Why No Love For Hooman?

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to GO47's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The problem I have with Hooman is that he isn't a reliable TE when it comes to receptions. He had 19 passes thrown at him and only caught 12 last year and he played 13 games. So defenses figured out that he was in there to strictly block for a run or to protect Brady. Being one dimensional kind of gives up the element of surprise and having the defense account for him. So I disagree with the notion that we don't need a better TE backing up Gronk.

    [/QUOTE]

    especially if the Patriots want to improve the red zone offense and/or if Gronk gets hurt again.

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    He's a serviceable back-up.  I think he's actually more a receiving type TE than a blocking type, but he's really just adequate at both.  He's okay as a back-up, though, and would be a very solid third TE.  

     

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    I guess the 100 million they have invested in the TE position has caused them to be cautious in signing a bunch of over priced JAGs like Chandler, Keller, etc.... 

    Wierd how this salary cap thing works and what happens when 1 of your 50 million dollar guys kills someone. 

    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    Hooman is a great blocking TE and can lead block in the red zone for run plays. Good player.

    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's too bad Ballard didn't pan out.  Some folks like Idiot Boy had his nose comfortably nestled between BB's cheeks over that move.

    [/QUOTE]


    Sounds great, Bustchise.  Me thinking it was a good idea to take a chance and stash a player on IR to see if he could bounce back, is nothing more than that.  THe fact is, GMs don't think past that upcoming year and BB is constantly turning over every rock thinking about today AND tomorrow. This is something your moron Jets could never even pretend to think about whatsoever. Congrats.

    Nice try pretending I said anything other than that, Bustchise.

    I also like how you use more words and phrases. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    lmao

    [/QUOTE]

    Horrid move by the way bustchise.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?


    I like Hoomanawanui Salcon, I'm with you.

    On the surface, I think 2 catches/game = 32 for the season is very reasonable and attainable for him.

    Did a little research. He's been in the NFL 4 seasons, 2 with StL, 2 with NE. He played 3 years at Illinois.

    His ENTIRE college career, he had 40 catches.

    His ENTIRE pro career, he has 37 catches, including 12 last season.

    However, last season I watched him transform from a guy who was strictly a blocker (which he is definitely above average at, he doesn't stick for 3 seasons on this team with BB as the head coach unless he blocks well), to someone who was actually running some routes. He's not fast, he's not big, I don't know how crisp his routes are....but the guy has glue-hands. He doesn't drop it. No, he never got MANY chances, but he cashed in just about every single one.

    I've been quietly thinking between he and Devlin, they have a pretty nice H-Back/Fullback/TE pair between them.

    Hooman has been on my 'watch' list, depending on how much Gronk plays, I could see Hoomanawanui cracking 45 catches (3 per game). He seemed to be gaining Brady's trust, as proven when Brady was willing to float one up to him at the back of the endzone with coverage right there.

    He could be a Fauria/Keith Byers-type. Very reliable in what they do, and valuable for that reliability.

    And, he was born on the 4th of July, and plays for the Patriots. I mean, really?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to GO47's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The problem I have with Hooman is that he isn't a reliable TE when it comes to receptions. He had 19 passes thrown at him and only caught 12 last year and he played 13 games. So defenses figured out that he was in there to strictly block for a run or to protect Brady. Being one dimensional kind of gives up the element of surprise and having the defense account for him. So I disagree with the notion that we don't need a better TE backing up Gronk.

    [/QUOTE]


    I'd say a 63% completion rate is just fine. Funny...your stats to dissuade using him as a receiving TE only strengthened my belief that he just needs more chances/targets.

    The problem with a backup for Gronk is many fans seem to want a decent player. "Decent" TEs tend to start in this league. If you can catch AND block decently, you start somewhere. Graham and Watson proved they are borderline starters while here, and both got paid like undeniable starters in FA.

