Boutte doesn’t exactly have an orgy of talent but he’s athletic and clearly has a connection with Maye. I’d bet on him continuing to get snaps.
Patriots WRs
- Thread starter Zedia
- Start date
I see what you did there.
Edit: That being said, of all the folks in the WR gang, he's the one most likely to bang out an explosive play (maybe Pop).
In case anyone has been trying to keep track of our receivers usage
This table is the % of offensive snaps (not special teams) played by the tight ends and receivers on the roster. You can't see the column headers here, but they're weeks 1 through 10. First column was Cincinnati, last was Chicago yesterday
Generally, I put this together because I was curious whether the usage numbers reflected what I thought I was seeing on my screen and/or what the press was reporting
High level, Henry and Pop have been more or less locks in the rotation since week 1, with Hooper getting consistent snaps when we're in two-TE receiver sets
After those three, we've a four-way competition for the remaining snaps. Thornton and Osborn were initially at the front of this line and got a whole bunch of playing time the first month. But Thornton more or less lost out to Boutte, who had a strangle hold on one of the starters slots and leap-frogging Pop in the snap count by week 5.
Since week 5 we've seen the coaching staff giving meaningful snaps each week to two out of the three of: Polk, Osborn, and Bourne. My guess is they'd love for Polk to beat out the other two and earn the full time WR #3 role. But he hasn't done it yet, so the other two are still in the mix.
In terms of the whole 'young vs. old' debate and competition: Pop, Boutte, and Polk are all 23-23, so if they're playing well the jobs are going to be theirs for the taking. I'd only expect Osborn and Bourne to get playing time to the extent that one of the kids (right now, Polk) is flubbing the audition. But even if one of them messes up badly on a given week, the kids will likely keep getting new audition opportunities over the back half of the season.
Edit: updated the chart after @BigJimEd 's good catch
This table is the % of offensive snaps (not special teams) played by the tight ends and receivers on the roster. You can't see the column headers here, but they're weeks 1 through 10. First column was Cincinnati, last was Chicago yesterday
Generally, I put this together because I was curious whether the usage numbers reflected what I thought I was seeing on my screen and/or what the press was reporting
High level, Henry and Pop have been more or less locks in the rotation since week 1, with Hooper getting consistent snaps when we're in two-TE receiver sets
After those three, we've a four-way competition for the remaining snaps. Thornton and Osborn were initially at the front of this line and got a whole bunch of playing time the first month. But Thornton more or less lost out to Boutte, who had a strangle hold on one of the starters slots and leap-frogging Pop in the snap count by week 5.
Since week 5 we've seen the coaching staff giving meaningful snaps each week to two out of the three of: Polk, Osborn, and Bourne. My guess is they'd love for Polk to beat out the other two and earn the full time WR #3 role. But he hasn't done it yet, so the other two are still in the mix.
In terms of the whole 'young vs. old' debate and competition: Pop, Boutte, and Polk are all 23-23, so if they're playing well the jobs are going to be theirs for the taking. I'd only expect Osborn and Bourne to get playing time to the extent that one of the kids (right now, Polk) is flubbing the audition. But even if one of them messes up badly on a given week, the kids will likely keep getting new audition opportunities over the back half of the season.
Edit: updated the chart after @BigJimEd 's good catch
Last edited:
I believe that football-reference table shows him playing 96.9% of all snaps (or 62 of 64) which I have rounded off to... ...97%
What's weird about the Bourne thing is that, if they're sitting him so they can see more from the young players, then why is KJ Osborn playing at all? Bourne is more dynamic and part of the team's future whereas KC has been kind of a pain, not markedly better, and is also not one of the young players (edit: and is almost certainly not going to be on the team next season while Bourne probably is, or is at least more likely to be so). I mean, if they REALLY want us to buy that line, then KJ should have been a healthy scratch in favor of Tyquan. Something seems fishy here. Hope to see Bourne back in there next week.
Seems like some spin to cover for the likely fact that Bourne lost playing time due to undisciplined play. I don’t think it’s an either/or thing. Also, Callahan - the beat reporter who reported that - may be doing his team source(s) a solid, whoever he got it from may see benefit in not roasting Bourne. Hard to say for sure.
