Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Let the offseason begin
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> New England Patriots
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
NinjaZX6R


Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Posts: 9060
Location: Columbus, Ohio
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glenn Dorsey?

He was a damn good 3 tech at LSU. Terrible 5 tech with the Chiefs.
_________________
"Let's show some toughness. Yeah...Toughness and go makes some plays"
-Tom Brady
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
silus


Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 1854
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmurtry86 wrote:
silus wrote:
I had a question for the Patriots fans. Every top QB in the NFL is surrounded by a lot of receiving talent. I just realized with Welker possibly leaving I have no idea who your receivers are. Are the Patriots looking to add a receiver with pro-bowl talent.

After the game against the Ravens people said Brady was on the downside of his career, but I personally thought it just came to his lack of offensive options.


Brady had three of the best receiving options in the league and had a great season.

Saying he has a lack of offensive options is just as misguided as saying he is on the downside of his career.

So you are saying the Patriots don't plan on adding top level talent at the receiver position? Because my question was obviously about that specific position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomRalph


Joined: 03 Apr 2009
Posts: 10623
Location: Revis Island
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

silus wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
silus wrote:
I had a question for the Patriots fans. Every top QB in the NFL is surrounded by a lot of receiving talent. I just realized with Welker possibly leaving I have no idea who your receivers are. Are the Patriots looking to add a receiver with pro-bowl talent.

After the game against the Ravens people said Brady was on the downside of his career, but I personally thought it just came to his lack of offensive options.


Brady had three of the best receiving options in the league and had a great season.

Saying he has a lack of offensive options is just as misguided as saying he is on the downside of his career.

So you are saying the Patriots don't plan on adding top level talent at the receiver position? Because my question was obviously about that specific position.


We already have 'top level' talent in terms of weapons, Hernandez and Gronk are widely considered 2 of the best TE's in the league and are match-up nghtmares.

We don't need 3 great-elite receiving weapons to win a SB, we have a good running game, a receiving corps that can succeed with Gronknandez and Lloyd (with other role players like Edelman and guys out the backfield)

What the Pats really need is a defence that can be relied on, not necessarily to win games, but to be able to hold a team to scoreless drives every now and again, or to stop the big play on a consistent basis.

Welker would be nice to keep, but I am not an advocate of paying him big bucks, giving him a long contract, or keeping him over Talib and/or FA's that can improve our O/D balance.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
24isthelaw


Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 7615
Location: Where the Patriots are
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NinjaZX6R wrote:
Glenn Dorsey?

He was a damn good 3 tech at LSU. Terrible 5 tech with the Chiefs.


I have a hard time overlooking the complete lack of pass rushing success he has had in the NFL. Romeo's a smart guy and generally puts his players in positions to succeed. The fact that Dorsey racked up 2 sacks and 5 qb hits in 900+ snaps, and the coaches who see him in practice never thought to use him differently, tells me he just isn't as good as he was supposed to be.

Now, he's a very good run stopper, and he would be an upgrade over Love/Deaderick in that capacity, but would that be worth the money? I don't think so at all.
_________________

Adopt-a-Patriot: Marcus Forston - Practice squad (0 tackles, 0 sacks)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
jofos


Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 490
Location: alabama
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomRalph wrote:
silus wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
silus wrote:
I had a question for the Patriots fans. Every top QB in the NFL is surrounded by a lot of receiving talent. I just realized with Welker possibly leaving I have no idea who your receivers are. Are the Patriots looking to add a receiver with pro-bowl talent.

After the game against the Ravens people said Brady was on the downside of his career, but I personally thought it just came to his lack of offensive options.


Brady had three of the best receiving options in the league and had a great season.

Saying he has a lack of offensive options is just as misguided as saying he is on the downside of his career.

So you are saying the Patriots don't plan on adding top level talent at the receiver position? Because my question was obviously about that specific position.


We already have 'top level' talent in terms of weapons, Hernandez and Gronk are widely considered 2 of the best TE's in the league and are match-up nghtmares.

We don't need 3 great-elite receiving weapons to win a SB, we have a good running game, a receiving corps that can succeed with Gronknandez and Lloyd (with other role players like Edelman and guys out the backfield)

What the Pats really need is a defence that can be relied on, not necessarily to win games, but to be able to hold a team to scoreless drives every now and again, or to stop the big play on a consistent basis.

Welker would be nice to keep, but I am not an advocate of paying him big bucks, giving him a long contract, or keeping him over Talib and/or FA's that can improve our O/D balance.


