This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
valid. You could be right, but I've seen to much to ignore him as a one year wonder. I really dont think its a debate whether Lloyd is a special talent or not. Its more of a consistency thing.
This is a good analysis, but I think you're missing a key point. You insist that "McDaniels likes Lloyd and Lloyd likes McDaniels. Even though there was no chemistry between Bradford and Lloyd due to a midseason trade, McDaniels made sure they tried to utilize him anyway."While Lloyd undoubtedly likes McDaniels (probably taking less $$ to follow him to NE), and McDaniels likes Lloyd (probably had a say in StL trading for him and NE signing him), you are making a conclusion that isn't supported by any real evidence when you say McDaniels made sure they tried to utilize him anyway.
No way the other receivers end up with only 20 targets. Gaffney alone will get 60 . . . and that does not include the other guys that will end up on the roster. Plus Welker has consistently averaged 10 targets a game in his tenure in NE . . . trending more than that in recent years.
Those drafting Brandon Lloyd in the 6th round at WR27 think they are getting a WR1. Lloyd has taken reduced pay to be a role player on a winning team. He is a veteran who is going to be a solid contributor to this offense full of superstars. He does not expect the same number of targets, but it is pretty clear that there are fantasy owners that see a ceiling of Randy Moss v2.0.I like what he has done the last few years, but I do not want to take a guy in the 6th round with a limited ceiling. Around the 6th I would rather have Denarious Moore, Eric Decker, Torrey Smith, or even Roy Helu Jr or RG3. These are all uncapped guys.
As David Yudkin posted previously, it's kind of ridiculous to assume that the other WRs on the team will only get 30 total targets. They signed Gaffney for a reason, and AT LEAST 1 of Branch/Ochocinco/Stallworth will make the team. Your other WR/TE targets look to be pretty realistic, so you can't just take them from there. You need AT LEAST 40 more targets for the #3 and "other" WRs. I don't see Welker getting less than 150, either. He's averaged 10 targets/game (9.97 to be exact) since he's been in NE, and that includes 3 years when Moss was in town. I don't see Lloyd cutting into his targets more than Moss did. So that's another 10 (AT LEAST) you have to account for. Take 20 from each of the TEs (which leaves them with 85 and 75, which IMO, is WAY too low), 10 from the RBs, and you still need to take 10 away from Lloyd.That leaves 110 targets for Lloyd.
Yeahhhh, that's not going to happen (bolded portion).I agree that 30 targets for WR3-6 seems low, but there were only 50 last year with 612 passes and there was no WR2 as good as Lloyd, so I'm going to have to disagree with the "no way" part of your statement. They are essentially going to have 4 WR/TE on the field who are all stars, so I don't see much love for whoever that 5th option is (who will likely be a 6th option behind Vereen in some cases).
This is rubbish. It is actually "pretty clear" that no one is having visions of Randy Moss 2.0 or else they'd be drafting him much earlier than the 6th round. Sure, some people might see WR1 upside (not 1 overall, but WR12 or better) but realistically no one is drafting a guy at WR27 thinking they've got a lock for WR1 production. It is not lost on anyone that Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez are target hogs. We all realize that Lloyd is going to have to make the most out of his opportunities unless there is an injury to one of those 3 guys. I feel like 120 targets are possible for Lloyd. With that I believe he'll outperform WR27.
Gaffney comes back to NE more seasoned and having played bigger roles on other teams. In his first go round, Gaffney secured 50-60 targets. I am not sure we should expect him to take a totally minimal role this time around when he was starting in Washington. NE already had a ton of other receivers . . . then why bring those guys in (including Gaffney) if they are only going to see 10 targets a year?As for your "that's how it was last year" comment, THAT'S WHY they went out and expanded their WR depth.
The great thing about writing is that you cannot put words into someone else's mouth. I never said the word "lock". The game of fantasy football is not about drafting WR27 with a limited ceiling and getting WR25. That is possible and Brandon Lloyd has the talent and experience to do well. He is going to have some good games.The point is that you are playing a game where you are trying to draft WR1, RB1, TE1 or QB1 for at least the first 8-10 rounds. Brandon Lloyd is going from the 4th or 5th most targeted WR in the NFL the last few years to the 3rd-4th best option on his new team. You are attempting to over-analyze with made up numbers and assumptions. This is the rubbish.
