Any news of Moose?

I never had issue with this. I had issue with $10 mil that no one ever expected to pay out.

 

don't forget the 16 TDs was #1 in the NFL too, although it would have likely been #2 if TO hadn't got hurt.

 

The Pats have a strong running game and better than average O-line. Not knowing what kind of shape we will be in in those areas does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about using midgets as starting WRs. And the Pats version of the smurfs already wear blue jerseys.

 

Not to mention they had Charlie Weiss as OC. Methinks Cap'n Fromunda would struggle in the redzone with no big targets. Often this year, Jake would just chuck it in the air and let Moose go get it. Smith has mad hops, but he simply isn't as attractive down close to the goal line as Moose. All that said, I still don't think we get Moose back. He's going to test the waters of FA whether we like it or not. Moose is all about them benjamins, and in light of Bruschi's problems, it's hard for me to blame him. You never know when it will all come to an end.

 

Carter, Ross, Hankton aren't guys you hang your hat on, considering two haven't caught NFL passes and the third shouldn't have. Replacing 96 catches with 10 catches, 12 drops, and a few special teams tackles leaves us in a bad spot. I'd be surprised if Carter ever suits up.



And agree with TBW that Weis mixes it up. Our 2002 passing game was Moose - we had just Smith early in 03, and then both guys at midseason. To have one receiver again, like 04, and have that receiver covered, leaves us in an absolute funk, a la the Saints game.

 

This is what confuses me on the attitude of we'll move on without losing a step without Moose. We're assuming Colbert doesn't have sophmore slump and gets over the dropsies he seemed to have toward the end of the season. Smith is fast and awesome, but without a realistic threat across the field, shift coverage his way and you can for the most part neutralize him. He's going to get a few plays regardless but do you want to go into a really hard game against a high scoring offense with Smith and some "ok guys"? If we don't fix our Oline massively and we have only one decent receiver threat on the field, Jake is going to struggle big time.

To me it isn't JUST about Moose, it's about giving Jake solid targets other then Smith who can make big plays when the Oline is falling apart or not opening holes for Foster & Davis etc.

 

We'd be replacing him with Smith, not those three guys. After further thinking about this issue, it seems like we would do just as much with Smith and Colbert in '05 as we did with Moose and Colbert in '04. Smitty could deal with bracket coverage, probably more so than Moose, thanks to his speed and leaping ability. We saw this late in '03. Now if Moose restructures, that would be great. I could, however, live with him getting cut (if it comes to that).

 

We're replacing Smith with Smith. This O is as good as it should be with both those guys, not one guy IMO.

In the past I'd say yeah, Smith can handle bracket coverage more. But after the rules, it's hard to say. The funny thing is that we'd push Moose upfield more, where we kept wasting Smith on RAC.

We do what we gotta do. I just see too many negatives in letting the man go - you find a way to keep these guys.

 

I was relating more to '04, and replacing Moose with a healthy Smith. We also need to consider that a healthy stable of running backs should create more opportunities for the wideouts, unlike last year when we only had one running threat.

 

Yeah. 04's O, one dimensional with one guy as the star, failed to make the playoffs at crunch time. 03's, with two receivers overtaking our run game, did a lot better than early 03's single guy offense.

I don't see healthy RBs making a difference in the passing game - we ran playaction fine with just Goings, and it's not like we had no running ability there.


It's not a "we must do this, or else the franchise goes to hell" thing. But it's not something where we're just dealing with the notion that Moose has to bow down before us, or else, because that can in fact be destructive.