13 points kind of says that we might need a little more on offense. The defense was not horrible in the AFCCG, in fact it was at least as good as the offense. Injuries and such only magnify the fact that we do not have an offense that can stretch the field. Without such an offense teams simply jam Patriots WRs at the line and there is nothing that can be done about it. There was not one play in that game where the Ravens seemed worried about getting beat deep. I know that it was one game and it was a great year but in order to win SBs the Patriots need a truly elite WR that can stretch the field. If you're happy with a nice record and playoffs then everything is fine just move on to next season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomRalph


Joined: 03 Apr 2009
Posts: 10623
Location: Revis Island
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jofos wrote:
TomRalph wrote:
silus wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
silus wrote:
I had a question for the Patriots fans. Every top QB in the NFL is surrounded by a lot of receiving talent. I just realized with Welker possibly leaving I have no idea who your receivers are. Are the Patriots looking to add a receiver with pro-bowl talent.

After the game against the Ravens people said Brady was on the downside of his career, but I personally thought it just came to his lack of offensive options.


Brady had three of the best receiving options in the league and had a great season.

Saying he has a lack of offensive options is just as misguided as saying he is on the downside of his career.

So you are saying the Patriots don't plan on adding top level talent at the receiver position? Because my question was obviously about that specific position.


We already have 'top level' talent in terms of weapons, Hernandez and Gronk are widely considered 2 of the best TE's in the league and are match-up nightmares.

We don't need 3 great-elite receiving weapons to win a SB, we have a good running game, a receiving corps that can succeed with Gronknandez and Lloyd (with other role players like Edelman and guys out the backfield)

What the Pats really need is a defence that can be relied on, not necessarily to win games, but to be able to hold a team to scoreless drives every now and again, or to stop the big play on a consistent basis.

Welker would be nice to keep, but I am not an advocate of paying him big bucks, giving him a long contract, or keeping him over Talib and/or FA's that can improve our O/D balance.


13 points kind of says that we might need a little more on offense. The defense was not horrible in the AFCCG, in fact it was at least as good as the offense. Injuries and such only magnify the fact that we do not have an offense that can stretch the field. Without such an offense teams simply jam Patriots WRs at the line and there is nothing that can be done about it. There was not one play in that game where the Ravens seemed worried about getting beat deep. I know that it was one game and it was a great year but in order to win SBs the Patriots need a truly elite WR that can stretch the field. If you're happy with a nice record and playoffs then everything is fine just move on to next season.


You're suggesting we spend all of our cap on a Dwayne Bowe/MIke Wallace type player, let go of Welker, Talib and Vollmer and roll with Dennard and Arrington as our starting CB's, Gregory playing at S and another season of Love or Deaderick alongside Wilfork?

If the Pats add absolutely no one at WR/TE this off-season(and let go of Welker), we will still be going into opening day with Gronk, Hernandez, Lloyd, Edelman, Branch, Hoomanawanui, Fells and Ballard with Vereen, Woodhead (maybe) and Jeff Demps (hopefully) as receiving threats. That is a corps that a lot of teams would kill for and yet it is still not good enough for us.

The reason we scored only 13 points was because we were terrible in the RZ - and the loss of Gronk is clearly the reason why. We failed to use Vereen in the passing game until garbage time and Brady often refuses to check the ball down to the RB (which could have helped to sustain drives, or at least help field position. Anyway, thatís enough of the Ravens game, that is a 1 game sample.

Lets look at a large sample, of the entire regular season. I think we played 2 games with Hernandez, Welker and Gronk ALL healthy, so that leaves 14 where only 2 of those 3 were healthy, yet for the regular season we still had the 10th best offense of ALL TIME - even with 1 of our 3 main receiving threats not playing in 14 of those games. Surely that tells you something?! Offense is not the problem, look at the names I listed earlier - that is without drafting, or signing (from elsewhere) anybody else to the roster. I am sure we will draft or sign a WR, but by no means, does that player have to be elite. We already have 2 elite receiving weapons (Gronknandez) and very good one (Lloyd). A reliable option like Hartline or Amendola would provide another weapon who could provide enough production at value, all whilst leaving us cap space to maintain our OL and improve our Secondary.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Donut


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 12474
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomRalph wrote:
If the Pats add absolutely no one at WR/TE this off-season(and let go of Welker), we will still be going into opening day with Gronk, Hernandez, Lloyd, Edelman, Branch, Hoomanawanui, Fells and Ballard with Vereen, Woodhead (maybe) and Jeff Demps (hopefully) as receiving threats. That is a corps that a lot of teams would kill for and yet it is still not good enough for us.

