Let's rank some QBs!

[Superman]

Do you have actual quotes from Pats fans saying of this? Gross hyperbole Superman I think. I had said that I thought Amendola would be able to replace Welker in terms of being a solid contributor at the slot - not 100 receptions like Welker but more big plays given he is faster and bigger. And of course I predicated all of this on him staying healthy which did not happen. Pats fans, myself included also knew that losing Hernandez was huge given the timing of his arrest which left the Pats unable to replace him so late in the off-season. And then of course you had Gronk recovering from back surgery

 

I believe it was you that said even with all the turnover at receiver position that the Pats offense would be good enough. And actually it was more than good enough as it ranked 3 in points scored. And of course the Pats still matched their win total from the previous season at 12 and secured the second seed which could have been the first seed had they been able to finish their last drive versus the Dolphins late in the season.

 

There was not one Pats fans that believed Brady was going to light it up last year but that he would, as he always does, find a way to win games with the supporting cast around him. As I said to you in a previous post, he led the league in 4^th quarter comebacks with five which easily could have been seven if not for the refs picking up the PI call at the end of the Carolina game and if Amendola holds on to the ball in the Miami game late. Brady’s hallmark has always been his situational play which was on display in spades last year even if his overall stats were down which like I said most Pats fans expected. Our expectations in NE is to WIN and that is what Brady always delivers.

 

So you and others can revel all you want in his stats be in the same neighborhood as Luck and incessantly mention it as though he somehow has declined (not you specifically but others on this board) but the reality is the Pats really didn’t miss a beat last year and that was the expectation Pats fans had not fantasy numbers from Brady.

 

 

Show me ONE such post. I guarantee that you can't.

No Patriots fan has ever said that losing Gronk and Hernandez would not be a problem.

Welker, yes; Edelman was his replacement.

Face it: neither Peyton nor Brees has ever lacked weapons. Brady has, and has been amazingly successful regardless.

 

My post was clearly made in jest, but the fact that you two are taking exception to it kind of says something.

[amfootball]

My post was clearly made in jest, but the fact that you two are taking exception to it kind of says something.

Guess jest is in the eye of the beholder. Not one emoticon to indicate any type of kidding or use of italicized lettering but for sure lots of shots at Brady that would naturally elicit a response from Pats fans but hey, Happy 4th of July. Pouring rain here in Boston.

[sweetsurrender]

Why?

 

Before the season started, all the talk was about how Brady doesn't need great receivers. He doesn't even need good receivers. He basically makes them himself, like a WR master architect. All they have to do is step on the same field as he does on Sunday, and great receiving is born. Greatness oozes from Brady's pores; he hooks his bummy receivers up to him intravenously on the sideline, and suddenly they produce like HOFers. Then, when they leave New England and can no longer suckle the teat of the great Tom Brady, their skills wither away, never to return, and we all wonder just how it is that Brady can take such unimpressive specimens and will them to victory, year after year.

 

That's what Pats fans said would happen with Brady and his receivers in 2013. No Hernandez? No problem. No Welker? Good riddance, the traitor. Gronk might not be healthy? Brady will make another Gronk. Brady's production wouldn't suffer, no matter what, because he'll adapt like he always does, and everything will be okay. 

 

Now, after Brady has a substandard statistical season (for Brady, that is), you want to talk about his receivers?

 

Wow. Where did this come from? Usually you are so balanced in your viewpoints? Brady's numbers may have been down for his standards but he still was the major reason the Pats got to the conference title game.

[braveheartcolt]

Love the earlier 'soccer' debate. Nice. The tiers are pretty much spot on from Supes, but Eli does get an unfair press.

Brady didn't play to his normal levels last year, mainly due to his supporting cast. But really, did you see what Luck had in his ROOKIE season? That's why I said he was MVP, not even a contender with the limping logo for ROTY.

Great arguments all round, although I'm sensing a little nerves from the Brady Boys. Perhaps his age is taking toll? Hope not, he's class.

[Superman]

Wow. Where did this come from? Usually you are so balanced in your viewpoints? Brady's numbers may have been down for his standards but he still was the major reason the Pats got to the conference title game.

 

See above; that post was just a joke, something I thought would be obvious. If not, my bad.

[Narcosys]

I can't believe you have Wilson as a tier 2 but romo as a tier 3. I'd switch those.

[Superman]

I can't believe you have Wilson as a tier 2 but romo as a tier 3. I'd switch those.

Based on what? Sincere question, not trying to be argumentative.

[Narcosys]

Based on what? Sincere question, not trying to be argumentative.

Based on that romo can put up 45 points in a game and unfortunately still lose cause his defense sucks. Look at his stats and he consistently performs. We've had only two years of Wilson and won with a dang good defense. He has decent stats too but room's are better. If I had to choose between the two I'd take romo.

I'd might agree with them both being tier three. Right now tho Wilson is a trent dilfer to me.

[Shane Bond]

Based on that romo can put up 45 points in a game and unfortunately still lose cause his defense sucks. Look at his stats and he consistently performs. We've had only two years of Wilson and won with a dang good defense. He has decent stats too but room's are better. If I had to choose between the two I'd take romo.

