Why not Pierre Garcon?

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

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Better Draft A Wr instead of butter hands garcon ,
    Vjax and Bowe > Garcon , last year without peyton 
    wayne was much better than garcon .

    he bruned the pats a couple of times - but with mccourtny on him 
    you know the result .

    would rather Drat malcom floyd or sanu
    aint worth the money 
    a couple of drops and he wont see the ball from brady 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Also, the pats tend to like guys who 'burn' the pats. Welker is a good example of this when he was in Miami. 

    Again, the pats have a history of making these tough decisions. They very well could resign him, but I don't see how that IMPROVES the offense without adding a deep threat. And, like it or not, one of these years welker is going to hit the wall since he takes so many hits and has a limited skill set (he showed in the super bowl why he isn't a deep receiver). 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Thank you. For an organization that thinks so well critically it's surprising how some fans struggle to do the same. 

    Let's take Garcon out of it. A deep threat is more important than having welker back because Hernandez and Edelman can replicate most of what welker does. It's be great to have both, but in my mind it makes sense to get a starting safety to line up with chung rather than have a 2007 type offense.

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon? : RockD, you bring up a great point when you bring up the entire receiving corp vs. individual play. Some folks are only keying on Welker's skillz and trying to retain him.  So, if fans look at what the greatest weakness is for the passing game - it would have to be that we are missing a player who can both lengthen he field AND someone who teams have a hard time matching up with or cause coverage problem. Getting Colston or Jackson might be a better choice, and then using Edelman in the slot. Does Edelman fill Welker shoes? No,but the team's offense overall seems better
    Posted by anonymis[/QUOTE]
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from FenwayChuck. Show FenwayChuck's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    I am in Indiana.... here in this wonderrful place, unless you have NFL SUNDAY TICKET.....  if the COLTS are on TV all other football is blacked out..... and that includes the BEARS who for the longest time WERE the hometown team for the area.

    ANYWAY, because ( until this year) i did not have DIRECTV I did not have any option if I wanted to watch football.... but to watch the indy blueballs....  I saw a lot of Garcon....

    I am just not sure he is what this team needs...  He is a good- not great WR.  He does not DEMAND a double team like several of the others would. He does not have BLAZING speed... which would be a difference to this team.  As already mentioned he can drop a loit of passes....  He likes to be in the middle a lot....

    Again, I think he is a good WR....  I just do not see the huge addition that he would make to the receiving corp.   Better than Ocho?.. YES....  Better than many of the older stronger WR's on the market?....  Not so sure about that!

    In short (as far as I am concerned) it would be like shopping at Filene's Bargain basement when you could (have the money) go to Macy's.  It has it's benefits... that is for sure... but I don't think that he will open the field up with his ability to take it outside long..... and that is truly what we need.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon? : RockD, you bring up a great point when you bring up the entire receiving corp vs. individual play. Some folks are only keying on Welker's skillz and trying to retain him.  So, if fans look at what the greatest weakness is for the passing game - it would have to be that we are missing a player who can both lengthen he field AND someone who teams have a hard time matching up with or cause coverage problem. Getting Colston or Jackson might be a better choice, and then using Edelman in the slot. Does Edelman fill Welker shoes? No,but the team's offense overall seems better
    Posted by anonymis[/QUOTE]

    Rock and anonymis, you're both right on here.  A lot of fans look at the gaudy reception numbers for Gronk, Welker, and Hernandez and think we have great talent.  Well, individually, we do.  But football is a game where you win not just by having great individual talent but by having the right combinations of talent.  Having three great receivers who all play in the short middle of the field isn't a great situation, no matter how good all those receivers are individually.  In some ways the Pats might be better off with a little less individual talent in that part of the field and more useful talent in other parts of the field (running back, deep receiver, perimeter receiver, third-down back).  The other thing that fans frequently don't get is that Welker's massive reception total isn't necessarily a good thing--while it's great Welker can catch that many balls, it's not a good thing that we're throwing to him that much.  It shows the offense is overdependent on too few people.  It's not a sign of a healthy offense to be as unbalanced toward two or three people as this one is.  