We need to add at very least a FA WR. Branch is cooked. Edelman has durability concerns. Matty Slates has shown growth at WR but still only has ran like 3 routes. I'm all for splitting Vereen out as a WR next yr but still need more. I'm not suggesting something stupid like using a first on a WR or overpaying. They need to bring in guys liek Amendola(who imo is better than WW but durability problems) and/or Santana Moss. Also would like to see Stallworth and Gaffney back in camp.

But this team isn't going to win a superbowl w/ Chandler Jones being the only passrushing threat. Also I think when he went down our run defense got way worse. We don't want to end up having to rely on Brady to carry us in the post season.

Though I'm interested in seeing what BB does w/ our secondary. I like the idea of going out and getting a Reed or Woodson. THough I know I'm in the minority on this one but I still think Dowling can be a good DB.
_________________
dhunt2402 wrote:
You're like the patron saint of roster bubble players Laughing
Adopt a Patriot:
2011: Matt Slater
2012: Ras I Dowling
2013: Chandler Jones
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
TomRalph


Joined: 03 Apr 2009
Posts: 10623
Location: Revis Island
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donut wrote:
TomRalph wrote:
If the Pats add absolutely no one at WR/TE this off-season(and let go of Welker), we will still be going into opening day with Gronk, Hernandez, Lloyd, Edelman, Branch, Hoomanawanui, Fells and Ballard with Vereen, Woodhead (maybe) and Jeff Demps (hopefully) as receiving threats. That is a corps that a lot of teams would kill for and yet it is still not good enough for us.

We need to add at very least a FA WR. Branch is cooked. Edelman has durability concerns. Matty Slates has shown growth at WR but still only has ran like 3 routes. I'm all for splitting Vereen out as a WR next yr but still need more. I'm not suggesting something stupid like using a first on a WR or overpaying. They need to bring in guys liek Amendola(who imo is better than WW but durability problems) and/or Santana Moss. Also would like to see Stallworth and Gaffney back in camp.

But this team isn't going to win a superbowl w/ Chandler Jones being the only passrushing threat. Also I think when he went down our run defense got way worse. We don't want to end up having to rely on Brady to carry us in the post season.

Though I'm interested in seeing what BB does w/ our secondary. I like the idea of going out and getting a Reed or Woodson. THough I know I'm in the minority on this one but I still think Dowling can be a good DB.


Exactly, everyone (who is ignorant to the Pats situation) wants us to draft a WR so we can score 50 a game which will eventually lower to around 28 in the PO's and hope outscoring will be enough.

What we need to do is balance the team much more evenly, we've done that recently, by incorporating a successful running game, now we need to focus on fixing (well, improving) the D.

Another thing with the people enamoured about bringing in a high priced WR is people looking at only the labelled position of WR and thinking that Brady has no weapons, if people get out of the Madden way of thinking. If we term it 'weapons', people will see that Brady already has plenty, even without Welker. Just because we don't have 'wide receivers', doesn't mean Brady doesn't have weapons.

I'm pulling hard for one of Amedola or Brian Hartline, who hopefully, could be signed for less than $5m a year, allowing us the opportunity to re-sign Talib and hopefully Vollmer.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomRalph


Joined: 03 Apr 2009
Posts: 10623
Location: Revis Island
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donut wrote:
TomRalph wrote:
If the Pats add absolutely no one at WR/TE this off-season(and let go of Welker), we will still be going into opening day with Gronk, Hernandez, Lloyd, Edelman, Branch, Hoomanawanui, Fells and Ballard with Vereen, Woodhead (maybe) and Jeff Demps (hopefully) as receiving threats. That is a corps that a lot of teams would kill for and yet it is still not good enough for us.

We need to add at very least a FA WR. Branch is cooked. Edelman has durability concerns. Matty Slates has shown growth at WR but still only has ran like 3 routes. I'm all for splitting Vereen out as a WR next yr but still need more. I'm not suggesting something stupid like using a first on a WR or overpaying. They need to bring in guys liek Amendola(who imo is better than WW but durability problems) and/or Santana Moss. Also would like to see Stallworth and Gaffney back in camp.

But this team isn't going to win a superbowl w/ Chandler Jones being the only passrushing threat. Also I think when he went down our run defense got way worse. We don't want to end up having to rely on Brady to carry us in the post season.

Though I'm interested in seeing what BB does w/ our secondary. I like the idea of going out and getting a Reed or Woodson. THough I know I'm in the minority on this one but I still think Dowling can be a good DB.


I might be the only one who thinks we won't have the space to sign either of these guys? at least not without sacrificing 2 of the big 3.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmurtry86


Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 23711
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomRalph wrote:

You're suggesting we spend all of our cap on a Dwayne Bowe/MIke Wallace type player, let go of Welker, Talib and Vollmer and roll with Dennard and Arrington as our starting CB's, Gregory playing at S and another season of Love or Deaderick alongside Wilfork?