I'd might agree with them both being tier three. Right now tho Wilson is a trent dilfer to me.

I am not sure if Wilson's turnover ratio is higher than Romo. Time will tell after he plays for few more years. Romo is well known for his turnovers at clutch situations. Russell is good at that so far.

[amfootball]

Based on that romo can put up 45 points in a game and unfortunately still lose cause his defense sucks. Look at his stats and he consistently performs. We've had only two years of Wilson and won with a dang good defense. He has decent stats too but room's are better. If I had to choose between the two I'd take romo.

I'd might agree with them both being tier three. Right now tho Wilson is a trent dilfer to me.

Wilson volumes better than Dilfer statistically as well as pass attempts vs picks and situational play.

[RGIII]

Based on that romo can put up 45 points in a game and unfortunately still lose cause his defense sucks. Look at his stats and he consistently performs. We've had only two years of Wilson and won with a dang good defense. He has decent stats too but room's are better. If I had to choose between the two I'd take romo.

I'd might agree with them both being tier three. Right now tho Wilson is a trent dilfer to me.

 

The thing about Romo is that he's played at a consistent level throughout his career.  He started VERY strong after riding the bench a few years and his production hasn't wavered much at all from year to year.

 

I bring this up because you talk about Romo not being successful because the Cowboys have no defense but fail to realize that for much of his career he's actually had a VERY good defense.  The Cowboys D was on the rise under the infinitely amusing Bill Parcells (ft. Mike Zimmer) and was consistently in the top 10 during Wade Phillips' tenure as head coach.  Romo played just as well then as he does now (at a very high level 90% of the time) but still couldn't get postseason results (always playing his worst in December and falling apart completely going into January) and rightfully earned his reputation for being anti-clutch.  That monkey has been riding his back his entire career and is why I also hesitate to put him up a level despite believing he has more than enough raw ability to play at that level.

 

The difference between Wilson and Romo definitely isn't the defense, though, or even run game for that matter (MBIII was a terror during his short run and DeMarco Murray is legit).  I think what Romo lacks that Russell has now is really quality offensive coaching and playcalling.  He developed fantastically under Sean Payton, who most would agree now is a certifiable offensive mastermind, but Payton was out by the time Romo got his chance on the field.  As a starting QB he's been working mostly with the dreadful Tony Sparano and highly dubious Jason Garrett.  If you kept him with Sean Payton his entire career or even put him in a situation like Denver under Shanahan or Philly under Andy Reid or any team with Norv as OC (but, dear god, NOT HC), I guarantee his potential would have been better tapped into and his weaknesses would have been managed better.

 

Also, please don't rate Trent Dilfer on the same level as any even serviceable modern starter.  He's a relatively smart dude but he was questionable even as a game manager (career 55% completion, more INTs than TDs thrown, only 1 quality season in a 13 year career).  It took one of the best defenses of all time to carry him to a Super Bowl win and there have been numerous rookie QBs recently who have been better players day 1 than Dilfer was (Wilson, Luck, Griffin, Dalton, Cam, Tannehill, Foles, Glennon).

[Narcosys]

The thing about Romo is that he's played at a consistent level throughout his career. He started VERY strong after riding the bench a few years and his production hasn't wavered much at all from year to year.

I bring this up because you talk about Romo not being successful because the Cowboys have no defense but fail to realize that for much of his career he's actually had a VERY good defense. The Cowboys D was on the rise under the infinitely amusing Bill Parcells (ft. Mike Zimmer) and was consistently in the top 10 during Wade Phillips' tenure as head coach. Romo played just as well then as he does now (at a very high level 90% of the time) but still couldn't get postseason results (always playing his worst in December and falling apart completely going into January) and rightfully earned his reputation for being anti-clutch. That monkey has been riding his back his entire career and is why I also hesitate to put him up a level despite believing he has more than enough raw ability to play at that level.

The difference between Wilson and Romo definitely isn't the defense, though, or even run game for that matter (MBIII was a terror during his short run and DeMarco Murray is legit). I think what Romo lacks that Russell has now is really quality offensive coaching and playcalling. He developed fantastically under Sean Payton, who most would agree now is a certifiable offensive mastermind, but Payton was out by the time Romo got his chance on the field. As a starting QB he's been working mostly with the dreadful Tony Sparano and highly dubious Jason Garrett. If you kept him with Sean Payton his entire career or even put him in a situation like Denver under Shanahan or Philly under Andy Reid or any team with Norv as OC (but, dear god, NOT HC), I guarantee his potential would have been better tapped into and his weaknesses would have been managed better.

Also, please don't rate Trent Dilfer on the same level as any even serviceable modern starter. He's a relatively smart dude but he was questionable even as a game manager (career 55% completion, more INTs than TDs thrown, only 1 quality season in a 13 year career). It took one of the best defenses of all time to carry him to a Super Bowl win and there have been numerous rookie QBs recently who have been better players day 1 than Dilfer was (Wilson, Luck, Griffin, Dalton, Cam, Tannehill, Foles, Glennon).

Lol I knew that would get a reaction. But still I don't put Wilson as a tier 2. Not just yet. Romo can stay a 3 but drop Wilson. But it's all really just subjective. Wilson has a better td/int ratio I'll give him that. But with the kind of playcalling he gets I can understand why. Great points tho.