    College kids haven't adjusted to the needs in the NFL at this point. There are 10 rbs for every job,but not enough TEs. Again, BB was ahead of the curve looking for a good hybrid since 2004, and finally got 2 in 2010. In that span, roughly 10 seasons, there have been only a handful of truly good TEs. Pats have had 2 off that short list.

    I wanted, REALLY WANTED Scott Chandler. If I'M Scott Chandler, I'm going to take less money to play in NE, and take a back seat to Gronk when he's healthy. Or, I can take more money to go be the TE option for another team. Athletes largely have gigantic egos. Most want to be "the guy".

    Finding a player like Hoooman...or Slater, or Edelman, or Jones, or McCourty...who truly are willing to do what ever the coaches ask them is valuable. Look at how Adalius Thomas, and all his talent, helped ruin a clubhouse because of his ego. And what did that get him? A fast track right out of the entire league.

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hooman is a great blocking TE and can lead block in the red zone for run plays. Good player.

    [object HTMLDivElement]

    [/QUOTE]


    "Great" is a bit of an exaggeration, I think.  Daniel Graham, Alge Crumpler, Gronk--those are great blockers.  Hommanawanui is just adequate.  That's why he's a back-up.  Not a bad back-up, mind you, but still a back-up.

     

     

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to GO47's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The problem I have with Hooman is that he isn't a reliable TE when it comes to receptions. He had 19 passes thrown at him and only caught 12 last year and he played 13 games. So defenses figured out that he was in there to strictly block for a run or to protect Brady. Being one dimensional kind of gives up the element of surprise and having the defense account for him. So I disagree with the notion that we don't need a better TE backing up Gronk.

    [/QUOTE]


    I'd say a 63% completion rate is just fine. Funny...your stats to dissuade using him as a receiving TE only strengthened my belief that he just needs more chances/targets.

    The problem with a backup for Gronk is many fans seem to want a decent player. "Decent" TEs tend to start in this league. If you can catch AND block decently, you start somewhere. Graham and Watson proved they are borderline starters while here, and both got paid like undeniable starters in FA.

    College kids haven't adjusted to the needs in the NFL at this point. There are 10 rbs for every job,but not enough TEs. Again, BB was ahead of the curve looking for a good hybrid since 2004, and finally got 2 in 2010. In that span, roughly 10 seasons, there have been only a handful of truly good TEs. Pats have had 2 off that short list.

    I wanted, REALLY WANTED Scott Chandler. If I'M Scott Chandler, I'm going to take less money to play in NE, and take a back seat to Gronk when he's healthy. Or, I can take more money to go be the TE option for another team. Athletes largely have gigantic egos. Most want to be "the guy".

    Finding a player like Hoooman...or Slater, or Edelman, or Jones, or McCourty...who truly are willing to do what ever the coaches ask them is valuable. Look at how Adalius Thomas, and all his talent, helped ruin a clubhouse because of his ego. And what did that get him? A fast track right out of the entire league.

    [/QUOTE]


    I actually think Hoomanawanui is okay as a back-up receiving TE.  In fact, I see receiving as more his strength than blocking.  He's not a world beater as a receiver, but he is someone who can and does make some nice catches.  I'd like to see a bit more from him as a blocker . . . I think that's why Matt Mulligan was around last year.  Mulligan was a better blocker. 

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I know he's not Gronk but who is ?

     

    I think Hooman is a decent back up.

     

     

     

    http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Highlight-Michael-Hoomanawanui-one-handed-TD-grab/40f8ed24-fcf8-4b39-857d-ad36f38b631a#watch" rel="nofollow">http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Highlight-Michael-Hoomanawanui-one-handed-TD-grab/40f8ed24-fcf8-4b39-857d-ad36f38b631a#watch

    [/QUOTE]


    The reason is he is not Gronk. Plain and simple. On a team without Gronk, Hooman would be an average to good NFL TE. But on a team that had both Gronk and AH, the talent level drop is seen to be so much that he is perceived as being below average by the casual observer.

