Jeff Howe @jeffphowe 3m3 minutes ago
New development on Dobson as of this morning. He will indeed be placed on injured reserve, according to a source. His season is over.
Looking more and more like a bust. Thank god for LaFell.
Jeff Howe @jeffphowe 3m3 minutes ago
New development on Dobson as of this morning. He will indeed be placed on injured reserve, according to a source. His season is over.
steveluck7 said:well, no need to waive anyobody to activate Chandler (either this week or next) so that's good. Of course if Edleman is limited they might need a body at WR
Right right good call my mistake.jsinger121 said:
Chandler was not on short term IR. He was already on the active roster. This opens room for Silga or another receiver (Boyce?)
jsinger121 said:
Looking more and more like a bust.
Allen is really good and obviously would have been a better pick than Dobson. But I don't think Williams would start over LaFell either. Markus Wheaton, mentioned upthread, has just 10 more receiving yards for his career than Dobson, and is having a year similar to Dobson's 2013. Other high picks like Austin, Patterson, and Justin Hunter haven't panned out so far, and Robert Woods looks pretty mediocre. So far the only WR in the class who look like keepers are Allen and Nuke Hopkins, and maybe Kenny Stills. Drafting WR is hard.ShaneTrot said:Dobson was the 59th player drafted in 2013, Terrance Williams was the next WR drafted at # 74, Keenan Allen was next at #76. Dobson's career 40 rec for 557 yards, Williams 74 for 1218, and Allen 143 for 1808. Yikes, he looked OK before the foot injury last year.
mt8thsw9th said:Well, he was a bit of a reach (most had him 3-5th round), so I think it's more a case of him just not working out. I think the bust label comes with a bit of hype not being fulfilled. A couple people here were questioning at the time why Keenan Allen and Markus Wheaton weren't targeted...and that was a pretty good question.
H78 said:People were really pumped about this guy and I never understood it. He never proved a thing since he was drafted. Thompkins was more productive in his time here.
Super Nomario said:Allen is really good and obviously would have been a better pick than Dobson. But I don't think Williams would start over LaFell either. Markus Wheaton, mentioned upthread, has just 10 more receiving yards for his career than Dobson, and is having a year similar to Dobson's 2013. Other high picks like Austin, Patterson, and Justin Hunter haven't panned out so far, and Robert Woods looks pretty mediocre. So far the only WR in the class who look like keepers are Allen and Nuke Hopkins, and maybe Kenny Stills. Drafting WR is hard.
Part of it is a lack of investment - they're the only team in the NFL that hasn't used a first on a WR since 2000.dcmissle said:It is hard, and harder for the Pats than many others. Lots of dry holes. This not an area of organizational strength relatively speaking.
I think the opposite, actually. The Patriots have tended to draft guys with great raw skills who weren't necessarily technicians. Boyce, Taylor Price, Brandon Tate, and Bethel Johnson were all speedsters with unrefined receiving skills. Dobson has size and decent speed but wasn't a super-productive college player. Chad Jackson was a good blend of production and measurables but played in more of a gimmicky offense. I'd say of the earlyish picks only Deion Branch (aka by far the best receiver the Pats have drafted) fits your description.Valek123 said:I've always wondered if the Patriots placed too much value on route running when reviewing college game tapes. With the exception of Thompkins(who I'll admit to thinking was going to be really good) my recollection is that most the receivers drafted by the Patriots were known for their precise route running. I'll try to dig out draft reports on WR's drafted(and edit/supplement this post) to see if my memory is correct on this or if it is as correct as my evaluation of Thompkins becoming a serious down field threat for the next decade. It's always been striking to me the amount of receivers we've missed on and curiosity has led me to a personal belief that BB's evaluation of defensive players for their ability to "do their job" and stay in proper technique/position leads him on the WR side(and DB frankly) too possibly over-emphasize the importance of route precision/technique over raw skills.
dcmissle said:It is hard, and harder for the Pats than many others. Lots of dry holes. This not an area of organizational strength relatively speaking.