He didn't say nor imply this.

Quote:
If the Pats add absolutely no one at WR/TE this off-season(and let go of Welker), we will still be going into opening day with Gronk, Hernandez, Lloyd, Edelman, Branch, Hoomanawanui, Fells and Ballard with Vereen, Woodhead (maybe) and Jeff Demps (hopefully) as receiving threats. That is a corps that a lot of teams would kill for and yet it is still not good enough for us.


That receiving grouping PLUS Welker has bogged down each of the last 3 years. While a lot of teams might "kill for" (and I doubt that beyond the TE's who have had a hard time staying healthy for 16-19 games) that grouping, only 3 of those guys are credible receivers. Edelman is unsigned, Fells a likely cap casualty (and awful), the RB's go vastly under-utilized, Hoomanawanui has shown little-to-nothing as a receiving threat and Ballard is coming off of an injury which is often a career-ender.

It's not about what you have but how what you have fits together and is utilized. Sure Woodhead (unsigned) and Vereen are good receivers (Demps was not in college so I'm not sure why you're qualifying him at all in this discussion) but it's irrelevant as we've seen McDaniels and Brady under-utilize the RB's.

Quote:

The reason we scored only 13 points was because we were terrible in the RZ - and the loss of Gronk is clearly the reason why. We failed to use Vereen in the passing game until garbage time and Brady often refuses to check the ball down to the RB (which could have helped to sustain drives, or at least help field position. Anyway, thatís enough of the Ravens game, that is a 1 game sample.


It's not a 1 game sample. We saw virtually the same thing happen in Seattle. Tons of yards not leading to points. Why? Other than the stupid playcalling which Pats fans are probably stuck with for a few more years of McDaniels, this is an offense built around long, multiple-play drives and YAC. Good, disciplined, sure-tackling defenses can shut those offenses down. Not always, but in the playoffs when you face a string of good defenses, the odds are one of them will do enough to win or make a very close game.

No one who has watched this team since 2010 should be surprised by the results vs. Baltimore this year. It is a function of the way the Pats offense is designed.

Quote:

Lets look at a large sample, of the entire regular season. I think we played 2 games with Hernandez, Welker and Gronk ALL healthy, so that leaves 14 where only 2 of those 3 were healthy, yet for the regular season we still had the 10th best offense of ALL TIME - even with 1 of our 3 main receiving threats not playing in 14 of those games. Surely that tells you something?! Offense is not the problem, look at the names I listed earlier - that is without drafting, or signing (from elsewhere) anybody else to the roster. I am sure we will draft or sign a WR, but by no means, does that player have to be elite. We already have 2 elite receiving weapons (Gronknandez) and very good one (Lloyd). A reliable option like Hartline or Amendola would provide another weapon who could provide enough production at value, all whilst leaving us cap space to maintain our OL and improve our Secondary.


The 2007 Patriots had the best offense of all time and got shut down pretty badly in the playoffs (by comparison to their regular-season performance).

I don't know that I would argue for Bowe/Wallace (in fact I'm sure I wouldn't) but you are totally misrepresenting jofos post as well as totally missing the mark on the issues with the Pats offense in claiming that "offense isn't the problem".

The defense does need work. But offense very much is a big problem for this team and if they don't solve that piece of the equation they aren't going to bring home a 4th Lombardi under Belichick/Brady.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomRalph


Joined: 03 Apr 2009
Posts: 10623
Location: Revis Island
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmurtry86 wrote:
TomRalph wrote:

You're suggesting we spend all of our cap on a Dwayne Bowe/MIke Wallace type player, let go of Welker, Talib and Vollmer and roll with Dennard and Arrington as our starting CB's, Gregory playing at S and another season of Love or Deaderick alongside Wilfork?


He didn't say nor imply this. "Patriots need a truly elite WR that can stretch the field" - Who the hell else is there available this off-season who fits that description? Unless you want to spend one of our 5 draft picks on a WR, who we notoriously struggle to develop once drafted

Quote:
If the Pats add absolutely no one at WR/TE this off-season(and let go of Welker), we will still be going into opening day with Gronk, Hernandez, Lloyd, Edelman, Branch, Hoomanawanui, Fells and Ballard with Vereen, Woodhead (maybe) and Jeff Demps (hopefully) as receiving threats. That is a corps that a lot of teams would kill for and yet it is still not good enough for us.