[amfootball]

The thing about Romo is that he's played at a consistent level throughout his career.  He started VERY strong after riding the bench a few years and his production hasn't wavered much at all from year to year.

 

I bring this up because you talk about Romo not being successful because the Cowboys have no defense but fail to realize that for much of his career he's actually had a VERY good defense.  The Cowboys D was on the rise under the infinitely amusing Bill Parcells (ft. Mike Zimmer) and was consistently in the top 10 during Wade Phillips' tenure as head coach.  Romo played just as well then as he does now (at a very high level 90% of the time) but still couldn't get postseason results (always playing his worst in December and falling apart completely going into January) and rightfully earned his reputation for being anti-clutch.  That monkey has been riding his back his entire career and is why I also hesitate to put him up a level despite believing he has more than enough raw ability to play at that level.

 

The difference between Wilson and Romo definitely isn't the defense, though, or even run game for that matter (MBIII was a terror during his short run and DeMarco Murray is legit).  I think what Romo lacks that Russell has now is really quality offensive coaching and playcalling.  He developed fantastically under Sean Payton, who most would agree now is a certifiable offensive mastermind, but Payton was out by the time Romo got his chance on the field.  As a starting QB he's been working mostly with the dreadful Tony Sparano and highly dubious Jason Garrett.  If you kept him with Sean Payton his entire career or even put him in a situation like Denver under Shanahan or Philly under Andy Reid or any team with Norv as OC (but, dear god, NOT HC), I guarantee his potential would have been better tapped into and his weaknesses would have been managed better.

 

Also, please don't rate Trent Dilfer on the same level as any even serviceable modern starter.  He's a relatively smart dude but he was questionable even as a game manager (career 55% completion, more INTs than TDs thrown, only 1 quality season in a 13 year career).  It took one of the best defenses of all time to carry him to a Super Bowl win and there have been numerous rookie QBs recently who have been better players day 1 than Dilfer was (Wilson, Luck, Griffin, Dalton, Cam, Tannehill, Foles, Glennon).

Good points but I don't know about the play calling. I actually think Garrett is pretty good. The Cowboys offense hums along just fine but Romo has issues at times with his situational play. His defense has not been very good at all the last four years ranking in points allowed at 31, 16, 24, 26. He had some good defenses prior to that but his prime years have been the last four. I would have liked to see him under a more stable coaching group and away from Jerry Jones as well.

[Qwiz]

Yeah, Romo has the years of experience but Russell's numbers since entering the league have been better than his. Plus the guy comes through in the postseason and big moments, which are the biggest knocks on Romo.

[Superman]

Based on that romo can put up 45 points in a game and unfortunately still lose cause his defense sucks. Look at his stats and he consistently performs. We've had only two years of Wilson and won with a dang good defense. He has decent stats too but room's are better. If I had to choose between the two I'd take romo.

I'd might agree with them both being tier three. Right now tho Wilson is a trent dilfer to me.

 

How does that make Romo better than Wilson?

 

This is why I asked the question. Do you think Wilson is rated too high, or Romo is too low? Or both? Just trying to clarify your objection.

 

Although I stand by my ranking, I definitely see the argument for Wilson being too high. I've watched the guy play a lot over the last two years, and the way his physical tools and his intangible qualities come together is special, IMO. And he has production, if not the usage. Maybe I'm crediting his potential more than others would just yet. Calling him Dilfer is ridiculous, by the way.

 

I don't see a lot of room for moving Romo up. He puts up stats, and he does have a lot to make up for on his team. But he gets hurt often, and he makes critical mistakes. You alluded to the game against the Broncos last year. Romo throws the pick late in the 4th quarter, which effectively ends the game. He gets a ton of credit for keeping them in the game, and I'm not trying to blame him for the loss, but it's almost a pattern with Romo, over his entire career. 

[GoPats]

If Dustin's argument is that Luck and Brady were basically the same in 2013, I have to side with him. Their numbers, gross and adjusted, are almost identical, they both suffered from losses in their supporting casts, etc. Of course, Brady gets credit for his body of work, which is far more extensive an impressive than Luck's, but let's not be so dismissive of his troubles in 2013.

 

I'm late to the party here.  ;)

 

I don't think a lot of true NFL/Patriots fans weren't at least a little worried last year. No one knew when Gronk would be back, and obviously they counted on having Hernandez. The team willingly parted ways with Welker so that move was expected. I think a lot of us expected Amendola to have the season (or close to it) that Edelman ended up having in 2013. I've seen teams undergo turnover, but not like the Patriots did with their receiving and TE corps in 2013. Counting the games without Gronk it was something like 90% of the team's pass production from 2012 that was just gone. 

 

Rookie receivers (even the best ones) rarely make an impact. Even Megatron... 48 catches, 4 TDs, under 800 yards... and there's obviously a reason for that. Receiver is one position, most than most, where rookies need time. The Patriots thrust Dobson (2nd round) and Thompkins (UFA) into big roles in week one. Boyce (3rd round) was given more responsibility later in the year. They had virtually no healthy, NFL-quality tight ends on the roster, and Vereen - who averaged better than 6 catches/game when he played - was out for about a dozen weeks after the opener.