I certinaly think they will stick with him to see what he can become i'm hoping (for his sake) that the injury isn't serous and the IR is just a matter of timing, etc. The foot injury last year cost him, essentially, the entire offseason so if this is something substantial with his hamstring and he misses significant offseason program time, he may just find himself too far behind others to really contribute.dcmissle said:It seems that they should, which is why I asked whether he has one last chance. The opportunity would seem to be there with one almost certain departure from the current corps.
Super Nomario said:Part of it is a lack of investment - they're the only team in the NFL that hasn't used a first on a WR since 2000.
They took Kelvin Benjamin in the first this year.wutang112878 said:A while back I pulled the data from football reference and according to them Carolina hasnt either.
wutang112878 said:The lack of a 1st round pick also needs some context because there are also 14 teams that have only invested in just 1 1st round receiver going back to 2000. This is kind of similar to the Draft Resources thread I started a while back where I thought we should have used more resources on lineman but at the end of the day we needed use 1 more pick in the first 3 rounds to get to the 'league average' in Oline draft resources.
On the WR draft resource issue for the past 14 years:
We can even get really picky and say that Chad Jackson was almost a 1st rounder at 36, but really the important point is that overall at the 1st and 2nd round Bill drafts about the same % of WRs as the rest of the league.
- 1st Round: League as a whole has selected 55 WRs which represents 12% of the 1st round picks Bill has used 0% of his picks on 1st round WRs.
- 2nd round: League as a whole has selected 60 WRs which represents 13% of all 2nd round picks Bill has selected 4 2nd round WRs out of 20 2nd round picks which represents 20% of his resources.
- Combining 1st & 2nd Round: 115 WRs represents ~13% of draft resources Bill used 4 of his 33 picks which represents 12% of his resources
dcmissle said:Here's a start from Reiss, written > two years ago:
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/7613327/nfl-draft-why-do-new-england-patriots-miss-drafting-wide-receivers
Do I have to document the FAs brought in here who obviously had no clue?
I think it's generally hard, as the article above notes. And it seems to me that the Pats have a relatively worse time of it, though as noted above they have not committed first rounder picks to the position.
Super Nomario said:They took Kelvin Benjamin in the first this year.
I don't think lumping together firsts and seconds makes sense, as about 2/3 of first-round WR hit and only about 1/3 of second-rounders do.
I think if you ran expected value for WR at various spots in the draft, you'd find the Patriots underperformed the amount of draft stock used, but not by a statistically significant amount (i.e., one that suggests they're worse than average at evaluating WR talent).
I would definitely quibble with some of your categorizations, specifically that focusing on receptions overrates high-volume, low-production guys like McCluster, Patterson, and Austin, but the overall point stands: first-rounders definitely have a higher success rate.wutang112878 said:Gotcha, I only have up to the 2013 draft.
I dont think the 1st round numbers are that good. Here are the 1st and 2nd round WRs and I considered them a 'hit' if the average more than 2 receptions a game. Then I marked some guys as Misses who didnt stick around long like Mike Williams, Matt Jones, Charles Rogers, etc My criteria could certainly use some improvements no doubt.
On the whole its:
- 1st Round: 30 hits out of 55 picks = 55%
- 2nd Round: 19 hits out of 60 picks = 32%
And Patterson hasn't really done anything yet, either. I'm not arguing that the Patriots should have used first-rounders on WR, just that they didn't, and that needs to be factored in when evaluating their results drafting at the position.wutang112878 said:If we split the 1st round into <17 and >=17, how many guys would you really consider worthwhile uses of a 1st rounder. My list would be Patterson, Roddy White, Reggie Wayne, Dez Bryant, Demaryius Thomas and Percy Harvin because other than those guys I'm much more confident that Bill could find a player at another position in picks 17+ who would have more impact to the team than the remaining 'hits'
wutang112878 said:
Gotcha, I only have up to the 2013 draft.
I dont think the 1st round numbers are that good. Here are the 1st and 2nd round WRs and I considered them a 'hit' if the average more than 2 receptions a game. Then I marked some guys as Misses who didnt stick around long like Mike Williams, Matt Jones, Charles Rogers, etc My criteria could certainly use some improvements no doubt.