    I'd like to keep Welker--he brings a lot to the team.  But he's a guy in a truly healthy offense we should be throwing to about half as frequently as we do now.  A lot of his balls should be going to other receivers or being handed off to backs.  This offense relies way too heavily on just three guys.  Add one or two real deep/perimeter receivers and a back who can both run and catch well out of the backfield and you'd have something special. As it is, it's way too narrowly constructed around three (or four if you include Branch) receivers. 

     


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Agree 100%. It's just like Moneyball. People are crazy if they don't think the pats employ a similar approach (trading down for real value (anyone watch that Stephen Dubner piece on variability in the draft), letting higher salaried stars go, etc). Welker is a tremendous player. The best slot receiver. But the goal isn't to get Welker 240 catches. THE GOAL IS TO SCORE POINTS. A different combination of quality receivers will certainly do that, especially considering all their options are very similar. Diversification is good for investing and in an offensive approach. They don't have it right now. 

    Again, Welker is a great player but I don't see how giving him $9MM a year and 20MM in bonuses will help out the offense next year and, more importantly, down the road. There's a cap and you can't just pay everyone. How are they going to pay Gronk and Hern (both players I'd take over Welker NEXT YEAR because they are more diverse players) if they are paying a declining Welker $9MM in 2014? BB absolutely looks at this stuff. 


    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon? : Rock and anonymis, you're both right on here.  A lot of fans look at the gaudy reception numbers for Gronk, Welker, and Hernandez and think we have great talent.  Well, individually, we do.  But football is a game where you win not just by having great individual talent but by having the right combinations of talent.  Having three great receivers who all play in the short middle of the field isn't a great situation, no matter how good all those receivers are individually.  In some ways the Pats might be better off with a little less individual talent in that part of the field and more useful talent in other parts of the field (running back, deep receiver, perimeter receiver, third-down back).  The other thing that fans frequently don't get is that Welker's massive reception total isn't necessarily a good thing--while it's great Welker can catch that many balls, it's not a good thing that we're throwing to him that much.  It shows the offense is overdependent on too few people.  It's not a sign of a healthy offense to be as unbalanced toward two or three people as this one is.   I'd like to keep Welker--he brings a lot to the team.  But he's a guy in a truly healthy offense we should be throwing to about half as frequently as we do now.  A lot of his balls should be going to other receivers or being handed off to backs.  This offense relies way too heavily on just three guys.  Add one or two real deep/perimeter receivers and a back who can both run and catch well out of the backfield and you'd have something special. As it is, it's way too narrowly constructed around three (or four if you include Branch) receivers.   
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joel63. Show Joel63's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

     Rockdog,

    What does the number of posts I've made have to do with anything? I listen, or read in this case, more than I speak. I become better educated that way. I just disagree with your opinion on Garcon. You mention his "skill set." Tell me about his. I do not believe anyone with an ounce of football knowledge would want Garcon over Welker. Especially TB. That was an absurd post. Again, just having fun.  :)
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pyegian. Show pyegian's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Look, getting an outside the numbers receiver would definitely help diversify the offense.  However, that guy doesn't have to be a star, number 1 option.  Some people are talking as if the offense was stagnant this year.  They were extremely explosive.  Of course resigning Welker wouldn't "improve" the offense because it would just be keeping the status quo from last year.  However, losing him, even while adding a STAR deep threat (NOT Garcon), would not improve the offense either.  I don't care where Welker lines up, losing 122 receptions and 1,500 yards immensely hurts the offense.  