 

Which is why I didn't overreact either way to the Patriots' struggles on offense last year. If they continue to have issues in 2014, maybe that's a sign that Brady is more a part of it and there is some kind of "decline." But those receivers should make a jump and (knock wood) they can't possibly run into the same decimation on the injury-front this year. 

[Surge89]

I'm late to the party here.  ;)

 

I don't think a lot of true NFL/Patriots fans weren't at least a little worried last year. No one knew when Gronk would be back, and obviously they counted on having Hernandez. The team willingly parted ways with Welker so that move was expected. I think a lot of us expected Amendola to have the season (or close to it) that Edelman ended up having in 2013. I've seen teams undergo turnover, but not like the Patriots did with their receiving and TE corps in 2013. Counting the games without Gronk it was something like 90% of the team's pass production from 2012 that was just gone. 

 

Rookie receivers (even the best ones) rarely make an impact. Even Megatron... 48 catches, 4 TDs, under 800 yards... and there's obviously a reason for that. Receiver is one position, most than most, where rookies need time. The Patriots thrust Dobson (2nd round) and Thompkins (UFA) into big roles in week one. Boyce (3rd round) was given more responsibility later in the year. They had virtually no healthy, NFL-quality tight ends on the roster, and Vereen - who averaged better than 6 catches/game when he played - was out for about a dozen weeks after the opener.

 

Which is why I didn't overreact either way to the Patriots' struggles on offense last year. If they continue to have issues in 2014, maybe that's a sign that Brady is more a part of it and there is some kind of "decline." But those receivers should make a jump and (knock wood) they can't possibly run into the same decimation on the injury-front this year. 

 

I honestly wish you the best of luck on the injury front... But being a Colts fan, I know good and well there is no such thing lol... year after year olineman getting hurt and the Hope, oh man this will be the year they stay healthy! and ... it doesnt...

 

lol Pessimistic I am about the Oline...

[Superman]

I'm late to the party here.  ;)

 

I don't think a lot of true NFL/Patriots fans weren't at least a little worried last year. No one knew when Gronk would be back, and obviously they counted on having Hernandez. The team willingly parted ways with Welker so that move was expected. I think a lot of us expected Amendola to have the season (or close to it) that Edelman ended up having in 2013. I've seen teams undergo turnover, but not like the Patriots did with their receiving and TE corps in 2013. Counting the games without Gronk it was something like 90% of the team's pass production from 2012 that was just gone. 

 

Rookie receivers (even the best ones) rarely make an impact. Even Megatron... 48 catches, 4 TDs, under 800 yards... and there's obviously a reason for that. Receiver is one position, most than most, where rookies need time. The Patriots thrust Dobson (2nd round) and Thompkins (UFA) into big roles in week one. Boyce (3rd round) was given more responsibility later in the year. They had virtually no healthy, NFL-quality tight ends on the roster, and Vereen - who averaged better than 6 catches/game when he played - was out for about a dozen weeks after the opener.

 

Which is why I didn't overreact either way to the Patriots' struggles on offense last year. If they continue to have issues in 2014, maybe that's a sign that Brady is more a part of it and there is some kind of "decline." But those receivers should make a jump and (knock wood) they can't possibly run into the same decimation on the injury-front this year. 

 

All fair points. 

 

I think the contention was with the competing talking points. Before the season, whenever someone questioned whether the Pats would struggle without Hernandez, Gronkowski, Welker, etc., the answer from a lot of people was simple: "As long as Belichick and Brady are there, the offense will be fine." Now, whenever someone says that Brady didn't have a great year, we have to talk about the lost players and rookie struggles. 

 

Like you said, that kind of turnover is extreme, and it's hard to imagine any team not struggling at least a little bit. Brady is great; I don't think there's evidence of decline, but he didn't play so well in the beginning of the season. It was pretty predictable, to be honest.

 

To the bolded, I think that's a little overstated. There are plenty of rookie receivers who perform well, especially when they're playing with a good QB and getting a lot of reps. TY Hilton is an example that hits close to home, but there are others. Sure, there are going to be struggles, but in the right situation, a rookie receiver can do well. 

 

The QB still needs one or two guys that he can rely on, especially on big downs. Brady didn't really have that last year, aside from Edelman. What the Pats did -- and it really showed in our playoff game -- is develop that rushing attack. By the end of the year, they were able to put 41 points on the Ravens with Brady only throwing for 172 yards, and then had a similar performance against the Colts. That's enviable. If the passing game continues to develop, the Pats offense will be just as dangerous as we're used to it being.

[amfootball]

All fair points. 

 

I think the contention was with the competing talking points. Before the season, whenever someone questioned whether the Pats would struggle without Hernandez, Gronkowski, Welker, etc., the answer from a lot of people was simple: "As long as Belichick and Brady are there, the offense will be fine." Now, whenever someone says that Brady didn't have a great year, we have to talk about the lost players and rookie struggles. 

 

Like you said, that kind of turnover is extreme, and it's hard to imagine any team not struggling at least a little bit. Brady is great; I don't think there's evidence of decline, but he didn't play so well in the beginning of the season. It was pretty predictable, to be honest.