That receiving grouping PLUS Welker has bogged down each of the last 3 years. While a lot of teams might "kill for" (and I doubt that beyond the TE's who have had a hard time staying healthy for 16-19 games) that grouping, only 3 of those guys are credible receivers. Edelman is unsigned, Fells a likely cap casualty (and awful), the RB's go vastly under-utilized, Hoomanawanui has shown little-to-nothing as a receiving threat and Ballard is coming off of an injury which is often a career-ender. It's a matter of health, We barely played with all 3, that's the issue, not that we don't have talent, or don't have capable players, or coaching or whatever. Not many teams have the array of talent we do (in that they have good options from #5 downwards) so stop selling our guys short. Neither team in the SB has more, or better weapons than us

It's not about what you have but how what you have fits together and is utilized. Sure Woodhead (unsigned) and Vereen are good receivers (Demps was not in college so I'm not sure why you're qualifying him at all in this discussion) but it's irrelevant as we've seen McDaniels and Brady under-utilize the RB's. Just because they are under utilized, doesnít make them less talented, that's a coaching/play calling issue, something not affected by the cap. Perhaps if we let Welker go, then the guys in the backfield will see more snaps, hence, not being underutilized. I included Woodhead on the scenario that we keep everyone except Welker. I included Demps in that I assume with his speed we will look to get him the ball, even if it is on Tosses, Pitches, Reverses, or End Arounds, whatever.

Quote:

The reason we scored only 13 points was because we were terrible in the RZ - and the loss of Gronk is clearly the reason why. We failed to use Vereen in the passing game until garbage time and Brady often refuses to check the ball down to the RB (which could have helped to sustain drives, or at least help field position. Anyway, thatís enough of the Ravens game, that is a 1 game sample.


It's not a 1 game sample. We saw virtually the same thing happen in Seattle. Tons of yards not leading to points. Why? Other than the stupid playcalling which Pats fans are probably stuck with for a few more years of McDaniels, this is an offense built around long, multiple-play drives and YAC. Good, disciplined, sure-tackling defenses can shut those offenses down. Not always, but in the playoffs when you face a string of good defenses, the odds are one of them will do enough to win or make a very close game. We bogged down against one of the best defenses in the league, that isn't anything out of the ordinary. Those are the teams you beat by also having a good D - as those teams with elite D's, don't usually have an elite offense, so that is the weakness you identify and exploit, which our D was unable to capitalize on, providing evidence to the fact we need a more consistent, or talented D.

No one who has watched this team since 2010 should be surprised by the results vs. Baltimore this year. It is a function of the way the Pats offense is designed. Teams that play each other regularly, are likely to become more familiar with eac hother, you can't build or rebuild an offense based on a team you might come into contact with in the play-offs.

Quote:

Lets look at a large sample, of the entire regular season. I think we played 2 games with Hernandez, Welker and Gronk ALL healthy, so that leaves 14 where only 2 of those 3 were healthy, yet for the regular season we still had the 10th best offense of ALL TIME - even with 1 of our 3 main receiving threats not playing in 14 of those games. Surely that tells you something?! Offense is not the problem, look at the names I listed earlier - that is without drafting, or signing (from elsewhere) anybody else to the roster. I am sure we will draft or sign a WR, but by no means, does that player have to be elite. We already have 2 elite receiving weapons (Gronknandez) and very good one (Lloyd). A reliable option like Hartline or Amendola would provide another weapon who could provide enough production at value, all whilst leaving us cap space to maintain our OL and improve our Secondary.


The 2007 Patriots had the best offense of all time and got shut down pretty badly in the playoffs (by comparison to their regular-season performance).

I don't know that I would argue for Bowe/Wallace (in fact I'm sure I wouldn't) but you are totally misrepresenting jofos post as well as totally missing the mark on the issues with the Pats offense in claiming that "offense isn't the problem".

The defense does need work. But offense very much is a big problem for this team and if they don't solve that piece of the equation they aren't going to bring home a 4th Lombardi under Belichick/Brady. Unfortunately, we don't have unlimited cap space to fix an offense and turn it from the 10th best all time, to the 1st overall offense of all time. Why not try and balance the team out a bit more so that we are able to win a game with defense, as opposed to trying not to lose with our current D,

And I didn't misrepresent his post, his post was all about how our offense needs more, on top of what we already have. So that means re-signing Welker AND getting someone else in. If that's the case, that means Cannon at RT and a Dennard, Arrington and Dowling as our top CB's. If you, ad other Pats fans are advocating thats the direction we go in, then so be it. I lookforward to the GDT's full of 'Arrington is not an NFL CB and 'We won't win the SB with this defense!' posts.

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmurtry86


Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 23711
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomRalph wrote:
"Patriots need a truly elite WR that can stretch the field"[/b] - Who the hell else is there available this off-season who fits that description?