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Yeah, but wasn't Graham the starter and also a first-round pick?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    Yes but he was known as a blocking TE and not a receiving TE, hence why I said Hoomans blocking ability and not Grahams. Considering Graham wasn't a pass catching TE something along his rec totals during SB years seems about right with average to good blocking ability. If we didn't need him to start 6-10 games a year I'd be fine with a pure blocking TE but since we typically do and the O falls apart without a TE catching passes in the playoffs I'd like someone with a little more receiving ability than Hooman who has 17 recs and 1 TD over 2 years and 16 starts for the Pats. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate Hooman (I was one of the few in last year camp who thought he deserved a spot) but I also understand his short comings and receiving ability majorly hurts the team when Gronk goes down.

    [/QUOTE]


    Graham may not of been a pass catching tight end when he played here, but he was drafted with the thought that he was. You and I both know blocking tight ends don't get drafted in the first round - Graham was considered the best tight end coming out of that draft by many. I remember watching him at Colorado and believe me he could catch, he was drawing comparisons to Shannon Sharpe because he caught the thing so smoothly...then when he got here?? I don't know what the hell happened, all of the sudden he started dropping what looked like the most routine passes. He no doubt was a great blocker though, I bet Matt Light loved him, because until he found a way to block Freeney, Graham was the guy who helped him on his side.

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Graham may not of been a pass catching tight end when he played here, but he was drafted with the thought that he was. You and I both know blocking tight ends don't get drafted in the first round - Graham was considered the best tight end coming out of that draft by many. I remember watching him at Colorado and believe me he could catch, he was drawing comparisons to Shannon Sharpe because he caught the thing so smoothly...then when he got here?? I don't know what the hell happened, all of the sudden he started dropping what looked like the most routine passes. He no doubt was a great blocker though, I bet Matt Light loved him, because until he found a way to block Freeney, Graham was the guy who helped him on his side.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    And we both know BB does things a bit different in the draft. Graham was known as a blocking TE in college, now Watson for example was a receiving TE. But all I'm asking is averaging 2-3 recs a game and a TD every 3-4 games out of a backup. I don't think I'm asking a ton. If they can be a decent blocker and give me those type of rec numbers I'd be perfectly happy as the backup. The only reason I want even that over a pure blocking TE is that our backup TE spot has to start a large number of games a year. I don't expect another Gronk, no one but the sarcastic extremist are arguing that, but not a step down from 80 recs a year to less than 1 a game.

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    He's a serviceable back-up.  I think he's actually more a receiving type TE than a blocking type, but he's really just adequate at both.  He's okay as a back-up, though, and would be a very solid third TE.  

     

    [/QUOTE]



    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I agree a very solid #3 TE for sure, but he's more a receiving TE than a blocking TE? Pro, if averaging less than a rec a game and less than 1 TD a season means he's more a receiving TE then what do you honestly think of his blocking ability?

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    I guess the 100 million they have invested in the TE position has caused them to be cautious in signing a bunch of over priced JAGs like Chandler, Keller, etc.... 


    Wierd how this salary cap thing works and what happens when 1 of your 50 million dollar guys kills someone. 

    [object HTMLDivElement]





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    You know True I over heard from other teams the other day they are deathly scared of the $100mil we spent. They have no clue how they are going to cover that much cash. They know Hern is in jail and Gronk spends a large part of the season in the tub but my good $100mil. It's a wonder how bad the RZ O was without Gronk last year. You would think after spending $100mil other teams would be so scared they'd just let Mulligan walk into the end zone last year. I wonder why they didn't. You're right though why sign guys like Chandler who are productive, BB never wastes money on players to improve the roster after spending so many resources at the position. I mean just look at S, after spending a 1st on Meriweather, 2nd on Chung, 2nd on Wilson, 3rd for Harmon, and paying Gregory more than he was worth he still went out and signed the legendary A. Wilson. What was he thinking after already investing so much into the position? You are right True, if you toss enough resources into a position no matter how weak it is you shouldn't invest anymore. I mean it's not like BB didn't invest a ton into CB over the last 5 years and yet he still came out and spent money on Revis and Browner this offseason. It's almost like he was saying, I know we spent so much to the position but it's not good enough so lets fix it instead of trying to rationalize not taking care of it because we already used up too many resources already. 