On the whole its:
- 1st Round: 30 hits out of 55 picks = 55%
- 2nd Round: 19 hits out of 60 picks = 32%
If we split the 1st round into <17 and >=17, how many guys would you really consider worthwhile uses of a 1st rounder. My list would be Patterson, Roddy White, Reggie Wayne, Dez Bryant, Demaryius Thomas and Percy Harvin because other than those guys I'm much more confident that Bill could find a player at another position in picks 17+ who would have more impact to the team than the remaining 'hits'
My tables are below
Super Nomario said:I'm not arguing that the Patriots should have used first-rounders on WR, just that they didn't, and that needs to be factored in when evaluating their results drafting at the position.
Rico Guapo said:
You might want to think twice about him, given that he's basically been benched as of late.
Yes, I'm not suggesting that they use a first on a WR. I'm not not suggesting it, either, I'm just talking about evaluating the results.wutang112878 said:Maybe I misunderstood your original point. I thought you were suggesting that the Pats should use a 1st on a WR, but are you just saying that considering they havent used a 1st on a WR the results should be looked at differently?
I don't think so. As you noted above, they've used seconds, including a high second in the case of Chad Jackson. I wouldn't be surprised if Belichick is aware of the general risk factors around taking WRs late in the first (as you note, there's a dropoff after 18 or so) and feels other positions are better or safer bets at that point. I wouldn't be surprised if he generally places less importance on skill players or more importance on other positions. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks having Brady means he doesn't need to invest as much in WR. I would be very surprised if he's avoiding WR because he thinks he personally (or his staff) can't evaluate them.wutang112878 said:This gets into a chicken/egg debate but do you think they dont spend the resources because they think they are bad evaluating the position? The only hits they have had have been Branch and then Edelman and Givens who I dont think they would consider great evaluations because if they knew what those guys would have been they would have drafted them much earlier. I really wouldnt be surprised if Bill was so reluctant to use a 1st on a WR because he just thought he would basically be throwing darts at a board.
Wutang has focused on the upper reaches of the draft, and that is fine. It also is limited.soxfan121 said:
There it is again. Source?
wutang has done an admirable job proving they spend resources at relatively the same rate. It is this assumption that remains problematic and, IMO, "seems to me" isn't gonna cut it. Either we need the data or we need to acknowledge we don't know if the Pats are, indeed "relatively worse".
The Patriots haven't starved WR, but they definitely haven't invested as much in it as a lot of other teams. Amendola is making real money, but not big money: he has the 26th-highest cap hit among WR this year. He's a bust and a disappointment at $4.7 MM, certainly, but that's a fraction of what Mike Wallace or Vincent Jackson or Pierre Garcon are making. Ochocinco had a 3-year, $6.35 MM deal, which is pretty modest. Moss averaged something like $8 MM / year in his time in NE, and they saved a bunch of money by dealing him in 2010. They traded Branch rather than pay him. They let Welker walk after he finished out his 5-year, $18 MM contract. They haven't ignored the position, but they haven't spent big, either, and they're the only team not to draft a first-rounder receiver this millennium. They don't have an elite group of WR, but if they're underperforming relative to the resources invested at the position, it isn't by a lot.dcmissle said:Wutang has focused on the upper reaches of the draft, and that is fine. It also is limited.
As we're continually reminded in the cases of Moss and Welker, you should consider all inputs, the draft and FA too.
So that would include not only the serial lesser known failures, but guys like Ochocinco and Amendola too. Real money; clusterfuck acquisitions.
So look from a higher level. Are there not at least a dozen teams in this League with which you would exchange WRs corps quickly and without reservation? Very good teams and abysmal ones, e.g. Denver and Washington? And has that not been the case for a while?
I would feel better about this if they HAD starved the position from a resources standpoint, dollar wise and otherwise, but nobody has made that case. Indeed the opposite case has been made.
I know AH was a kick in the nuts, but he alone does not come close to explaining all of it.