Yea, it's hard to be confident that we know what's going on here. Especially since we don't have anything (to my knowledge) from the coaches on this. It's only some unnamed source talking to a reporter off the record.
Bourne is 29. Osborn is 27. The team is presumably interested in them mostly for (1) how they role model to the young'uns what it means to be a professional receiver, and (2) the degree to which they make Maye's life easier by giving him good, open targets. If (2) isn't really happening...
FWIW, another possible explanation of how the coaching staff has been giving Osborn/Bourne/Thonton two-to-three games run at a time is that they're keeping agents happy by not completely burying their clients. And by giving everyone in the receiver room a several-game-audition at some point in the season, they give everyone a chance to show something.
....
Pulling up, we've got seven guys in the receivers room, which is a lot. I'd organize them into:
- The vet role models (Bourne, Osborn) - Their job is to be grown-ups, practice hard/play hard, etc.
- The best of the kids (Pops, Boutte) - They've seized their opportunity and most of the starting reps. Playing time is theirs to lose. On a good team neither is a #1 or maybe even a #2. But that's not going to slow them down in the short term.
- The top of the audition list (Polk) - The coaching staff keeps giving him opportunities so seem to think that he's showing something more than...
- Not getting a call back (Thornton, Baker) -- Short of injuries or them showing something dramatic in practice the door to playing time this year may already be closed
Of course, in this scenario we still gotta go find a #1. But that's been the case this whole time, no matter how this group worked out.
Sorry, just a nitpick but I meant against the Titans. You have him at 87%. Pro Football Ref and Reiss both have Boutte at 96% (66 snaps) vs Ten. He's barely come off the field the last two weeks.
Ah-- right you are!
Don't apologize -- I appreciate getting this sort of thing right. Will update the graphic in a bit
This is a very good post. I would note that Reiss said on one of the shows today that he expects Baker to get more reps going forward.
It stands to reason.
Just looking at the playing time pattern in that 'auditioning' section of that graphic, I wouldn't be surprised if we have a 2-3 game stretch in the second half of the year where some combination of Baker, Bell, and Thornton all get 30-50% of the offensive snaps
The second name on that list is a little intriguing to me. The knock on Bell coming out of college was that he didn't have the frame to be blocking TE. So he projected as somewhere between a Flex/receiving TE like Henry, and a traditional slot receiver like Polk or Boutte. (FYI, Jaheim Bell runs a faster 40 time than Henry, who was one of the fastest TEs in his draft class). If our three best young receivers didn't already project as slots, there might be more room for Bell to get on the field. We'll see if he gets a shot at some point.
Bell did have a nice wham block on a run Sunday (or maybe he more absorbed a hit). That was the only play I remember him in the field.
I don't remember this play... was he pulling inside to block a DT or iLB?
Bell's very fast/quick (for a TE), which makes him a good fit for a zone-blocking/running scheme like ours. He's just not a big guy or a guy with a traditional NFL TE frame. So it's going to help him to take people by surprise (as maybe this play did) or have the defense kinda checked out (as the Bears certainly at a certain point on Sunday)
Last edited:
I believe it was a DE. It was for a nice gain, maybe a first down, I remember him first pumping afterwards.
I'm all for it. A big part of the Pats coming back is going to follow from us finding diamonds in the rough. Let's hope Bell is one of these...
I think Bell might get a few snaps here and there, but probably not much unless one of the TEs gets injured. The two we have are both good and key to making the offense function also... he's a 7th round TE...those guys are usually really raw. He'll get a few snaps here and there if he works hard as a kind of reward.
I think Douglas' snaps were down and Hooper's snaps were up because the Patriots wanted to run the ball a lot.
Quick check-in on the rookie WRs taken in the top 4 rounds.