    All they need is someone who can at least make the defense THINK about covering the the outside part of the field.  They can get that guy without losing Welker and setting back the franchise for 3-4 years.  Offensive diversity has some importance, for sure, but not at the expense of production.  Losing Welker is 100% counterproductive and BB will soon show that he agrees with that by paying him a large amount of money.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE] Rockdog, What does the number of posts I've made have to do with anything? I listen, or read in this case, more than I speak. I become better educated that way. I just disagree with your opinion on Garcon. You mention his "skill set." Tell me about his. I do not believe anyone with an ounce of football knowledge would want Garcon over Welker. Especially TB. That was an absurd post. Again, just having fun.  :)
    Posted by Joel63[/QUOTE]


    I think what Rockdog is saying is that it's not just one-on-one comparisons that matter, you need to look at the combinations of receivers you end up with.  Remember, most passing offenses work by creating patterns that challenge different parts of the field at once. Welker could be a lot better than Garcon individually, but the whole is more than the sum of its parts and having a good mixture of the right parts is often better than having an unbalanced mixture of a lot of non-complementary parts, even if each of those parts is high quality. 




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

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]Why not? The freakin' guy has a French name!  That's why!

    Posted by Getzo[/QUOTE]

    I'm sure you're jesting, but I'll take any of these guys with French names, Cliff Avril, Jason Pierre-Paul, Luis Delmas, Elvis Dumervil, Pierre Thomas. I'm sure there are others, but they can play on my team.

     

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

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]Look, getting an outside the numbers receiver would definitely help diversify the offense.  However, that guy doesn't have to be a star, number 1 option.  Some people are talking as if the offense was stagnant this year.  They were extremely explosive.  Of course resigning Welker wouldn't "improve" the offense because it would just be keeping the status quo from last year.  However, losing him, even while adding a STAR deep threat (NOT Garcon), would not improve the offense either.  I don't care where Welker lines up, losing 122 receptions and 1,500 yards immensely hurts the offense.   All they need is someone who can at least make the defense THINK about covering the the outside part of the field.  They can get that guy without losing Welker and setting back the franchise for 3-4 years.  Offensive diversity has some importance, for sure, but not at the expense of production.  Losing Welker is 100% counterproductive and BB will soon show that he agrees with that by paying him a large amount of money.
    Posted by pyegian[/QUOTE]

    No, someone on the outside or to lengthen the field doesn't have to be a #1 - but a "threat" isn't a threat unless it's a legitimate one. So, if a goal is to lengthen the field - do you get a little dude who can run fast but can't catch? Who has ably done so in the past? Moss, Stallworth did a decent job. Givens was a stretch, - but most of the other WRs we've picked up thru drafts or free agency really couldn't do it.  Do we need an outside threat? No, the Patriots probably don't, but we also seemed to have a "clutch" D during those superbowl years.

    So, if we could make up for 120 receptions from the likes of Edelman, Gronk, Hernandez, Branch.....and more passes to an able RB and a 3rd TE....would it make up for the loss of Welker with less predictability. It's all speculation, but maybe we would even score more points....improve balance...and improve flexibility of play calling.


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joel63. Show Joel63's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

     Prolate,

    I agree with you. I absolutely agree with the concept that the sum of all parts is greater. And for that reason I want Welker. No, he won't generally outrun corners and take it the distance. I get it. He moves the chains and is,a hem, sure handed. I included in my original post that I also believe we need a deep threat and speed guy. I believe that guy is Brandon Lloyd. If Josh does what he did with him in Denver and St. Louis, problem solved. It makes Welker and those Te's more effective, if that's even possible.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon? : oh boy is THAT stupid
    Posted by JintsFan[/QUOTE]

    Thank you sir.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Well I disagree with your statement that I'm not a fan for even thinking about life after welker. It's actually pretty insulting. You may be patsfan #1 for all I know, but I'm a very big fan and it's not cool to try to crap on my idea without knowing my background. It's actually pretty ignorant. I'd say your response was pretty ignorant if you actually pay attention to how the pats run their business. Sometimes they sign their big stars (Mankins, wilfork) and sometimes they don't (branch, samual, Seymour). They are VERY conscious of value, and signing a slot receiver for a lot of guaranteed money who will inevitably break down in a few years might not be the best value proposition. 