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:


    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    Graham may not of been a pass catching tight end when he played here, but he was drafted with the thought that he was. You and I both know blocking tight ends don't get drafted in the first round - Graham was considered the best tight end coming out of that draft by many. I remember watching him at Colorado and believe me he could catch, he was drawing comparisons to Shannon Sharpe because he caught the thing so smoothly...then when he got here?? I don't know what the hell happened, all of the sudden he started dropping what looked like the most routine passes. He no doubt was a great blocker though, I bet Matt Light loved him, because until he found a way to block Freeney, Graham was the guy who helped him on his side.





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    And we both know BB does things a bit different in the draft. Graham was known as a blocking TE in college, now Watson for example was a receiving TE. But all I'm asking is averaging 2-3 recs a game and a TD every 3-4 games out of a backup. I don't think I'm asking a ton. If they can be a decent blocker and give me those type of rec numbers I'd be perfectly happy as the backup. The only reason I want even that over a pure blocking TE is that our backup TE spot has to start a large number of games a year. I don't expect another Gronk, no one but the sarcastic extremist are arguing that, but not a step down from 80 recs a year to less than 1 a game.


    [/QUOTE]


    Well I think that would be great to get that out of your second tight end, but it seems like this team would rather just throw to the slot than feed an average tight end a few receptions a game. It looks that way to me anyway. Or they'd rather throw screens to a back, or a receiver.


    As for Graham - and I know this really has nothing to do with anything - the guy won the John Mackey award his senior year (the nation's best tight end). He also had 51 catches that season. Mike Holmgren was planning on drafting him before we stole him. I still have draft publications describing Graham as a polished receiver with unlimited pass catching potential. Those same publications described him as a guy who needed to work on his blocking - obviously those publications were wrong because he turned out to be the opposite of what they said, but this guy was considered to be an offensive weapon at that time.


    I agree on Watson, you could see right away that he was a better receiver than Graham. If I remember correctly they planned on using him as a h back, then he tore his knee up in the third preseason game his rookie year.

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    Hooman is a below average back up TE and pretty good ST player. He is not a threat in the passing game, and his blocking is average to slightly above average. He is an asset to the team, in a role that a 3rd TE brings to most any team.

    The issue is Gronks ability to stay on the field. When called upon, Hooman demands zero defensive attention, and is not an asset in the running game with his blocking.

    I am really warming to the idea of when Gronk is not on the field, spreading the field with 3 WR's and using an extra OL at the TE position.

    As the final roster spots become more and more precious, I wonder if Devlin replaces Hooman as the back up TE?  

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I know he's not Gronk but who is ?

     

    I think Hooman is a decent back up.

     

     

     

    http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Highlight-Michael-Hoomanawanui-one-handed-TD-grab/40f8ed24-fcf8-4b39-857d-ad36f38b631a#watch" rel="nofollow">http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Highlight-Michael-Hoomanawanui-one-handed-TD-grab/40f8ed24-fcf8-4b39-857d-ad36f38b631a#watch

    [/QUOTE]


    This question should be for Brady. He is the one that doesn't throw to him.

    Ive always contended that you dont need a great talent there. Just a smart guy who knows how to find holes in the D. C.Baker, Fells, etc they were all serviceable and so is Hooman but his lack of touches has to make you wonder if is an afterthought. Last year w/Gronk out he got a total of 4 targets in 5 weeks. Thats pathetic

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hooman is a great blocking TE and can lead block in the red zone for run plays. Good player.