First off, I see your point on your other post (no need to quote it, too, as it is long). But just because there weren't other options doesn't mean that McDaniels doesn't favor Lloyd. I mean, I think it is safe to assume he was the driving force behind trading for him. Plus, Lloyd said while he was in StL that he'd go wherever McDaniels goes next year. I doubt he would say that if it was a one-way relationship. So I like your analysis, but all you did was cast some doubt onto the McDaniels/Lloyd utilization - you did not debunk it. And your statement at the end about them changing their offense was a ludicrous twisting of my words. I never said they'd be "required" to change their offense. I just said that they'd find a way to utilize Lloyd. You stated yourself that they hit the open man and I believe McDaniels will find a way to get Lloyd open.Next to the quoted post. I love stats. Love them. But you have to know when they're applicable and when they're not. I realize that a 60% catch rate is a huge jump. Trust me, that is not lost on me. But a wide receiver's catch % has a strong correlation to QB completion %. Lloyd spent his early years not playing up to his potential while also playing with some of the worst QBs in the league. In the last two years, in your own paraphrased words, he's been the only WR on his team. And I don't think Orton and Bradford were particularly good QBs, either. So I expect that going to a QB situation where the completion percentage is 7%-10% higher than where he's been the last two years should give him a huge bump. On top of that, he'll no longer be the #1 target. Some of you would argue he'll be the #4 target, so he'll see a lot less double coverage and when in single coverage it won't always be the other team's best CB. I think that, too, merits a catch % upgrade. Between those two factors, I don't think 60% is unrealistic.
The fact is, we don't know what the Pats are going to do this year as they have not had this combination of players before. If we do go on past history, it's that Brady will throw to the guy that's open and/or the mismatch in coverage. IMO, it's reasonable to think that teams are going to worry a lot more about the TEs, Welker, and Lloyd . . . leaving Gaffney single coverage or in a pocket of a zone with not a whole lot to worry about to catch the ball.I have also suggested from the start of this that we will need to see who still is on the roster once the season starts to have a better idea how many pieces of pie we need to cut up the receiving numbers. However, if I'm Gaffney after three decent seasons in a row in WAS and DEN, why on earth would I sign in NE to sit on the bench? From all accounts, Gaffney has been doing well in OTAs (which I agree is not worth a whole heck of a lot). Maybe he won't see as many targets as he did in the past . . . but also consider that the Pats averaged 545 attempts in the first go round with the Pats.In summary, I agree Lloyd ***COULD*** have a Top 10 year, but as currently constituted I think that would be an unlikely outcome for all the reasons already enumerated. If some guys get banged up and Lloyd doesn't have to share the wealth as much, that could change things.'FF Ninja said:
I didn't need to "debunk" it, nor was I trying to. Your analysis (and the numbers you projected for Lloyd) was based upon the idea that McDaniels liked him, and therefore, would force NE (& Brady) to "utilize" him. Since that premise is now in doubt (as you acknowledged), then the numbers projected must also be doubted.'FF Ninja said:
The NE offense doesn't focus on 1 receiver. You suggesting that McDaniels will concentrate on "getting Lloyd open" would, by definition, be changing their offense. You can consider it a twisting of your words if you want, but it is an accurate portrayal of your theory about how McDaniels will "utilize" Lloyd.'FF Ninja said:
I understand this (the bolded), and in this case, the stats are applicable.1-Brady is a career 64% passer, Orton has been 60% the last two years. That's hardly the 7-10% you contend.'FF Ninja said:
I didn't say Gaffney would get 60 targets. I said that 30 for ALL OTHER NE WRs was too low. I increased that total to 70, TOTAL. I took the bulk of those targets away from the TEs. You seem to be WAY too married to the number of targets you assigned to Lloyd.'FF Ninja said:
Because that low number of targets is an abberation. Look back, historically NE's "other" WRs get more than 30 targets. Part of the reason they addressed their WR corps, then, was to address that issue.'FF Ninja said:
I know how to use stats just fine. Just because you want to cherry-pick the stats you choose to use doesn't mean I don't know how to use them. You say Welker's target rat without a decent WR2 (Moss???) and/or TEs (Gronk/Hernandez???) is not directly applicable, yet you insist on applying Lloyd's stats when he had NO OTHER viable receiving options on his team. OK'FF Ninja said:
I didn't need to "debunk" it, nor was I trying to. Your analysis (and the numbers you projected for Lloyd) was based upon the idea that McDaniels liked him, and therefore, would force NE (& Brady) to "utilize" him. Since that premise is now in doubt (as you acknowledged), then the numbers projected must also be doubted. Projected numbers should never be taken for fact. They are just projections, so there is always some level of doubt. You acted as if showing that Lloyd was the only threat on his teams meant that McDaniels never actually liked him. I'm acknowledging, yes, there weren't many options so it is possible that McDaniels only used him bc he had to, but their relationship seems to indicate there is more to it than that.'FF Ninja said:The NE offense doesn't focus on 1 receiver. You suggesting that McDaniels will concentrate on "getting Lloyd open" would, by definition, be changing their offense. Really? They don't try to get their players open? They just run around willy nilly and let Brady hit whoever is open first?! You can consider it a twisting of your words if you want, but it is an accurate portrayal of your theory about how McDaniels will "utilize" Lloyd. No. I'm not saying they'll force it to him 10 times a game, but perhaps he'll be the first read on several plays a game. On every play, someone is the first read. I think Lloyd will be the first read more often than Branch and Ocho were last year, thus Welker/Gronk/Hernandez will receive less targets if Lloyd is indeed open when he is the first look.'FF Ninja said:I understand this (the bolded), and in this case, the stats are applicable.1-Brady is a career 64% passer, Orton has been 60% the last two years. That's hardly the 7-10% you contend. Brady 2012 = 65.8% Orton 2010 = 58.8% I'll let you do the math, stat boy. And to avoid cherry picking allegations, Brady has been 65.8 +/- 0.1% the last 3 years. And the 10% came from StL, which upon closer inspection was at 53.4% last year, so I should've said 7%-12%.2-Also, as I demonstrated earlier, other WRs who Brady has had join his team have seen catch rate increases of 3-5%, not the 13% you hope for. You want to believe that Lloyd will become a 60% catcher, but his history and the history of Brady don't support that belief. How much history does Lloyd have? He clearly didn't put things together until 2010. And in the two years we've got to go on, he was obviously the focus of the defense. As for the other players you mentioned, their QB situations were not likely as bad as Lloyd's and/or they were not the focus of the offense in the same way Lloyd was. Therefore, your comparisons are apples to oranges. Believe me, I wish there was a good way to gauge his performance variables in NE, but there isn't.'FF Ninja said:
I didn't say Gaffney would get 60 targets. I know. David Yudkin did. Perhaps I should not have addressed that here. I said that 30 for ALL OTHER NE WRs was too low. I increased that total to 70, TOTAL. I took the bulk of those targets away from the TEs. You seem to be WAY too married to the number of targets you assigned to Lloyd. Nope, just not convinced that WR3-6 will be playing much of a role when the TEs are basically WRs, too. The WR3 is essentially playing a WR5 role on this team. Things have changed a lot for the NE offense in the last two years.'FF Ninja said:Because that low number of targets is an abberation. Look back, historically NE's "other" WRs get more than 30 targets. Part of the reason they addressed their WR corps, then, was to address that issue. See previous mention of the TEs and the change in the NE offense. WR3-6 trends, when TEs were an afterthought, just don't matter anymore.'FF Ninja said:I know how to use stats just fine. Just because you want to cherry-pick the stats you choose to use doesn't mean I don't know how to use them. You say Welker's target rate without a decent WR2 (Moss???) and/or TEs (Gronk/Hernandez???) is not directly applicable, yet you insist on applying Lloyd's stats when he had NO OTHER viable receiving options on his team. OK'FF Ninja said:
I agree with your second paragraph. It would be helpful to know who is definitely on the team. But your first paragraph really makes me wonder about the formations. Maybe you've got a way of looking this up, but how many times did the Pats line up with 3WR? How many times did they line up with 0TE or 1TE? How many times did they have an empty backfield? I imagine that most often they'll have 2WR and 2TE. I don't think they'll need to get the WR3 involved to find an open man. All four of those guys are legitimate threats. Even if a 3rd WR is on the field, I can't imagine he'd be very high on the progression. Branch, Ocho, etc. were afterthoughts in this offense. I can't see McDaniels relegating Lloyd to an afterthought. I don't think he'll make him the #1 read every play, but I think he'll get a lot more #1 reads than whoever was the WR2 on the field last year. And I think he's got the ability to get open. It's just a matter of earning Brady's confidence this offseason.And I'm not projecting a top 10 finish for Lloyd. I just think he's got a lot of upside. Basically, FF players don't have to know how good a guy is going to be - just if he's worth drafting above his ADP. So long as he outperforms where you draft him, you win. If he is WR7, great, but if he's WR20 you've still won that draft slot. I'm not calling a homerun here. I just think he's at least a double or an RBI single.Also on the topic of upside, we haven't touched on it a lot, probably because TDs are wildly unpredictable, but I think there's a chance that Lloyd earns himself some goal line fades given his body control. He did manage 11 TD on just 77 catches in 2010 and caught 5 TD on 51 catches in StL last year. 0 on 19 in the Denver offense that was in disarray last year, though. So even if he ends up with 55 catches for 880 yards, but 12 of those catches were TDs then happy day. In general, I'm saying his jump ball ability could feasibly offset a lack of targets.
Damn, beat me to it. I briefly mentioned this in my last one. My replies take a long time as I'll start and then get pulled away. But I fully agree. Trust/chemistry will be key. This could be another Ochocinco situation, but with Lloyd's history with McDaniels I feel that this risk is significantly mitigated.
I don't have the time to dig it up, but last year the Pats operated out of the 2TE/2WR set a lot. But that was last year with the personnel they had then (basically Welker and Branch at WR and a confused Ocho). This year is a new set of circumstances. They did at times run 3 WR and 1 TE (with a RB) and on occasion ran "5 wide" with some combination of receivers and tight ends with an empty backfield. But for the most part they were 2TE and 2WR last year.As for Lloyd being a red zone threat, NE already has the best red zone threat in football in Gronkowski. Maybe teams will triple team him. Maybe Lloyd will get some red zone looks. But at this point Gronk is Brady's favorite red zone target. I'm not sure Brady will give up on Gronk since no one to date has been able to stop them. NE has also produced a lot of rushing TDs near the goal line, so that also could work against Lloyd.As I see things, Lloyd is going in the WR 25-27 range, but I believe his ADP will creep into the high teens or WR20 range. (I just saw a draft where he went WR16/42 overall.) Maybe he will leap frog the other options in NE, but I have a tough time right now seeing how Lloyd will be better than the 4th receiving option for the Pats. Again, I don't have time to research it, but I am guessing that there are not a lot of times when a team's 4th best WR or TE scored enough fantasy points or as a WR ranked high enough to rank in the Top 20 WRs.
I don't have the formation numbers, but here is the snap count for Patriots WRs and TEs in 2012:95% Rob Gronkowski89% Wes Welker77% Aaron Hernandez75% Deion Branch51% other WRs (led by Ochocinco at 26%)Aaron Hernandez missed 2 games, and Branch missed 1 and sat out most of week 17. If you leave out those 4 games (weeks 3, 4, 15, and 17), then other WR drops to 37% of the snaps (led by Ochocinco at 20%).If Lloyd is on the field for 75% of the snaps (or more) like Branch was, then I think he's in good shape as a fantasy WR. If he splits those snaps with Gaffney or the other WRs, then not so much.