 

To the bolded, I think that's a little overstated. There are plenty of rookie receivers who perform well, especially when they're playing with a good QB and getting a lot of reps. TY Hilton is an example that hits close to home, but there are others. Sure, there are going to be struggles, but in the right situation, a rookie receiver can do well. 

 

The QB still needs one or two guys that he can rely on, especially on big downs. Brady didn't really have that last year, aside from Edelman. What the Pats did -- and it really showed in our playoff game -- is develop that rushing attack. By the end of the year, they were able to put 41 points on the Ravens with Brady only throwing for 172 yards, and then had a similar performance against the Colts. That's enviable. If the passing game continues to develop, the Pats offense will be just as dangerous as we're used to it being.

Why didn't you post this the first time instead of that flame post? ;)  I know you said you were kidding but this type of post is more like you.

 

I think Pats fans did over estimate the success of the offense not because we think Brady is so great but because we had high hopes for Amedola and also Jake Ballard who I really thought would be a key piece to the TE position but he was cut after camp. There was also a lot of optimism surrounding the rookie receivers - Dobson, Boyce - given their size and speed. Your point about rookie receivers making an impact is a good one as Terry Glenn won SI rookie of the year with Bledsoe. And of course there is Randy Moss as well who had a superb rookie season and Anquan Boldin. But to GoPats point, that type of talent emerging in year one is rare and usually only seen from the top receivers.

 

And while I do think Pats fans may have been guilty of over estimating, some of that is with good measure given how well the Pats offense has performed under Brady no matter the cast. And as I said before, the Pats were the third highest scoring offense so it was not like the wheels came off and I think that is the part that is irksome. Brady only had a down year according to his own standards, not the league. And you add to that Manning's historic season and it looks even worse in terms of perception.

[Superman]

Why didn't you post this the first time instead of that flame post? ;)  I know you said you were kidding but this type of post is more like you.

 

I think Pats fans did over estimate the success of the offense not because we think Brady is so great but because we had high hopes for Amedola and also Jake Ballard who I really thought would be a key piece to the TE position but he was cut after camp. There was also a lot of optimism surrounding the rookie receivers - Dobson, Boyce - given their size and speed. Your point about rookie receivers making an impact is a good one as Terry Glenn won rookie of the year with Bledsoe. And of course there is Randy Moss as well who had a superb rookie season. But to GoPats point, that type of talent emerging in year one is rare and usually only seen from the top receivers.

 

And while I do think Pats fans may have been guilty of over estimating, some of that is with good measure given how well the Pats offense has performed under Brady no matter the cast. And as I said before, the Pats were the third highest scoring offense so it was not like the wheels came off and I think that is the part that is irksome. Brady only had a down year according to his own standards, not the league. And you add to that Manning's historic season and it looks even worse in terms of perception.

 

Meh; I'm surprised that anyone had a hard time deciphering the tone of that post. I thought it was pretty clear, but I guess not.

 

But the point wasn't that Brady shouldn't have been affected by losing most of his weapons. The point was that it's hard to listen to these complaints from people who a year ago claimed that it wouldn't matter because of how great Brady is. And, as has been mentioned, it wasn't all about the receivers not playing well. Brady missed a lot of throws early last season, and in general, seemed flustered quite often.

 

As for rookie receivers, they don't always explode onto the scene. But they are often capable of performing better than Dobson and Thompkins did last year, as far as overall numbers go. I think receiver is one of the easier positions to make plays at right away, if you have a good QB. There are numerous examples: Keenan Allen, Deandre Hopkins (with subpar QBing), Terrance Williams, Josh Gordon, Kendall Wright, Austin Collie, etc. 

[amfootball]

Meh; I'm surprised that anyone had a hard time deciphering the tone of that post. I thought it was pretty clear, but I guess not.

 

But the point wasn't that Brady shouldn't have been affected by losing most of his weapons. The point was that it's hard to listen to these complaints from people who a year ago claimed that it wouldn't matter because of how great Brady is. And, as has been mentioned, it wasn't all about the receivers not playing well. Brady missed a lot of throws early last season, and in general, seemed flustered quite often.

 

As for rookie receivers, they don't always explode onto the scene. But they are often capable of performing better than Dobson and Thompkins did last year, as far as overall numbers go. I think receiver is one of the easier positions to make plays at right away, if you have a good QB. There are numerous examples: Keenan Allen, Deandre Hopkins (with subpar QBing), Terrance Williams, Josh Gordon, Kendall Wright, Austin Collie, etc. 

You keep harping that people said it wouldn't matter if Brady lost his receivers and no one said that. Most felt the Pats would continue to win because Brady is best at winning and he and Belichick together have the best winning percentage all time. Please show me one post where someone said all the turnover would not matter at all especially as it related to Brady's stats. I think maybe you were reading into posts.

 

And you also seem to forget that early in the season Brady busted up his throwing hand pretty bad which contributed to much if his poor play early on along with all the changes to the O.