I don't see any mention of "spending all the cap" on a WR, "letting go of Welker, Talib, Vollmer", "rolling with Dennard and Arrington" "Gregory playing at S" and "another season of Love/Deaderick"

All I saw in his statement was a call for a WR. The rest was a strawman you created.

Quote:
Unless you want to spend one of our 5 draft picks on a WR, who we notoriously struggle to develop once drafted[/color]



Maybe that is what he's saying.

Quote:
It's a matter of health,


Not sure how long you've followed football but any argument which relies upon health is a failing one. You simply cannot rely on health in the NFL. Period.

Quote:
We barely played with all 3, that's the issue, not that we don't have talent, or don't have capable players, or coaching or whatever. Not many teams have the array of talent we do (in that they have good options from #5 downwards) so stop selling our guys short. Neither team in the SB has more, or better weapons than us


It's not about how talented your pieces are but how that talent presents itself in one cohesive unit. This isn't Madden for the PS3. Having the most talented offensive roster means nothing.

Quote:
Just because they are under utilized, doesnít make them less talented, that's a coaching/play calling issue, something not affected by the cap. Perhaps if we let Welker go, then the guys in the backfield will see more snaps, hence, not being underutilized. I included Woodhead on the scenario that we keep everyone except Welker. I included Demps in that I assume with his speed we will look to get him the ball, even if it is on Tosses, Pitches, Reverses, or End Arounds, whatever.


So Josh McDaniels is going to discover the RB position when Welker is replaced? I'm not sure I'd totally disagree and I do think it's an idea worth presenting and debating, but I think it's lost here in your attempt to paint the offense as an elite unit without Welker.

Quote:
Teams that play each other regularly, are likely to become more familiar with eac hother, you can't build or rebuild an offense based on a team you might come into contact with in the play-offs.


Ignoring how ridiculous that premise is, it's also flat out wrong. Due to the way NFL scheduling is , you very likely will run into the same teams every year. The Pats ran into Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and Denver frequently in the regular season and sometimes int he playoffs. Why? Because of the scheduling and the consistency of winning between all those teams. The Pats will continue to play Baltimore frequently in the regular season until either New England or Baltimore fades (at which point, who cares about the match-up).

Here's some basic logic - if you can beat the best, toughest match-ups (which are very likely to be the ones you face the most frequently, at least in the AFC), you can beat the dregs. The opposite is not true - an offense which can dominate bad teams and good teams with bad defenses is not one which can routinely beat good defenses.

Quote:
Unfortunately, we don't have unlimited cap space to fix an offense and turn it from the 10th best all time, to the 1st overall offense of all time. Why not try and balance the team out a bit more so that we are able to win a game with defense, as opposed to trying not to lose with our current D,


Another strawman. I didn't (not once) mention my ideas about cap space or "Nth best offense".

Quote:
And I didn't misrepresent his post, his post was all about how our offense needs more, on top of what we already have. So that means re-signing Welker AND getting someone else in.


Yes you did. Period. He said nothing about tying up all the cap space in offense.

All he said is the Pats need "more" and a "truly elite WR who can stretch the field"

Maybe he thinks "more" would equal replacing Welker with a truly elite down-field guy. I think there's a very good argument that replacing Welker with a healthy Greg Jennings would produce "more" offense. It's not a crazy idea to think exchanging Welker for a deep-threat (whether veteran or a 1st round pick) could boost the offense. After all, you yourself said that without Welker, the RB's could get more involved. So add more RB's + deep threat and all of a sudden, that's "more" offense without re-signing Welker

Quote:
If that's the case, that means Cannon at RT and a Dennard, Arrington and Dowling as our top CB's. If you, ad other Pats fans are advocating thats the direction we go in, then so be it. I lookforward to the GDT's full of 'Arrington is not an NFL CB and 'We won't win the SB with this defense!' posts.


There you go again with your strawman. No one here has argued or will argue for Arrington starting at CB and Dowling as the #3. I don't think you actually believe that to be true so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it.

I said nothing about Cannon, but I would absolutely prefer Cannon to Vollmer given the likely cost of re-signing Vollmer. Vollmer is the most expendable of the "big 3" and re-signing him is something I wouldn't consider at all unless he takes a sweetheart deal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomRalph


Joined: 03 Apr 2009
Posts: 10623
Location: Revis Island
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmurtry86 wrote:
TomRalph wrote:
"Patriots need a truly elite WR that can stretch the field"[/b] - Who the hell else is there available this off-season who fits that description?