It doesn't change your overall point much, but Welker was franchised in 2012 with a 9.5m cap hit.Super Nomario said:They let Welker walk after he finished out his 5-year, $18 MM contract.
dcmissle said:Wutang has focused on the upper reaches of the draft, and that is fine. It also is limited.
Super Nomario said:Yes, I'm not suggesting that they use a first on a WR. I'm not not suggesting it, either, I'm just talking about evaluating the results.
I don't think so. As you noted above, they've used seconds, including a high second in the case of Chad Jackson. I wouldn't be surprised if Belichick is aware of the general risk factors around taking WRs late in the first (as you note, there's a dropoff after 18 or so) and feels other positions are better or safer bets at that point. I wouldn't be surprised if he generally places less importance on skill players or more importance on other positions. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks having Brady means he doesn't need to invest as much in WR. I would be very surprised if he's avoiding WR because he thinks he personally (or his staff) can't evaluate them.
I don't think we can throw out Edelman and Givens, and if you do throw out all the late-rounders you're reducing what's already a small sample to a set that's so small it's basically useless.
Generally speaking, I think this (and, frankly, pretty much all draft analysis) is reading too much into tiny samples. The Patriots have used 6 picks in the second or third round on WR since 2000. One, Branch, is a hit. Mathematically, we'd probably expect what, 2 to be hits? It seems insane to me to say anything about Belichick's ability to draft WR based on that. And if we add the late-round picks (2 of 4 7th-rounders are hits), I see a draft record that's average.
Super Nomario said:The Patriots haven't starved WR, but they definitely haven't invested as much in it as a lot of other teams. Amendola is making real money, but not big money: he has the 26th-highest cap hit among WR this year. He's a bust and a disappointment at $4.7 MM, certainly, but that's a fraction of what Mike Wallace or Vincent Jackson or Pierre Garcon are making. Ochocinco had a 3-year, $6.35 MM deal, which is pretty modest. Moss averaged something like $8 MM / year in his time in NE, and they saved a bunch of money by dealing him in 2010. They traded Branch rather than pay him. They let Welker walk after he finished out his 5-year, $18 MM contract. They haven't ignored the position, but they haven't spent big, either, and they're the only team not to draft a first-rounder receiver this millennium. They don't have an elite group of WR, but if they're underperforming relative to the resources invested at the position, it isn't by a lot.
One question I think is interesting to discuss regarding developing WRs here is the complexity of the system. Some WRs (hello Joey Galloway) just cant figure out when to adjust their route based on the defense. The counter argument to this is the WRs that leave here dont have much success. But the counter argument to that is that Bill has an amazing track record of coaching guys up and getting the absolute best football out of them. My overall take is that the disadvantage this puts them at developing receivers is less than the advantage this gives them exploiting defenses but its an interesting question to ponder
The most disturbing aspect of Dobson's career is both of his injuries were non-contact injuries. Maybe, he is just not up to it. I do sort of blame the Pats for bringing him back for the 2013 playoffs, he contributed little and then needed an operation on his foot.lexrageorge said:
As for rookies washing out, there are a number of causes. Some would be unable to pick up any NFL system; others simply cannot adjust to the speed of the game; some physically wash out, unable to endure the rigors of NFL training camp and practices. Figuring which ones would have succeeded elsewhere by failed in Foxborough would be almost impossible.
If anything Dobson's issue may be physical; it's the second time in his short career that he's ending the season with an injury.
lexrageorge said:
I know this gets talked about a lot. But the reality is that guys like Joey Galloway and Chad OchoCinco were simply done. Galloway was 38 when he got to NE; #85 was 33 and was cut the following year by the receiver starved Dolphins. Receivers can fall off a cliff production wise any time after they hit 32-33. Their failures had little or nothing do with the complexity of the system. Consider that Branch was for all practical purposes done at 33, Moss declined dramatically at the same age, and even Troy Brown's production declined in his 33-35 years. Some guys can go longer, but they are the outliers.
wutang112878 said:The more I think about it the more I feel like the Patriots dont really struggle in this area, its just that developing WRs is really difficult.