    [object HTMLDivElement]

    [/QUOTE]


    "Great" is a bit of an exaggeration, I think.  Daniel Graham, Alge Crumpler, Gronk--those are great blockers.  Hommanawanui is just adequate.  That's why he's a back-up.  Not a bad back-up, mind you, but still a back-up.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement] 

    He's a back up because he plays behind the best TE in the game. Just because a TE doesn't run routes all day and catch 50 balls doesn't mean he isn't good. It means he has a different job function....like blocking.

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I guess the 100 million they have invested in the TE position has caused them to be cautious in signing a bunch of over priced JAGs like Chandler, Keller, etc.... 

     

    Wierd how this salary cap thing works and what happens when 1 of your 50 million dollar guys kills someone. 

    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    You know True I over heard from other teams the other day they are deathly scared of the $100mil we spent. They have no clue how they are going to cover that much cash. They know Hern is in jail and Gronk spends a large part of the season in the tub but my good $100mil. It's a wonder how bad the RZ O was without Gronk last year. You would think after spending $100mil other teams would be so scared they'd just let Mulligan walk into the end zone last year. I wonder why they didn't. You're right though why sign guys like Chandler who are productive, BB never wastes money on players to improve the roster after spending so many resources at the position. I mean just look at S, after spending a 1st on Meriweather, 2nd on Chung, 2nd on Wilson, 3rd for Harmon, and paying Gregory more than he was worth he still went out and signed the legendary A. Wilson. What was he thinking after already investing so much into the position? You are right True, if you toss enough resources into a position no matter how weak it is you shouldn't invest anymore. I mean it's not like BB didn't invest a ton into CB over the last 5 years and yet he still came out and spent money on Revis and Browner this offseason. It's almost like he was saying, I know we spent so much to the position but it's not good enough so lets fix it instead of trying to rationalize not taking care of it because we already used up too many resources already. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    What is your point?

    We didn't have 2 of the best CB's in the league or safeties in the league, then invest in them as 2 of the highest paid in the league, then watch 1 of them kill someone and the other have a terrible bad luck run of injures (unless you think his injuries could have been predicted/avoided which is comical at best).

    That did happen to our TE position though. It was the corner stone of our offense and both guys were taken away from us. It wasn't poor planning on the GM's part....it was shtty luck. Now due to a "salary cap" and the restraints of a 53 man roster we cannot just go out and sign coveted FA TE's, coax Tony G out of retirement or trade 3 1st round picks for Jimmy Graham. It isn't feasible.  Instead we bolstered the other receiving options on the team, loaded up the o line, stacked the RB depth chart, and re signed Hoomy who is an important blocker in our system.

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What is your point?

    We didn't have 2 of the best CB's in the league or safeties in the league, then invest in them as 2 of the highest paid in the league, then watch 1 of them kill someone and the other have a terrible bad luck run of injures (unless you think his injuries could have been predicted/avoided which is comical at best).

    That did happen to our TE position though. It was the corner stone of our offense and both guys were taken away from us. It wasn't poor planning on the GM's part....it was shtty luck. Now due to a "salary cap" and the restraints of a 53 man roster we cannot just go out and sign coveted FA TE's, coax Tony G out of retirement or trade 3 1st round picks for Jimmy Graham. It isn't feasible.  Instead we bolstered the other receiving options on the team, loaded up the o line, stacked the RB depth chart, and re signed Hoomy who is an important blocker in our system.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    The point is you are tossing around $100mil as if it was some great feat that other teams need to fear and that's the reason not to continue to invest in the position, while BB has shown that no matter how much resources are invested if the position needs to be enhanced he'll continue to use resources towards that end. So, your whole sarcastic argument of $100mil means absolutely nothing in terms of both effecting on field performance and resources spent prior does effecting BB's willingness to spend more resources to improve the position further.

    I also could be wrong but didn't Hern get booted off the team last year? I didn't know you had to wait a full year + before replacing a player so no you can't use Hernandez as an excuse not to adjust something for this year. It does not work. If the TE position is an issue again this year it's completely fair to criticize the FO for not taking care of it this off season regardless how many times Hernandez drops the soap.