I don't see any mention of "spending all the cap" on a WR, "letting go of Welker, Talib, Vollmer", "rolling with Dennard and Arrington" "Gregory playing at S" and "another season of Love/Deaderick"

All I saw in his statement was a call for a WR. The rest was a strawman you created. The trickle down effect of signing one of the big WR's will cost close to $10m, nearly all of our cap space, that directly leads or contributes to the inability to re-sign Vollmer, Talib and other role players.

Quote:
Unless you want to spend one of our 5 draft picks on a WR, who we notoriously struggle to develop once drafted[/color]



Maybe that is what he's saying. I believe we are better off using our resources on creating and building a consistent defense. Besides, I can't trust our ability to draft a WR based on a long lost of past failures.

Quote:
It's a matter of health,


Not sure how long you've followed football but any argument which relies upon health is a failing one. You simply cannot rely on health in the NFL. Period. [color=blue]Well, yes you're right, but we weren't fully healthy on offense at all last year and still rocked up with the 10th best offense of all time. If we replace Welker with a middle of the pack WR instead of an elite one, we can have a successful offense (and hopefully a better defense). it shouldn't be necessary for this offense to be one of the greatest of all time to have a successful season.


Quote:
We barely played with all 3, that's the issue, not that we don't have talent, or don't have capable players, or coaching or whatever. Not many teams have the array of talent we do (in that they have good options from #5 downwards) so stop selling our guys short. Neither team in the SB has more, or better weapons than us[/color]


It's not about how talented your pieces are but how that talent presents itself in one cohesive unit. This isn't Madden for the PS3. Having the most talented offensive roster means nothing. I didn't mean it like that at all.

Quote:
Just because they are under utilized, doesnít make them less talented, that's a coaching/play calling issue, something not affected by the cap. Perhaps if we let Welker go, then the guys in the backfield will see more snaps, hence, not being underutilized. I included Woodhead on the scenario that we keep everyone except Welker. I included Demps in that I assume with his speed we will look to get him the ball, even if it is on Tosses, Pitches, Reverses, or End Arounds, whatever.


So Josh McDaniels is going to discover the RB position when Welker is replaced? I'm not sure I'd totally disagree and I do think it's an idea worth presenting and debating, but I think it's lost here in your attempt to paint the offense as an elite unit without Welker. I'm not saying it elite without Welker, but it can be. You said it yourself, the RB's are under utilized. With Welker gone, that provides ample opportunity for the RB's to get more involved. Vereen was a nightmare against the Texans, Woodhead killed the 49ers in the near comeback (it was that game where he was awesome wasn't it?) Demps is an option, Ridley might learn how to run routes and catch. The potential is there, and with Welker gone (theoretically) so is the opportunity.

Quote:
Teams that play each other regularly, are likely to become more familiar with eac hother, you can't build or rebuild an offense based on a team you might come into contact with in the play-offs.


Ignoring how ridiculous that premise is, it's also flat out wrong. Due to the way NFL scheduling is , you very likely will run into the same teams every year. The Pats ran into Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and Denver frequently in the regular season and sometimes int he playoffs. Why? Because of the scheduling and the consistency of winning between all those teams. The Pats will continue to play Baltimore frequently in the regular season until either New England or Baltimore fades (at which point, who cares about the match-up).

Here's some basic logic - if you can beat the best, toughest match-ups (which are very likely to be the ones you face the most frequently, at least in the AFC), you can beat the dregs. The opposite is not true - an offense which can dominate bad teams and good teams with bad defenses is not one which can routinely beat good defenses. Why not try and beat them with defense instead then as opposed to relying on our offense to do it ear in, year out?

Quote:
Unfortunately, we don't have unlimited cap space to fix an offense and turn it from the 10th best all time, to the 1st overall offense of all time. Why not try and balance the team out a bit more so that we are able to win a game with defense, as opposed to trying not to lose with our current D,


Another strawman. I didn't (not once) mention my ideas about cap space or "Nth best offense". [color=blue]You were saying offense is a problem and needs resources spending on it. Resources = cap space. We already have a good offense, even without Welker (for reasons above) but our D is frankly bad.


Quote:
And I didn't misrepresent his post, his post was all about how our offense needs more, on top of what we already have. So that means re-signing Welker AND getting someone else in.


Yes you did. Period. He said nothing about tying up all the cap space in offense.

All he said is the Pats need "more" and a "truly elite WR who can stretch the field"

Maybe he thinks "more" would equal replacing Welker with a truly elite down-field guy. I think there's a very good argument that replacing Welker with a healthy Greg Jennings would produce "more" offense. It's not a crazy idea to think exchanging Welker for a deep-threat (whether veteran or a 1st round pick) could boost the offense. After all, you yourself said that without Welker, the RB's could get more involved. So add more RB's + deep threat and all of a sudden, that's "more" offense without re-signing Welker.