As to the underlined, I most certainly did not. YOU implied that Lloyd got so many targets because McDaniels liked him. I cast doubt on your conclusion, while acknowledging the premise "While Lloyd undoubtedly likes McDaniels (probably taking less $$ to follow him to NE), and McDaniels likes Lloyd (probably had a say in StL trading for him and NE signing him)." YOU concluded that Lloyd's targets were a result of McDaniels "liking" him. I merely showed that it could very well have been the result of another factor (lack of other options), and showed how the year previous, a WR who McDaniels did not like (Marshall) received a similar # of targets, due to a similar shortage of other viable options.
I don't doubt that there will be some plays when the Pats will take deep shots, and on those, Lloyd is likely to be the first read. I DO doubt, however, that this will occur often enough to produce the target numbers you expect to see. I don't have anything to base this on, other than NE's past history, just as you have nothing to base your belief on, other than your gut.'FF Ninja said:
Stat-boy. Nice to see you're able to have a rational discussion, without resorting to juvenile name-calling.I was off by 1% on Orton, I said "the last 2 years;" you know the time he was throwing to Lloyd? As to Brady's 2012 numbers; that was a great year, but his career completion percentage is 64%, not 66%.'FF Ninja said:
And Brady hasn't had viable deep threat the last few years. Typically, QBs who throw a majority of short/intermediate throws will have a higher completion %. You can't have it both ways. If Brady is going to target Lloyd often (likely on deeper routes), his completion % is likely to drop some.'FF Ninja said:
9 years worth.'FF Ninja said:
If Gronk/Hernandez are "basically WRs, too," then why would Lloyd come in and just jump over both of them? You have Lloyd projected for more targets than either of them'FF Ninja said:
You're arguing against yourself. If NE considers their TEs to be WRs, then Lloyd would be, at best, WR3 in NE. And according to your logic, the WR3 should only get 30 targets.
YOU posted this:'FF Ninja said:
Welker has been in NE for 5 years, and in each of those 5 years, he has had a decent WR2(MOSS) OR those TEs.You don't seem to be able to discuss the issue and our difference of opinions without resorting to insults, so I will leave it at this. You have your opinion, and I have mine. You are entitled to yours, just as I am to mine.'FF Ninja said:
Is it not only possible, but very likely, that Lloyd received a lot of targets because he was the only threat AND McDaniels likes him? I mean, I can't remember if McDaniels traded Marshall away or not, but we both know that he traded FOR Lloyd, so I don't think this is a one-way relationship between Lloyd/McDaniels.
OMG! I called you stat boy! How horrendous! How juvenile! I honestly didn't think "stat boy" was derogatory. What a whiner. Or is whiner horribly offensive, too?And no, you weren't off by 1%. You were off by 4%. You used 60% for Orton and 64% for Brady, implying it was only a 4% difference. Orton was 58.8% in 2010 and 58.7% in 2011. If you're going to blindly use stats then use the right numbers or someone might call you a really, really mean name like "stat boy" and hurt your feelings.
The last time Brady threw for 65.6% or less was 2006. If you think his career average is applicable then use it. I don't. I'd rather use more recent data.Plus, I never said he was going to target Lloyd deep. He might. I don't know how they'll use him.
Are you for real? I don't even know if I can take you seriously. Lloyd clearly didn't put it together until 2010 and his QBs have been really poor, yet you want to use his career averages like they are gold? This is why I say you don't know when stats are applicable or not.
If Gronk/Hernandez are "basically WRs, too," then why would Lloyd come in and just jump over both of them? You have Lloyd projected for more targets than either of them'FF Ninja said:
Holy crap, man. I don't even know why I'm replying to this rubbish. I know this will really offend you, but the bolded portion is absolutely stupid. THE REASON THE WR3 PROBABLY WON'T SEE MANY TARGETS IS BECAUSE WELKER + LLOYD + GRONK + HERNANDEZ = WR1-4. IN THIS OFFENSE, WR3 = WR5 IN MOST OTHER OFFENSES.