1st round
Harrison, Jr: 33 for 499, 6 TDs
Nabors: 61 for 607, 3 TDs
Odunze: 28 for 313, 1 TD
Thomas, Jr: 37 for 607, 5 TDs
Worthy: 20 for 246, 3 TDs
Pearsall: 11 for 132, 1 TD
Legette: 29 for 284, 4 TDs
2nd round
Coleman: 22 for 417, 3 TDs
McConkey: 37 for 492, 4 TDs
Polk: 11 for 80, 2 TDs
Mitchell: 18 for 211, 0 TDs
3rd round
Corley: 2 for 6, 0 TDs
Burton, 3 for 99, 0 TDs
Wilson: NONE
McMillan: 10 for 109, 1 TD
McCaffrey: 13 for 134, 0 TDs
Franklin: 15 for 144, 1 TD
4th round
Baker: NONE
Walker: NONE
Cowing: 2 for 50, 0 TDs
Not much production at all after McConkey. Seems like the Pats had to take a shot--they weren't going to come out of this draft with no WRs, but so far there doesn't look to be someone else at that position they should have grabbed. Only Mitchell and Corley went in between their Polk selection and their Wallace selection.
1st round
Harrison, Jr: 33 for 499, 6 TDs
Nabors: 61 for 607, 3 TDs
Odunze: 28 for 313, 1 TD
Thomas, Jr: 37 for 607, 5 TDs
Worthy: 20 for 246, 3 TDs
Pearsall: 11 for 132, 1 TD
Legette: 29 for 284, 4 TDs
2nd round
Coleman: 22 for 417, 3 TDs
McConkey: 37 for 492, 4 TDs
Polk: 11 for 80, 2 TDs
Mitchell: 18 for 211, 0 TDs
3rd round
Corley: 2 for 6, 0 TDs
Burton, 3 for 99, 0 TDs
Wilson: NONE
McMillan: 10 for 109, 1 TD
McCaffrey: 13 for 134, 0 TDs
Franklin: 15 for 144, 1 TD
4th round
Baker: NONE
Walker: NONE
Cowing: 2 for 50, 0 TDs
Not much production at all after McConkey. Seems like the Pats had to take a shot--they weren't going to come out of this draft with no WRs, but so far there doesn't look to be someone else at that position they should have grabbed. Only Mitchell and Corley went in between their Polk selection and their Wallace selection.
Last edited:
Yep, run game and chipping, Douglas is useless in both. Like say the play Polk scored on... you can't have Douglas in and run that play
More or less what you’d expect, I’d say. Guys taken after mid round 2 are usually not starter quality guys and most receivers taken after that point aren’t anything more than #3’s if they even make it (which most don’t)
which, of course, doesn’t make their trade down and Polk selection look any better. They probably should have stuck and taken McConkey or been more aggressive in moving up for someone with a high end physical profile. Low ceiling high floor (supposedly, maybe not) guys like Polk aren’t exactly the types of “3rd tier” WR who make it big
There’s so many WR taken in any given year, it’s not surprising if one or two gems emerge (as people always cite guys like St Brown, Diggs etc) but the vast majority of good WR’s in the league are amongst the first few taken every year.
I imagine we will all have a lot of back and forth in April when people say “definitely tackle in the first, it’s easy to find a good WR later” or similar sentiments
For the next few drafts I really hope they just go BPA. Aggressively. They need talent everywhere except for QB. No targeting any positions, including WR. It leads to bad decisions, which it appears both Wallace and Polk may have been. This won't stop the back and forth on positional targets but the front office obviously needs to operate on a different level.
Position needs to be factored in but they can’t take a tight end, guard or LB in the first. I also think they’d be foolish to take a DT, CB or Safety [in the first] as they have starters at each position for the next couple years.
They need talent but there are positions that are actively hurting them and they need to address. BPA later in the draft but they have to get better players at Tackle or WR.
I clicked thru a handful of mocks yesterday. A couple had them going OT, one had them at WR, and one had DE. Bottom line is that a top 10 pick will likely be a stud at any of those positions of need.
Agreed. Best Player Available is a fine sentiment, but it'd be silly to take someone in the top couple rounds at a position they already have a plus starter at for the next 2-3 years. If there's a huge gap between BPA and position need on their board, then that's when you trade down and grab more picks, IMHO.
I think there are some scenarios where a DT (Graham) or CB (Hunter as a CB, Johnson) would make sense
let’s imagine they’re drafting 4th and the top 3 go Ward, Sanders and McMillian. There’s no way I’m taking Banks or Campbell (or Burden) over Hunter or Johnson. Johnson and Hunter (again as a CB) might be the two best overall talents in the draft. Passing on them to reach for a tackle would be negligent.
trading down and grabbing more picks while passing up on an elite talent is exactly how bad teams stay bad unless you get a monster offer full of extra 1st round picks.