Greg Jennings is in the class of 'elite deep threats' (in terms of whats available)and would cost a good proportion of our cap space, yes we'd replace Welker, but at a cost of cap space again which limits our options to improve the D. I think we can keep the offense at a high level, without using up so many resources.

Quote:
If that's the case, that means Cannon at RT and a Dennard, Arrington and Dowling as our top CB's. If you, ad other Pats fans are advocating thats the direction we go in, then so be it. I lookforward to the GDT's full of 'Arrington is not an NFL CB and 'We won't win the SB with this defense!' posts.[/color]


There you go again with your strawman. No one here has argued or will argue for Arrington starting at CB and Dowling as the #3. I don't think you actually believe that to be true so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it.

I said nothing about Cannon, but I would absolutely prefer Cannon to Vollmer given the likely cost of re-signing Vollmer. Vollmer is the most expendable of the "big 3" and re-signing him is something I wouldn't consider at all unless he takes a sweetheart deal. Again, the trickle down effect o using all of our resources on a WR or improving the offense leads to being unable to re-sign Talib and Vollmer and being able to sign quality players to replace them. Yes, I gave extreme cases, but did so for effect.

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jofos


Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 490
Location: alabama
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was suggesting drafting a WR in the first round.
Since 2002 the Patriots have drafted 3 WRs in the second round and have never drafted one higher than 36. Chad Jackson wasn't bad until injuries killed him not saying he was good but its had to develop a guy that can't get on the field because of hamstring issues and is gone after tearing his ACL.
Bethel Johnson was a failure picked at 45 in 2003. You can use him as an example as a failed pick.
The other 2nd round WR, Branch, the 65th pick in 2002. He worked out pretty well SB MVP. Also in 2002 the Pariots picked David Givens in the 7th (253). He wasn't bad, had at least 1 TD in seven post season games including SB 38 & 39 and he had 59 catches in 2005.
Drafting WR late like any other position is a crap shoot. Getting Brady in the 6th and having become the QB he is wasn't a matter of being able to develop a QB, it was luck.
As for as not being able to develop a position, there have been guys that didn't workout at a lot of different spots. Cunningham, Brace, Darius Butler, Brandon Meriweather, and Marquise Hill were all drafted in the 2nd or higher but no one says the Patriots can't draft defense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmurtry86


Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 23711
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomRalph wrote:
The trickle down effect of signing one of the big WR's will cost close to $10m, nearly all of our cap space, that directly leads or contributes to the inability to re-sign Vollmer, Talib and other role players.


The Pats have an estimated $18M in cap. Re-structure Brady and Wilfork and that goes up. Cut some dead weight like Fells, and that goes up.

$10M isn't "nearly all of $18M. It's probably about 45% of the cap space the Pats will have to work with. And that's assuming a 1st year cap hit of $10M for a big WR. It's very likely that any big deal that like would be structured to keep costs down this year as much as possible.

Your assumption, that he meant a big name FA WR and not a draft pick was poor and your math is equally poor.

Quote:
You were saying offense is a problem and needs resources spending on it. Resources = cap space. We already have a good offense, even without Welker (for reasons above) but our D is frankly bad.


A. calling the D "frankly bad" smells like hyperbole to strengthen your argument

B. Find me anywhere (prior to this post) where I mentioned how much of the Pats cap space should go to the offense.

Quote:
Yes, I gave extreme cases, but did so for effect[/color].


Yes, the effect was to create an argument, attribute it to someone else and then argue against in order or to validate your own hypothesis.

Your argument, as I understand it is:

The Pats offense is great (in the regular season) with Welker. Let Welker go, bring in a mid-range veteran to replace him and spend money on D (where's that money coming from if Vollmer and Talib are being re-signed as you clearly are concerned about?). That + perfect health from the TE's will give the best chance of a Super Bowl win.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that seems to be the gist of it.

Now, what I don't get is why you feel it's important to tie up $7M+ of the cap in Vollmer. Because that + a "mid range WR" is now allocating over half the available cap in that offense. Something which you clearly are against.

Advocating Hartline ($5M) and Vollmer ($7M) over Jennings ($10M) and Cannon ($1M) and then implying that you're in favor of boosting the defense? I don't see how you can square that at all. If your idea is that it is a bad idea to invest $10M in the offense, then you should be 100% against bringing back Vollmer. Period. You shouldn't be concerned at all about the loss of him for a WR.

Any scenario which involves a big boost to the defense - which seems to be your goal - means Vollmer is gone and the WR position is going to low-end veterans and rookies. Or you're projecting a large amount of space freed up from re-structuring (which you didn't mention).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> New England Patriots All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group