    Remember the game Nelson had against the Pats in 2011? He also gives the Pats height in the red zone as he is 6'5". I thought he was breaking out in 2011 with 60 catches and 700 yards. 

    The question, as with every WR ever signed by the Pats, can he learn the offense, and can Brady get comfortable with him. I assume that's where BB's relationship with Urban Meyer helps. 



    A lot of WRs have had good games against the Pats...unfortunately

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

     

    Just wondering why everyone is so in love with this guy?

    I'll admit that I haven't seen much tape of him. But he really hasn't accomplished much in this league and is coming off a major injury.

    The only thing that I've really seen is that he's big...which I dont think is a good enough reason to sign the guy. I can list a number of big WRs who were bad.

     

    Also, didn't he play in the slot most of the time for the Bills? From what I've read, he's a possession slot receiver. With Hern locked up, maybe Welker soon, I don't think we need another slot guy.

     

    Again, I haven't seen too much of him, so let me know what I'm missing!

     




     

    I dont get it either. I remember him making some noise a couple years back with Fitzy and to me he is a tweener WR/TE but more leaner and taller than Hernandez but def. not a better player so not sure where we would play him or why we would want him when we have a similar player. A smaller TE that cant block well enough to be an in-line TE 24/7 but not fast or agile enough to be put outside 24/7 either. I just want a real # 1 WR to go with this group so teams cant bog down the middle anymore...


    ' I just want a real # 1 WR to go with this group so teams cant bog down the middle anymore..."


    agree with this triple . it's been my refrain

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to mia76's comment:

     

    Here are the points that make people interested:

    1. BB wanted him as an UDFA

    2. He burned the Pats in at least one game (anyone remember that about Welker?) Welker wasn't exactly Welker before he came to NE - he had a little success, but not big numbers.

    3. He is tall, has good hands, and has a wide catch radius.

    4. He has had decent success playing with a mediocre QB on a bad team. And has done that in a cold weather open stadium.

    5. He would be cheap.

    I don't think anyone sees him as Moss, or Wallace, or Bowe, and he isn't going to be a great deep threat. He is more in the range of a Lloyd - a #2/3 wide out that will run the right routes and catch the balls thrown in his direction. Think of him as a replacement for Branch in a much younger body with a lot more height and at a smaller cap hit.

     




    as a peice to the puzzle and 4th WR, Im fine with that, but my point was we have some complimentary peices already but still dont have a # 1. Nelson isnt a 1 or a 2 and we dont know if LLoyd is gonna be cut so Nelson to me is low on the totem pole until we get a # 1 WR , thats all Im saying and I dont think he offers more than Lloyd...maybe something different but I dont know....not impressed that much...but for 1 or 2 milly, sure , bring him in

     



    this was my reply toi eng when he first suggested. if we get a number abig bodied fast #1 and drop llloyd and bring in nelson for cheap thats all good.

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    In response to bredbru's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

     

    Just wondering why everyone is so in love with this guy?

    I'll admit that I haven't seen much tape of him. But he really hasn't accomplished much in this league and is coming off a major injury.

    The only thing that I've really seen is that he's big...which I dont think is a good enough reason to sign the guy. I can list a number of big WRs who were bad.

     

    Also, didn't he play in the slot most of the time for the Bills? From what I've read, he's a possession slot receiver. With Hern locked up, maybe Welker soon, I don't think we need another slot guy.

     

    Again, I haven't seen too much of him, so let me know what I'm missing!

     




     

    I dont get it either. I remember him making some noise a couple years back with Fitzy and to me he is a tweener WR/TE but more leaner and taller than Hernandez but def. not a better player so not sure where we would play him or why we would want him when we have a similar player. A smaller TE that cant block well enough to be an in-line TE 24/7 but not fast or agile enough to be put outside 24/7 either. I just want a real # 1 WR to go with this group so teams cant bog down the middle anymore...

     


    ' I just want a real # 1 WR to go with this group so teams cant bog down the middle anymore..."

     


    agree with this triple . it's been my refrain



    It is hard in the cap era to get a "real #1" in free agency when you pay your slot WR, and 2 TE's "real #1" money. Pats have to draft a real #1 and BB has not put that type of value on a "real #1" . Going the mid round route in the draft(Tate) has not panned out, nor has the secondary or tertiary Free Agent route worked out. (Stallworth, Ocho)

    I wonder if simply obtaining a speedy "threat" not a "real #1" is the way to go? Avery is a free agent. Jacoby Jones is owed a big bonus and might be released if Flacco and Reed are retained. While these guys are not stud WR's, they are capable of taking a Safety out of the play on a deep route, and both capable of breaking that deep route for a score. 

    Even with the Brady extension, I simply don't see the Pats allotting the funds to a WR in the Wallace, Jennings, Bowe $$$ neighborhood. 

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    I think Nelson might be a complementary guy at the WR position.  Right now only Lloyd, Slater, and two practice-squad types are signed, so we probably need to bring another four or five into camp. Nelson might give you decent value.  Would I prefer a Greg Jennings level talent? Absolutely. But can we afford that given all our other needs? Maybe not.  While $25 million is a nice bit of cap space, we have some 15 to 20 roster slots still to fill, and that $25 million will go faster than we might like getting that many players signed.

     

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    Bring them all to camp, lets see who sticks, but if the market falls out from under his feet I 'd rather have Greg Jennings, at least we know he'd be productive.

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    How about Miles Austin?  Has had some injuries but nothing serious. Can attack ALL parts of the field. Is a # 2 in a prolific offense but would be a # 1 here no question. Still has speed to seperate. Is a gamer and makes big plays when u need them. I would  pay for him and I dont thnk he would ask for Bowe, Wallace  type $$

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    Pats have 1.5 receivers on their roster at the moment and people are talking about maybe dropping Lloyd which would leave us with Slater as the only 'receiver'. A guy like Nelson who was not tendered by a team in need of receivers is not going to command more than around 1M and and for that price he is worth the look.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why David Nelson?

    In response to jri37's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

    How about Miles Austin?  Has had some injuries but nothing serious. Can attack ALL parts of the field. Is a # 2 in a prolific offense but would be a # 1 here no question. Still has speed to seperate. Is a gamer and makes big plays when u need them. I would  pay for him and I dont thnk he would ask for Bowe, Wallace  type $$

     




     

    I believe Miles Austin just re-restructured his contract. I don't think he is available. 



    DOH! (homer voice)

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share