Who are their plus starters? Gonzalez, White (on his best days), Barmore (assuming health), Henry (for the very short term until he declines further)? I get it, they have glaring needs at high leverage positions like OT and WR, but they are legitimately bad throughout the roster, and most of those positions need multiples anyways. Worst thing they can do is forego clear talent upgrades across the roster in search of particular positions, I think. Maybe this is supplemented by using the trade market to bring in established guys in those high leverage positions, which I am sure they will explore.
I agree with BPA as long as that player is on the offensive side of the ball.
It's all fun and games to lose 21-13. I don't want to upgrade so we only lose 18-13 moving forward.
They appear to have done the hardest part, gotten the franchise QB. Now, you have to, no ifs ands or buts, go out and put players around that young QB (if they choose to make big moves in free agency and the trade market to accomplish this, instead of through the draft, obviously the calculus changes). There is no avenue to success for any team in the NFL by putting a young QB out there with these receivers and line, and that would be the same if we were trotting out the 1985 Bears defense. At least that team had Walter Payton.
Fully agreed.
I also think its just the smart move from an asset management and long term planning perspective. Drake Maye is the most valuable asset the Patriots have but a lot of that value is in his upside and growth potential. You want to put the pieces around him that allow him to develop. Because if you can pull it off and he then turns into a top 5-10 QB in the league with some good offensive cornerstones around him (no guarantee at all, but IF) that gives the franchise 10-12 years to cycle through coaches, GMs, and defensive personnel until they hit the jackpot and can contend for a Super Bowl.
My point is that "BPA" is kind of a cliche that isn't all that meaningful.
Here's a scenario... the Pats have, say, the 39th pick in the 2nd round. On their master draft board the top guy when they get to #39 is a CB. The very next guy on their board is a WR. You're saying blindly take the CB? I just don't think that's a smart strategy, IMHO. I get it if the CB is #7 on their list and fell for some reason, while the WR is #33. But if it's essentially a coin flip, take the position of greater need.
To me, that's not BPA, that's a positional/unit need strategy. Similar to the hypoothetical I posed to Justthetippett, if the BPA is a RB and the next guy down on their board is a G then, for the love of God, take the G.
There’s also the fact that offense is simply more valuable in the NFL right now. They can draft defensive players when they start being able to sustain drives on offense.
Also worth noting... teams don't really have a master draft board the way say an analyst does. They don't just list them 1-500, and they do take into account what other teams have done and the class... so if you have a similar grade (most teams don't have a single # or letter grade either) on a WR and a CB, but your next WR is a huge drop, while you have 5-6 corners rated close by and your projection is no more than 3-4 corners will be gone by your next pick.... you usually take the CB. It's not just about what is on the roster (outside maybe QB), but also how it impacts your ability to upgrade your roster with each of your early picks (rounds 1, 2, probably 3)
that is worthless without considering the circumstances. I’m not talking about trading from 22 to 27 or something where the general tier of talent is similar.
moving from a top 5 pick, passing up the highest rated player at a position group, and dropping to (eg) 15th or something is almost always a bad idea.
The higher up the board you’re picking, the worse idea it is to move down absent a “godfather” offer because typically the truly elite players are found earlier rather than later. Doesn’t mean they don’t flop (obviously many do), doesn’t mean star players don’t get drafted later (obviously some do) but generally speaking the chances of landing a superstar talent is going to be higher atop the draft board.
Similarly bust rates increase substantially as you move down the board. People wildly overrate the impact of 2nd or 3rd round picks. It’s not worth adding those types of picks to move out of the top 5-6 unless you’re getting an extra 1st rounder
But has any team ever given up a top 5 pick and not received an additional first pick in recent memory?
The Texans traded the #23 overall to the Vikings last year, and got 2 seconds for that.
The Vikings then traded their #11 pick to move up one spot to #10 and get a 6th rounder, and gave up a 4th and 5th rounder on do that.
The Vikings also traded up from 23 to 17 with the Jags, and had to give up a 3rd, a 4th and a 5th to do that deal.
The Lions moved up from 29th to 24th and it cost them a 3rd rounder (they got a 6th back).