    Garcon's skill set is that he can beat man coverage, run good routes, and be a receiver who can catch a deep ball. He had over 900 yards on one of the worst quarterbacks. He's young. He won't break the bank. He'll probably cost less than welker. Should I go on? He's not Randy Moss in his prime but he'd be a big improvement from what Branch is now. 




    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE] Rockdog, What does the number of posts I've made have to do with anything? I listen, or read in this case, more than I speak. I become better educated that way. I just disagree with your opinion on Garcon. You mention his "skill set." Tell me about his. I do not believe anyone with an ounce of football knowledge would want Garcon over Welker. Especially TB. That was an absurd post. Again, just having fun.  :)
    Posted by Joel63[/QUOTE]
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Yeah, it's not like Edelman had over 100 yards per game in the games that Welker missed. Oh yeah, he did.

    And I'm not saying he'd totally replace him. A combination of players would replace him. Would it hurt your head to try to think about that? 

    Maybe they should have welker and an even slower branch run these deep routes next year too. That'd be a great idea. 

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon? : You're sleeping with your head stuck in the wrong location if you think Edelman could replace Welker !!
    Posted by Hetchinspete[/QUOTE]
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    He was open 85 times on an awful team. Sign me up for less $$ than would break the bank. I'm sure some of the drops were on the colts JV QB. 

    What was welker's drop %? I know it was high in 2010. It's not like he dropped a ball that would have all but guaranteed another championship. Oops, he actually did. I forgot about that game two weeks ago where they had a smurf WR running a fly pattern that didn't work because 
    a) the short WR mistimed his jump and dropped a ball that hit him right in his hands.
    b) the safety was squatting on a short route because the giants were convinced the pats couldn't beat them deep.

    How about they actually give Brady a WR (not a TE) that has a window larger than a bread box for a 40 yard throw? 



    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]2010 stats with peyton   13 dropped passes     Meanwhile, Pierre Garcon ranked as the fourth worst wideout in terms of drop percentage at 15.29%. 85 catachable balls were sent his way, and he dropped 13 of them.    No Thanks
    Posted by yakv[/QUOTE]
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    oh, and Garcon and the Colts run a ton of "pick-type" routes. The Patriots don't seem to use that kind of play as much. (Maybe they should).
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joel63. Show Joel63's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

     Rockdog,

    Listen, I'm not trying to get personal here. I agree with you that we need another receiver. I just don't believe that guy should be Garcon. And for the life of me I don't understand the desire by some to replace Welker. He's a very valuable commodity. I'm sure I don't have to list his production here. I just feel like Lloyd is the guy and with Josh back and his familiarity with the guy it just seems to make too much sense. And I never said you weren't a fan. I am not ignorant and I have been paying attention to how the Patriots run their business since 1968. I'm not crapping on your ideas, just sharing a different opinion. Yours is valid, I just disagree with it.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joel63. Show Joel63's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

     Rockdog,

    Since we're having a lively debate here, how do you feel about Mike Wallace? I actually would prefer him to all others and believe he's restricted and Pittsburgh would probably match our offer. Should it come to fruition, we'd be in darn good shape. That alone would make our running game very productive. Especially in play action. Safeties creep up and Wallace runs 9 routes all day. Thoughts?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?



    I don't want to replace Welker--I just think you've got to look at the receiver corp holistically and see what the best combination of guys is you can bring in.  That might include Welker or it might not.  Welker is great at what he does, but there are things he doesn't do that we need to get better at.  If we can bring in Welker and another receiver or two to complement him great.  But if we have to change the whole receiving corp (all two of them) to get the combination of skills we need, that's okay too. Welker is 30 years old and he's basically a short field receiver.  It's okay if we decide to let him walk and bring in three guys to replace him.  Three decent guys who can spread the field might be better than one great slot receiver.