 

I agree about rookie receivers but I am not sure either Dobson or Thompkins have the goods. They both showed some nice flashes but both went out injured and did not even play in the post-season. So I guess time will tell. And while receiver can yield great play from the get go, the Pats run a very complex system that require a ton from receivers in terms of knowing the plays, where to line up, and reading defenses. It has historically been a very tough position on the Pats for many players especially rookies because of the system.

[GoPats]

I honestly wish you the best of luck on the injury front... But being a Colts fan, I know good and well there is no such thing lol... year after year olineman getting hurt and the Hope, oh man this will be the year they stay healthy! and ... it doesnt...

 

lol Pessimistic I am about the Oline...

 

You're definitely right - injuries are inevitable. Usually it's about the "who," the "how long" and the "how bad?" 

[GoPats]

All fair points. 

 

I think the contention was with the competing talking points. Before the season, whenever someone questioned whether the Pats would struggle without Hernandez, Gronkowski, Welker, etc., the answer from a lot of people was simple: "As long as Belichick and Brady are there, the offense will be fine." Now, whenever someone says that Brady didn't have a great year, we have to talk about the lost players and rookie struggles. 

 

Like you said, that kind of turnover is extreme, and it's hard to imagine any team not struggling at least a little bit. Brady is great; I don't think there's evidence of decline, but he didn't play so well in the beginning of the season. It was pretty predictable, to be honest.

 

To the bolded, I think that's a little overstated. There are plenty of rookie receivers who perform well, especially when they're playing with a good QB and getting a lot of reps. TY Hilton is an example that hits close to home, but there are others. Sure, there are going to be struggles, but in the right situation, a rookie receiver can do well. 

 

The QB still needs one or two guys that he can rely on, especially on big downs. Brady didn't really have that last year, aside from Edelman. What the Pats did -- and it really showed in our playoff game -- is develop that rushing attack. By the end of the year, they were able to put 41 points on the Ravens with Brady only throwing for 172 yards, and then had a similar performance against the Colts. That's enviable. If the passing game continues to develop, the Pats offense will be just as dangerous as we're used to it being.

 

Despite the offense's struggles in 2013 they still won 12 games... I think that's what Patriots fans may have meant when they said, "It'll be fine." I sort of knew the offense would sputter at times but didn't think that meant the team would miss the playoffs or anything. My hope was that they would build it along throughout the year, which is basically what happened. They should be much better in 2014 based solely on those young guys having a year of experience.

 

I think rookie receivers, when asked to be a complementary piece, can thrive. You mentioned Hilton, who had an excellent rookie season with a healthy Reggie Wayne playing with him in 2012. Last year, the Patriots' rookies - with the exception of the seven weeks Gronk was active - had to assume more than complementary roles. Just saying that it's not an ideal situation. Typically receivers don't become who they are until year two or even three. 

 

Good point regarding the Patriots' rushing attack. I think that's going to continue. Teams are gearing their defenses to stop the pass, going with lighter, faster players. So I fully expect Belichick to buck convention and to run on those lighter sub-packages whenever they can. Vereen and the rookie RB they picked up (James White) are both guys who can catch or run the ball out of passing formations. And no matter who you are as a QB, you'll be better with an effective play-action game going. 

 

Like I said I think the true test of the NE offense will come this year. Dobson, Thompkins, and Boyce all have a year in the system. Amendola is (at least for now) healthy and should have a better grasp of everything. They look to have a good group of backs and hopefully Gronkowski will avoid any major injuries this year. 

 

I think Brady's days of sick, video-game-type numbers are probably done. He'll produce of course, but I don't envision any 5000 yard, 35+ TD seasons. That's not the way they're going to win anymore, and they know it. Plus you saw what happened to the Broncos in the Super Bowl. It's not so much that "defense wins championships" IMO as it is "balance wins championships." In both the run/pass game as well as offense/defense. 

[Superman]

...

 

Good stuff. I agree, mostly.

 

Speaking about White, he was one of my favorite players in the draft, and I think he's a great pickup for the Pats. Smooth, strong, tough runner, natural pass catcher, and he showed off at the Senior Bowl. 

 

As for Brady, he might not put up the gaudy numbers moving forward, but I do think he's still one of the very best QBs in the game. There's no question, in my mind. I just don't like the double talk and deflection. 

[amfootball]

You're definitely right - injuries are inevitable. Usually it's about the "who," the "how long" and the "how bad?" 

It's not just the injuries though, we need the young guys to take a big step forward as well. If Dobson, Thompkins, Boyce are not legit threats on the outside then the offense will struggle. Of course we have to see how Lafells does as well as he should be a nice, big target for Brady. But as of right now we do not have a threat to go with Gronk at TE and I doubt he starts week one so there will be pressure again on the young guys to produce. I do like our run game a lot and of course feel great about the D.

[GoPats]

It's not just the injuries though, we need the young guys to take a big step forward as well. If Dobson, Thompkins, Boyce are not legit threats on the outside then the offense will struggle. Of course we have to see how Lafells does as well as he should be a nice, big target for Brady. But as of right now we do not have a threat to go with Gronk at TE and I doubt he starts week one so there will be pressure again on the young guys to produce. I do like our run game a lot and of course feel great about the D.