Yeahhh, that's not a hard concept to grasp. I'm saying Welker's targets while the situation was Welker + Moss + no TE threat is not applicable now. Same with Welker + Gronk + Hernandez + retread WR2. You are the one arguing against yourself here. The blue portion is exactly what I'm saying. Welker has either had a good WR2 OR two good TEs. He's never had BOTH at the same time. I'm saying that having BOTH only stands to reason would put a slight hit on his previous average targets number.I'm happy to end the discussion here because I don't think you're up for an intelligent discussion. You aren't grasping concepts well (see your idea that Lloyd = WR3 = 30 rec) and you are married to career stats rather than using recent stats.
I think this bodes well for Lloyd. If Branch was 75% with missing one game, then that would be 80.0% in the 15 games he did play (assuming exactly 75.0% and an equal number of plays in each game) and even higher if we take out week 17.I may not have sold anyone on Lloyd in this thread, but even though I was a Welker proponent last year, I'm absolutely not taking him anywhere near WR6 this year. (I always use non-ppr ADP, btw).
I have no clue what will happen with the Pats offense this year, but I will point out the following. The bottom line you just presented for Lloyd breaks down to the following on a per game basis: 3.75 receptions, 53.1 receiving yards, and 0.31 TD.In his second stint with New England (2010 and 2011), Deion Branch averaged 3.81 receptions, 54.2 receiving yards, and 0.38 TD per game. So basically, you are suggesting that Brandon Lloyd was brought in to simple replace Deion Branch and leave the rest of the passing game intact.While that certainly could be one outcome, I am guessing the Pats went out and brought in Lloyd to produce MORE THAN what Branch was giving them. If not, they could have left well enough alone and stuck with Branch (or try to bring Ocho along). But they didn't, and they brought in Lloyd, Gaffney, and Stallworth (for now). If we can comclude anything, it's that they were not enthralled with their wide receivers after Welker. Why go bring in more guys to have them play marginal or supporting roles?What we saw last year in NE went against the way things had been for years. The Pats had never passed as often to their TE(s) anywhere near as much as they did last year. Even Welker, who had been getting a ton of targets to begin with, saw his targets go up from 9.5 to 11.75 per game. The point being, things change, and offensive schemes will shift from year to year.However, IMO Lloyd as this stage has a lot more to offer than Branch does, and to think that Lloyd is Branch revisited just strikes me as the wrong conclusion here. True, Welker / Gronk / Hernandez was quite the trio last year . . . but that doesn't mean automatically that anyone else will be under utilized. I suspect that having more threats in the passing game will hurt all of them, as they will all be missing out on targets that they would have gotten last year or by playing on another team.As I mentioned earlier, unless Brady throws for 7000/60, there will not be enough targets and receptions to go around to have everyone max ou their production. It should be interesting to see how this all plays out . . .
I certainly don't disagree that NE brought in Lloyd because they think he's better than Branch.I actually have Lloyd outproducing Branch as a % of Brady's total production. I don't think Brady is going for 5000+ yards again, so my projection for Lloyd represents a slightly bigger % of the NE passing total.I have Brady for 4725 yards passing distributed as followsWelker 1150Gronkowski 1125Hernandez 900Lloyd 850 RBs 400Other WRs 300So to get Lloyd 1000+, you have to either think Brady goes for 5000+ or Lloyd takes from Welker/Gronkowski/Hernandez. I am not sure in what proportion, since each plays a unique role in the NE passing game.You say that NE has never thrown to the TEs as much as they did last year. Well, I think that's because NE has by far the best TE duo in the NFL. They're matchup nightmares. I just don't see NE doing things much different than last year. Lloyd just makes everyone else much more difficult to cover.If I had Brady at 5000+ yards, then Lloyd's projection increases to 1000.
after reading through your 'discussion', i happen to agree w/ most of the points you made.Are you for real? I don't even know if I can take you seriously. Lloyd clearly didn't put it together until 2010 and his QBs have been really poor, yet you want to use his career averages like they are gold? This is why I say you don't know when stats are applicable or not.If Gronk/Hernandez are "basically WRs, too," then why would Lloyd come in and just jump over both of them? You have Lloyd projected for more targets than either of themYeahhh, that's not a hard concept to grasp. I'm saying Welker's targets while the situation was Welker + Moss + no TE threat is not applicable now. Same with Welker + Gronk + Hernandez + retread WR2. You are the one arguing against yourself here. The blue portion is exactly what I'm saying. Welker has either had a good WR2 OR two good TEs. He's never had BOTH at the same time. I'm saying that having BOTH only stands to reason would put a slight hit on his previous average targets number.I'm happy to end the discussion here because I don't think you're up for an intelligent discussion. You aren't grasping concepts well (see your idea that Lloyd = WR3 = 30 rec) and you are married to career stats rather than using recent stats.