     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Joel,

    I don't want to get personal here either. I'd love Mike Wallace. He'd be perfect for what they need, and would even be a threat on intermediate routes as well. Isn't he restricted though? I'd be fine with giving up the #1 on the offer sheet based on how the pats have selected WR in the draft in the last 5 years or so. I wonder if the pats would part with trading away a #1.

    My whole point is that Welker is obviously a great player, but with such a great FA class (not just WR, but at safety too) I wonder if the value is there to give Welker a LT deal. Maybe it is there, but I hold a pretty contrarian opinion that Welker would only be great here and might only be good without Brady in a different system. Welker isn't Andre Johnson in his prime and this should be considered. 

    Who knows. For all I know, BB might look for a deep value option like Randy Moss if he's really running a 4.35 40. However, although Moss is a good guy he is probably the antithesis of an ideal patriots player (very soft, sensitive, and requires a lot of attention (which takes away from brady and BB in pretty real ways)).

    Sorry if I misinterpretting your prior email. It's just good to have a discussion even if we disagree rather than saying I had my head in an oven (you didn't say that) or I must not be much of a fan).
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    I agree with you prolate. My point with letting welker walk is that a) there are attractive options out there to diversify the pats o and b) they currently have some pieces on their roster that would HELP (and not totally replace) Welker. I know people hate to hear it but I think it's very true. 

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]I don't want to replace Welker--I just think you've got to look at the receiver corp holistically and see what the best combination of guys is you can bring in.  That might include Welker or it might not.  Welker is great at what he does, but there are things he doesn't do that we need to get better at.  If we can bring in Welker and another receiver or two to complement him great.  But if we have to change the whole receiving corp (all two of them) to get the combination of skills we need, that's okay too. Welker is 30 years old and he's basically a short field receiver.  It's okay if we decide to let him walk and bring in three guys to replace him.  Three decent guys who can spread the field might be better than one great slot receiver.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joel63. Show Joel63's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    Rockdog,

    I do believe Wallace is restricted. Tendered a first rounder. And he would also command a lot of money. My fear is that Pittsburgh would match the offer. I'm with you on the defensive side of the ball as well. It's tough because there is a salary cap and you can't have everyone you'd like. Value is the key and with two first round picks I'd love to have a proven wideout in Wallace as opposed to a rookie at any position. They would receive our pick number 31, correct? I guess we'll know pretty soon how this is going to play out.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]I agree with you prolate. My point with letting welker walk is that a) there are attractive options out there to diversify the pats o and b) they currently have some pieces on their roster that would HELP (and not totally replace) Welker. I know people hate to hear it but I think it's very true.  In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon? :
    Posted by Rockdog1293000[/QUOTE]


    I'm with you.  They've got to get an offense that doesn't rely so heavily on one or two guys. Or they've got to improve the defense to the point that the offense doesn't matter quite so much. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?

    I just think it'd be very unlikely for BB to part with a 1st round pick and a lot of money, but I wouldn't be against the idea. It actually might be worthwhile just to drive up the price on the steelers (you'd hope they would continue to get old along with Balt). Boy would Wallace be great with Brady though? I don't know how any D would defend them unless there is a complete O line breakdown. 


    In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?:
    [QUOTE]Rockdog, I do believe Wallace is restricted. Tendered a first rounder. And he would also command a lot of money. My fear is that Pittsburgh would match the offer. I'm with you on the defensive side of the ball as well. It's tough because there is a salary cap and you can't have everyone you'd like. Value is the key and with two first round picks I'd love to have a proven wideout in Wallace as opposed to a rookie at any position. They would receive our pick number 31, correct? I guess we'll know pretty soon how this is going to play out.
    Posted by Joel63[/QUOTE]
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share