    Again True, I know you don't believe history can teach us anything and probabilities based on past history are some form of voodoo but while you can't predict specific injures or when they will occur you can make an educated guess as to if a player with a injury history will miss time through the season. Most all teams do this, which is why durability is even a metric used in the drafting process to begin with! Though it's convenient just to toss out the whole just bad luck line. It's like trying to prove a negative, you are never wrong saying a butterfly in China caused a breeze that eventually caused Gronk to get injured. It couldn't have anything to do with how he plays the game, possible physical conditions like slightly weaker bone structure, or previous issues that have histories of re-occurrence like back problems. It was the bad luck and a butterfly because those can't be proven one way or another, kind of like lighting is caused by Thor battling giants.

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    Before Gronk, I think the last pass catching TE would have been Coats? Other than that, the rest were used as blockers or qb protection.

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

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Before Gronk, I think the last pass catching TE would have been Coats? Other than that, the rest were used as blockers or qb protection.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was always a big fan of Coates.  Awesome player.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from GO47. Show GO47's posts

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to GO47's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The problem I have with Hooman is that he isn't a reliable TE when it comes to receptions. He had 19 passes thrown at him and only caught 12 last year and he played 13 games. So defenses figured out that he was in there to strictly block for a run or to protect Brady. Being one dimensional kind of gives up the element of surprise and having the defense account for him. So I disagree with the notion that we don't need a better TE backing up Gronk.

    [/QUOTE]


    I'd say a 63% completion rate is just fine. Funny...your stats to dissuade using him as a receiving TE only strengthened my belief that he just needs more chances/targets.

    The problem with a backup for Gronk is many fans seem to want a decent player. "Decent" TEs tend to start in this league. If you can catch AND block decently, you start somewhere. Graham and Watson proved they are borderline starters while here, and both got paid like undeniable starters in FA.

    College kids haven't adjusted to the needs in the NFL at this point. There are 10 rbs for every job,but not enough TEs. Again, BB was ahead of the curve looking for a good hybrid since 2004, and finally got 2 in 2010. In that span, roughly 10 seasons, there have been only a handful of truly good TEs. Pats have had 2 off that short list.

    I wanted, REALLY WANTED Scott Chandler. If I'M Scott Chandler, I'm going to take less money to play in NE, and take a back seat to Gronk when he's healthy. Or, I can take more money to go be the TE option for another team. Athletes largely have gigantic egos. Most want to be "the guy".

    Finding a player like Hoooman...or Slater, or Edelman, or Jones, or McCourty...who truly are willing to do what ever the coaches ask them is valuable. Look at how Adalius Thomas, and all his talent, helped ruin a clubhouse because of his ego. And what did that get him? A fast track right out of the entire league.

    [/QUOTE]


    My point in posting the stats isn't that it proves he can catch a pass or not it's that Brady and the offensive coaches do not look at him as someone who can make plays averaging only 1 pass per game. This sends a strong signal to the other teams defenses to not worry about the Hooman because he's in the game to block.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    Probably because he had something like 12 receptions in a starting role for most of the year . He's nothing more than mediocre , not many people show love for those kinds of players.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from GO47. Show GO47's posts

    Re: Why No Love For Hooman?

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hooman is a below average back up TE and pretty good ST player. He is not a threat in the passing game, and his blocking is average to slightly above average. He is an asset to the team, in a role that a 3rd TE brings to most any team.

    The issue is Gronks ability to stay on the field. When called upon, Hooman demands zero defensive attention, and is not an asset in the running game with his blocking.

    I am really warming to the idea of when Gronk is not on the field, spreading the field with 3 WR's and using an extra OL at the TE position.

    As the final roster spots become more and more precious, I wonder if Devlin replaces Hooman as the back up TE?  

    [/QUOTE]


    I also like that idea of using 3 WR's and an extra OL at the TE position. You not losing anything in the pass catching area and have better blocking.

    That roster spot with Devlin would not surprise me.

     

Share