 

I'm still wondering if they're going to try to take a flier on Dustin Keller at some point. If his knee is OK he could be a nice little sleeper addition. Look for Devlin (FB) to get more reps at TE too. They like him and he's got decent hands. 

 

Of all the guys you listed at WR, I think Dobson is the key one. Boyce is more of a slot guy, not too big but very fast. Thompkins showed flashes last year but his ceiling isn't as high as Dobson's. Lafell, who knows... the track record of veteran free agents getting into this offense isn't so good. I think both Amendola and Edelman will have solid seasons and that the Patriots' will end up with a top-10 run game, maybe even top-5. 

 

I'm with you, the defense is what has me really pumped about 2014. Only about three weeks to camp, right? Can't come soon enough! 

[southwest1]

Why?

 

Before the season started, all the talk was about how Brady doesn't need great receivers. He doesn't even need good receivers. He basically makes them himself, like a WR master architect. All they have to do is step on the same field as he does on Sunday, and great receiving is born. Greatness oozes from Brady's pores; he hooks his bummy receivers up to him intravenously on the sideline, and suddenly they produce like HOFers. Then, when they leave New England and can no longer suckle the teat of the great Tom Brady, their skills wither away, never to return, and we all wonder just how it is that Brady can take such unimpressive specimens and will them to victory, year after year.

 

That's what Pats fans said would happen with Brady and his receivers in 2013. No Hernandez? No problem. No Welker? Good riddance, the traitor. Gronk might not be healthy? Brady will make another Gronk. Brady's production wouldn't suffer, no matter what, because he'll adapt like he always does, and everything will be okay. 

 

Now, after Brady has a substandard statistical season (for Brady, that is), you want to talk about his receivers?

 

Brilliant sarcasm there Superman. I like Brady & I thought it was hilarious. 

 

Here's my favorite part: "Then, when they leave New England and can no longer suckle the teat of the great Tom Brady, their skills wither away, never to return" 

 

"Suckle at the teat of Tom Brady"  God, that line made me laugh my caboose off! 

[IndyTrav]

I think Stafford may be the most underrated QB in the NFL. I really like that guy. 

 

Calvin is the best WR in the league no doubt, but has Stafford had any other notable player/scheme/team to fall back on like a majority of the QBs listed higher?...His 2nd leading receiver the last few yrs have been RB (54rec), TE (59rec), TE (83rec)....Stafford throws the ball A TON, but that being said his % is still hovering around a respectable 60%. He turns it over a bit, which is partially a product of throwing so much, and poor decisions. 

 

I dont think the guy is without flaws, but I think given his poor situation, he has made a mountain out of a mole hill. 

 

I wont try to compare him to the Tier 1 guys, because I dont think he belongs yet, but Tier 2, I believe he belongs 100%. 

 

Stafford- One offensive weapon. Bad coaching. Bad team. Bad culture. (9617yds/49TDs/36int Last 2 seasons)

 

Big Ben- Great player, "clutch", but has always had a defense to fall back on, and offensive talent on par with what Stafford has had. Plus great coaching, and a winning environment. (7526yds/54TDs/22int Last 2 seasons)

 

Eli- Has had much better talent around him. better coaching, better team, better culture. (7766yds/44TDs/42ints Last 2 seasons)

 

Ryan- Probably had/has the best pass catchers in the league. Better system. Better Culture. (9234yds/58TDs/31ints Last 2 seasons)

 

Rivers- Another player I think is a tad underrated, I love his mentality. He gives Stafford a run in the "nothing goes right for me" category. 

 

Luck- I agree he should be higher. 

 

Wilson- Im still on the fence. 

[The Old Crow]

You guys kill me with Ryan and Rivers. To be in the first two tiers you need a Super Bowl win. No love for Super Bowl MVP Flacco. Beat Luck, Brady, Manning, Kaepernick, right in a row, 11 TD 's, no Int 's. Bad year last year, but had no offensive line or running game and still went 8-8, after five playoff appearances and three AFC title game appearances. Ryan completely bombed with a much better team. I know he's not in the Brady or Manning category, but Cutler and Dalton, like some people have him in ?

[amfootball]

You guys kill me with Ryan and Rivers. To be in the first two tiers you need a Super Bowl win. No love for Super Bowl MVP Flacco. Beat Luck, Brady, Manning, Kaepernick, right in a row, 11 TD 's, no Int 's. Bad year last year, but had no offensive line or running game and still went 8-8, after five playoff appearances and three AFC title game appearances. Ryan completely bombed with a much better team. I know he's not in the Brady or Manning category, but Cutler and Dalton, like some people have him in ?

I think you need more than just one great playoff run to be in tier 2. Joe's overall body of work would put him in Tier 3. I don't think Flacco belongs with Cutler or Dalton though but def. below the more consistent QBs.

[The Old Crow]

I think you need more than just one great playoff run to be in tier 2. Joe's overall body of work would put him in Tier 3. I don't think Flacco belongs with Cutler or Dalton though but def. below the more consistent QBs.

Yet they have Ryan , Rivers, Luck, and Wilson who have lesser playoff pedigrees than Flacco in Tier 2.