The Bills traded #28 overall to the Chiefs, along with #133 and #248 and got back #32, #95 and #221
Just to move up from #9 to #1, the Panthers gave up DJ Moore, an extra 1st and 2 2nds.
Top 5 picks are gold in asset value. I simply do not see any team trading out (assuming we aren't trading from like #5 down to #7 or something) without getting a huge return back, including a minimum of an additional first rounder.
That’s not really true. There’s a huge need and premium on having an elite QB. But the only undefeated team in the league has a better defense than offense. Last year’s final 4 teams were the top 3 defenses in the league (plus Detroit). If you go to the final 8 teams, Detroit was the only team whose defense was worse than their offense (going by points scored/allowed)
the top 10 offenses last year were Dallas, Miami, SF, Baltimore, Detroit, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Rams, New Orleans, Indianapolis.
of those teams, less than half made it to divisional playoff round (although they all made the final 4)
top 10 defenses were Baltimore, KC, SF, Buffalo, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, New Orleans, Las Vegas, Green Bay.
That’s 3 of your final 4 and 6 of your final 8
The point being, offense really isn’t “more valuable”. Both offense and defense are similarly valuable. And in a league where QB’s matter most, being able to stifle a good QB is going to be a recipe for success.
right, teams tend not to trade out of the top 5 unless they get blown away by a trade offer because missing out on one of the best prospects in the draft is generally not something a team wants to do.
If they’re not able to move out because nobody wants to come up for a QB, they should be going BPA and not reaching for positional value. That’s really my only point in all of this.
Some guys are just too good to pass on, Will Johnson is IMO one of those guys. Taking (eg) Luther Burden over Johnson because the Pats need a WR more than a CB would be insane given the gap in talent between those guys (IMO of course).
Offense is more valuable because it's way more stable than defense year to year due to how much it hinges on one position (quarterback). Defense is more high variance even if you keep the same personnel intact.
to @Cellar-Door's point about tiers, this year's draft might have two or three tiers just in the top several picks
Something like (warning! for the sake of discussion-- not real)
Top tier: project as All Pro with Hall of Fame potential
- Travis Hunter, CB
- Will Johnson, CB
- Abdul Carter
- Malaki Starks
- Tetairoa McMillan
- Ashton Jeanty
- Jalon Walker
- Mason Graham
- Mykel Williams
- Luther Burden III
- Will Campbell
- James Pearce Jr.
I think I'm agreeing with most everyone above, but if you're drafting in the top 10 you don't take someone from a lower tier if someone from a higher tier available . The difference in talent and impact is just too great. So, within tier 3 do you take McMillian or Graham over Jeanty or Walker? Sure.
But if this is where your tiers shake out you don't take Will Campbell over someone in tier 3, even if they're not at a position of need like Ashton Jeanty or Jalon Walker. Yes, you need a reasonable plan for how you're going to address the position of need. But you'd rather do that with a roster with more top talent, not less
Thanks, excellent context. I'm the furthest thing from a draft expert, I just think the term "best player available" really doesn't mean much. Every pick is situationally dependent on a host of factors.
The BPA approach peters out on the extreme examples. Certainly they won't draft a QB highly and if the grades are very similar or the same on two or more players when you pick, then you look at other factors. But if you do have a guy significantly higher, even if it's a redundancy or a less high leverage position, I think you pick him. My general point is that this team cannot selectively fill gaps in the roster and needs to be driven by an overall infusion of talent, at every position except QB. There is no area of relative strength that can be ignored in the draft.
I agree with this but it doesn't really inform whether a team that already has a quarterback (presumably, in our case) is better served going defense or offense with its first pick.
Assuming we end up with a top 10 ish pick, I'd rather go with a position that is hard to find when our second rounder comes along ... that probably means either an offensive tackle or a pass rushing threat. All things being equal, which they rarely are.
Case in point, re: all else not being equal, several months from now this could easily turn into a draft in which
- None of the OTs are 'good value' picks in the top ten. (E.g. everyone agrees Will Campbell is a guard in the NFL, not a tackle; Questions about Kelvin Banks foot speed and hip stiffness knock him down to a mid/late-first round grade; etc.)
- The best Edge rushers are likewise not in the group of top talent in the draft + there will be a bunch of strong pass rushers available in the second round
If the Pats are looking at that then the tension between BPA and positional need is going to be pretty real.