For everyone else, I'm not projecting Lloyd to be a top 10 WR. I understand there are only so many passes to go around, but I don't think the love for Welker and Gronk should blind people to Lloyd's potential or McDaniel's apparent relationship with Lloyd. I think Lloyd's skills warrant some first reads next year and I think McDaniels knows this and will make sure he sees more first reads than Branch/Ocho saw last year. But his chemistry with Brady will be key and could relegate him to Ochocinco v2.0 status if they don't develop trust and rapport early. If what David Yudkin says proves true (Lloyd's ADP creeping up) then it'll be time to reevaluate things. As it stands right now, I think he's an easy value play at WR27.
I think Lloyd was brought in to press the deeper parts of the field, which was probably the only weakness of NE's offense last season. A point DirtyWord eloquently pointed out in his post. Just about everything was underneath for the Patriots. It remains to be seen if Brady will actually throw the ball deep to Lloyd, but it would make sense that he would. Getting open deep is a strength of Brandon Lloyd's. If that's the case, then he most certainly will cut into the yards of the players working the underneath routes, i.e. Welker, Hernandez, and Gronkowski.I'm probably a bit high on Brady's 5,300 yards in my projection, but I'd take them from the Branch/Gaffney combination before I'd take them from Lloyd.
Welker's ypc is going to be higher than Lloyd's?
Agree. The deeper routes Brady is going to complete to Lloyd is going to decrease the overall numbers for all of those players.
I agree with previous two posts that Lloyd's presence is going to cut into the typical projections from Pats Big 3 receiving threats. Using Illini projections above (just because he was last to project
) I feel pretty confidant that a healthy Lloyd is hitting 1K, probably close to 1.2K. I actually think what you'll see if Gronk, Welker & Hernandez all around the 800-1K range in yards. TD-wise, I expect the two TEs to lead the team in that category but their yards and catches should drop off compared to last season.
I agree but in good faith i need to mention they are playing against New England's secondary. Even Eli Manning would look like Joe Montana against them.
Yes, but we've already seen what Lloyd can do against prettymuch everyone, too. So the reports of him and Brady in sync have to be very encouraging.If he stays healthy, I will predict a nice year. Somewhere around 70 catches, 1100 yards, and 10 td's.
Here's the problem. There are a lot of mouths to feed. You are slotting Lloyd with 8 targets a game. But last year, Welker had 10 targets and Gronkowski and Hernandez had 15 combined. Adding all that together, that would add up to 33 targets . . . leaving only 5 targets for everyone else.How reasonable is it to expect that Gaffney, Branch, Stallworth, Edelman, all RBs, and any other TEs would see 5 targets a game? If that doesn't seem reasonable, then those 4 guys will have to start losing some targets. AND there's no guarantee Brady is going to throw the ball 600 times again. Projecting the Pats this year is a conundrum.
Totally agree DY, but isn't that part of the fun?
I certainly don't claim to be an expert nor do I claim to know more than anyone else on these boards. But I do know what type of player we have in Lloyd and Brady and I do expect Lloyd to have a very good year, maybe not wr1, but not far off. Personally I think Welker's targets come down a little, but again, we have to wait and see to know for sure. Good little article here:http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view/20220729lloyd_shows_early_exciting_signs/srvc=sports&position=alsoThis is what I think is huge right here:"Mixed in with wild applause are oohs and aahs and plenty of gasps — because Lloyd almost routinely makes catches that are insane, much like Moss did when he was here."I am not saying that equates to more targets, but more catches with the targets he gets.