[amfootball]

Yet they have Ryan , Rivers, Luck, and Wilson who have lesser playoff pedigrees than Flacco in Tier 2.

Yeah, I don't agree with that grouping. I think Luck, Wilson belong in a third tier called "New Wave" with Kaep, Newton and RG. I can actually see putting Joe with Rivers, Ryan and Roethlisberger as well. He is somewhere in that group of established QBs.

[The Old Crow]

Yeah, I don't agree with that grouping. I think Luck, Wilson belong in a third tier called "New Wave" with Kaep, Newton and RG. I can actually see putting Joe with Rivers, Ryan and Roethlisberger as well. He is somewhere in that group of established QBs.

Joe is also 9-4 in the playoffs. He is 2-1 against Brady, 1-1 against Manning who are elite quarterbacks. He is 0-2 versus Big Ben, so I would also put him ahead of Flacco, along with the elite guys. I'm not saying Joe is all world, but winning counts for something.

[amfootball]

Joe is also 9-4 in the playoffs. He is 2-1 against Brady, 1-1 against Manning who are elite quarterbacks. He is 0-2 versus Big Ben, so I would also put him ahead of Flacco, along with the elite guys. I'm not saying Joe is all world, but winning counts for something.

I would put him ahead of Ryan for sure. I think Rivers would be right there with Joe in terms of playoff success if he had a better team like Joe did and coaching and of course Rivers has a nice record vs Manning in the post-season as well. ;)

[Jason_]

Yeah, I don't agree with that grouping. I think Luck, Wilson belong in a third tier called "New Wave" with Kaep, Newton and RG. I can actually see putting Joe with Rivers, Ryan and Roethlisberger as well. He is somewhere in that group of established QBs.

 

That "New Wave" tier of yours wouldn't be complete without Foles.

[amfootball]

That "New Wave" tier of yours wouldn't be complete without Foles.

I am not sure about Foles. Maybe too early to tell just yet. He only played a handful of games last year and even though he was great, he will have to play this season without Jackson. I want to see if he can maintain a solid level this year before putting him with the other QBs. I think he will probably get there but still need to see more.

[Jason_]

I am not sure about Foles. Maybe too early to tell just yet. He only played a handful of games last year and even though he was great, he will have to play this season without Jackson. I want to see if he can maintain a solid level this year before putting him with the other QBs. I think he will probably get there but still need to see more.

 

My reason for saying Foles should be in the group is because you had RG in the group.  IMO, Foles has already proven more with less than RG (in terms of grooming, training, practicing, etc).  Foles has only played in 8 less games and THIS current offseason is the first time Foles has gone into OTA's and TC as the #1 QB whereas RG has been training and practicing as the #1 since he got to Washington.  

 

So in short, in my opinion, there's no way RG can be ranked above Foles at this point in their careers.  I can't express how much I wish Foles had been the starter from day 1 in Philly, or even more so that he had gone to another team.  I was really hoping Andy Reid would be able to take Foles with him to KC.

[amfootball]

My reason for saying Foles should be in the group is because you had RG in the group.  IMO, Foles has already proven more with less than RG (in terms of grooming, training, practicing, etc).  Foles has only played in 8 less games and THIS current offseason is the first time Foles has gone into OTA's and TC as the #1 QB whereas RG has been training and practicing as the #1 since he got to Washington.  

 

So in short, in my opinion, there's no way RG can be ranked above Foles at this point in their careers.  I can't express how much I wish Foles had been the starter from day 1 in Philly, or even more so that he had gone to another team.  I was really hoping Andy Reid would be able to take Foles with him to KC.

Are you ignoring RGs rookie year where he was ROY? His first season overall was very impressive and then he blew out his knee and had a horrible all around team last year as well as being limited from his injury. I would still put him above Foles and that is not to take anything away from Foles but I have to see more. I also think RG has something to prove as well but he is the more established QB IMO at this point.

[Jason_]

Are you ignoring RGs rookie year where he was ROY? His first season overall was very impressive and then he blew out his knee and had a horrible all around team last year as well as being limited from his injury. I would still put him above Foles and that is not to take anything away from Foles but I have to see more. I also think RG has something to prove as well but he is the more established QB IMO at this point.

 

That will soon change. ;)   I watched a lot of each of these QB's in their final years in college as well.  I was never all that impressed with RG to begin with.  He can throw a good screen pass and a great Go route but anything else was iffy at best.  His accuracy was way overblown imo.  So for me..I've seen plenty enough of Foles to be able to safely put him in the same tier as Luck, Wilson etc.  In fact if anything I'd have a hard time putting RG in the same tier.  He's the one I need to see more from to be truly sold on him.

[amfootball]

That will soon change. ;)   I watched a lot of each of these QB's in their final years in college as well.  I was never all that impressed with RG to begin with.  He can throw a good screen pass and a great Go route but anything else was iffy at best.  His accuracy was way overblown imo.  So for me..I've seen plenty enough of Foles to be able to safely put him in the same tier as Luck, Wilson etc.  In fact if anything I'd have a hard time putting RG in the same tier.  He's the one I need to see more from to be truly sold on him.

Sure and you may be right. I think RG still has proving to do but I will reserve judgment until after this season. I am not sold on Newton either.